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.

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 is a quasi-experimental, observational study using administrative data to assess whether time in juvenile placement was associated with the acquisition of social-emotional skills and subsequent felony recidivism. Concurrent with a change in juvenile sentencing policy in Washington State a comprehensive risk and needs assessment tool (R-PACT) was piloted to investigate the impact that therapeutically oriented incarceration had on youth. This tool was made up of 12 domains of risk and needs, including a section on dynamic factors related to therapeutic skills. Youth were admitted into the study in two cohorts, a main study cohort and a replication study cohort.

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 for NACJD 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 the study was to examine how court decisions and sentencing policy changes have affected sentencing behavior in federal drug trafficking cases. Changes at the district level and in mandatory minimum sentencing were a particular focus.Data were obtained from the Defendants Sentenced Under the Sentencing Reform Act data from the United States Sentencing Commission from fiscal years 1992-2009. These data were then merged with federal district-level indicators for the 89 federal districts from the Federal Court Management Statistics website, and state level demographic data from the United States Census Bureau. Drug trafficking cases were identified by using the sentencing guideline offense, which resulted in a sample of N=376,637 cases.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.The study examined four research questions: (1) Was the Red Hook Community Justice Center (RHCJC) implemented according to plan?; (2) Did RHCJC make a difference in sanctioning, recidivism, and arrests?; (3) How did RHCJC produce any observed reductions to recidivism and arrests?; and (4) Is RHCJC cost-efficient from the viewpoint of taxpayers? The community survey (Red Hook Resident Data, n = 95) was administered by research teams in the spring and summer of 2010. Teams generally went house-to-house ringing apartment buzzers at varying times of day, usually on the weekend when working people are more likely to be home or approached people on the sitting on park benches to conduct interviews.In autumn 2010, the research team administered a survey to 200 misdemeanor offenders (Red Hook Offender Data, n = 205) who were recruited from within the catchment area of the Red Hook Community Justice Center (RHCJC) using Respondent Driven Sampling (RDS).To examine how the RHCJC was implemented (Red Hook Process Evaluation Data, n= 35,465 and Red Hook Work File Data, n= 3,127), the research team relied on a diverse range of data sources, including 52 structured group and individual interviews with court staff and stakeholders carried out over five site visits; observation of courtroom activities and staff meetings; extensive document review; and analysis of case-level data including all adult criminal cases and some juvenile delinquency cases processed at the Justice Center from 2000 through 2009. To aid in understanding the RHCJC's impact on the overall level of crime in the catchment area, researchers obtained monthly counts (Arrest Data, n = 144) of felony and misdemeanor arrests in each of the three catchment area police precincts (the 72nd, 76th, and 78th precincts).

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.The purpose of this study was to answer the following research questions:Do domestic violence courts reduce recidivism?Do domestic violence courts hold defendants accountable through the use of more severe case outcomes and sentences?What, if any, court-level policies make these courts more or less effective (e.g., related to eligibility, program mandates, compliance monitoring, or victim service)?What, if any community characteristics make these courts more or less effective (e.g., related to population size, racial composition, or socioeconomic characteristics)?Based on individual characteristics (e.g., age, criminal history, or current charges), which categories of defendants are at a high risk of re-offending; and are certain categories particularly responsive to the domestic violence court intervention?Outcome were compared between matched samples of defendants (Full File Data, n=17,718 and Convicted File Data, n=7,306) processed in the 24 domestic violence courts and in conventional courts operating in the same 24 jurisdictions in New York state prior to the opening of the specialized court. Cases processed in each domestic violence court during its first two full calendar years of operations comprised the domestic violence court sample. Cases processed in conventional courts during the two full calendar years preceding the opening of the specialized court comprised the comparison sample. Data on court policies and practices was drawn from two survey instruments administered to each of the 24 courts (Court and Community Characteristics Data, n=48). The first survey was administered statewide in 2008; the second was a supplemental survey administered in 2010.

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 designed to provide a mixed methods comparative evaluation of three established court-based programs that serve offenders with serious mental illness (SMI). These programs were selected in response to criticism of similar research for studying young programs that are still in development, employing short follow up periods that are unable to indicate sustained effectiveness, and utilizing less than ideal comparison conditions. The study was conducted in Cook County, Illinois, and data were collected from three distinct court-based programs: the Cook County Felony Mental Health Court (MHC) which serves individuals with SMI who have been arrested for nonviolent felonies, the Specialized Mental Health Probation Unit which involves specially trained probation officers who supervise a reduced caseload of probationers diagnosed with SMI, and the Cook County Adult Probation Department which has an active caseload of approximately 25,000 probationers, a portion of whom have SMI. Probation officer interviews were coded for themes regarding beliefs about the relationship between mental illness and crime, views on the purpose of their program, and approaches used with probationers with SMI. The coding of probationer interviews focused on experiences related to having SMI and being on probation, including: the extent to which probation was involved with mental health treatment; development of awareness of mental health issues; evaluations of the programs based on subjective experiences; and the relationship dynamics between probationers and staff. The collection includes 3 Stata data files: DRI-R_data_for_NACJD_041315.dta with 98 cases and 61 variables, Epperson_NIJ_Quantitative_Data_for_NACJD_041315.dta with 25203 cases and 49 variables, and incarceration_data_061515.dta with 676 cases and 4 variables. The qualitative data are not available as part of this data collection at this time.

