Investigator(s): Pretrial Services Resource Center (formerly National Pretrial Reporting Program) This data collection effort was undertaken to determine whether accurate and comprehensive pretrial data can be collected at the local level and subsequently aggregated at the state and federal levels. The data contained in this collection provide a picture of felony defendants' movements through the criminal courts. Offenses were recoded into 14 broad categories that conform to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' crime definitions. Other variables include sex, race, age, prior record, relationship to criminal justice system at the time of the offense, pretrial release, detention decisions, court appearances, pretrial rearrest, adjudication, and sentencing. The unit of analysis is the defendant.Years Produced: Updated biannually

Funded by the National Institute of Justice, this data collection represents Phase II of a larger project to evaluate pretrial release practices. The study focuses on four major topics: (1) release--rates and types of releases, defendant or case characteristics and their impact on the release decision, (2) court appearance --extent to which released defendants appear in court, factors associated with defendants' failure to appear in court, (3) pretrial criminality--number