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. A researcher-practitioner partnership was established between the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University and the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FDJJ). The purpose of this partnership was to collaborate on three timely and policy relevant research projects--(1) juvenile civil citation (JCC), (2) juvenile visitation (JV), and (3) juvenile school-based arrests (JSBA). This collection includes 9 Stata data files: "JV-Full-Data-Set" with 78 vars, 1,202 cases, "JCC-County-Data" with 18 vars, 938 cases, "JCC-Individual-Data" with 22 vars, 110,088 cases, "JCC-Individual-Data-with-Risk-Factors" with 35 vars, 51,263 cases, "JCC-Trend-Data" with 6 vars, 11,725 cases, "JSBA-Descriptives-Data" with 14 vars, 94,708 cases, "JSBA-Dropout-Data" with 4 vars, 94,708 cases, "JSBA-Recidivism-Data" with 51 vars, 30,723 cases, "JSBA-School-level-Data" with 45 vars, 893 cases, and 9 Stata syntax files "JV-Full-Data-Set-Syntax.do", "JCC-County-Data.do", "JCC-Individual-Data.do", "JCC-Individual-Data-with-Risk-Factors.do", "JCC-Trend-Data.do", "JSBA-Descriptives-Code.do", "JSBA-Dropout-Code.do", "JSBA-Recidivism-Code.do", and "JSBA-School-level-Code".

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 examined the validity, reliability, equity and cost of nine juvenile justice risk assessment instruments. It was designed to provide a comprehensive examination of how several risk assessments perform in practice. This study posed the following questions: Is each risk assessment instrument sufficiently reliable (i.e., inter-rater reliability) to ensure that decisions regarding level of risk and identified service needs are consistent across the organization? What specific risk assessment items are associated with less reliability? What items are rated reliably by staff? Is each risk assessment instrument valid? Specifically, what degree of discrimination is attained between assigned risk levels? Could the instrument be improved by adding or deleting specific factors and/or altering cut-off scores? Is each risk assessment instrument valid for population subgroups: White/Caucasian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, females, probationers, and youth in aftercare status? Could equity be improved by adding or deleting specific factors or altering cut-off scores? What costs are associated with each risk assessment instrument? The study collection includes 31 SPSS data files all_jais_combined.sav (n=1,141; 6 variables) ar_fire_final_file_ojjdp-ICPSR.sav (n=119; 205 variables) AR_yls_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=155; 136 variables) azaoc_FINALFILE-ICPSR.sav (n=7,589; 438 variables) AZAOC_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=458; 101 variables) AZDJC_FINAL_FILE-ICPSR.sav (n=1,265; 1,290 variables) AZDJC_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=55; 120 variables) COMMITMENT_FINAL_SAMPLE2-ICPSR.sav (n=11,154; 719 variables) FinalDJJReleasesWithRecid_BothYears2-ICPSR.sav (n=90,818; 31 variables) FIRE_NE_COMM_FINAL_FILE_OJJDP-ICPSR.sav (n=597; 174 variables) fire_ne_probation_final-ICPSR.sav (n=1,077; 237 variables) FL_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=519; 140 variables) GA_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=509; 263 variables) gafire_boyscommunityALL_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=5,009; 781 variables) gafire_communityALLforretrofit2-ICPSR.sav (n=6,943; 666 variables) gafire_finalsampforanalysis_all-ICPSR.sav (n=7,412; 642 variables) gafire_finalsampforanalysis_girls-ICPSR.sav (n=2,005; 768 variables) jais_boys_wk_1-ICPSR.sav (n=1,989; 484 variables) jais_girls_wk_1-ICPSR.sav (n=745; 484 variables) NE_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=727; 160 variables) OR_irr_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=477; 112 variables) ORE_FIRE_final-ICPSR.sav (n=12,370; 340 variables) PROBATION_FINAL_BOYS_ALL-ICPSR.sav (n=20,621; 837 variables) PROBATION_FINAL_GIRLS_ALL-ICPSR.sav (n=6,748; 849 variables) va_boyssample-ICPSR.sav (n=1,106; 1,273 variables) va_final_sample_fullscreen-ICPSR.sav (n=1,439; 1,237 variables) va_girlssample-ICPSR.sav (n=333; 1,256 variables) VA_irr_expert_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=10; 308 variables) VA_irr_worker_FINAL-ICPSR.sav (n=685; 308 variables) vafinalsample-ICPSR.sav (n=1,919; 1,200 variables) workersurveyfinal-ICPSR.sav (n=400; 69 variables)

This survey of prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges in jurisdictions with sentence enhancement statutes for repeat offenders collected information about the characteristics of the laws and criminal justice professionals regarding the fairness, effectiveness, and practice of the laws. The jurisdiction file includes variables such as jurisdiction size, number of provisions in the law, number of felony cases handled under the law per year, number of defendants sentenced as repeat offenders, frequency of charging and sentencing under the law, and minimum and maximum sentences specified in the statutes. The variables in the three surveys of practitioners contain data related to their familiarity with the laws, descriptions of recent cases, and satisfaction with the new statutes.

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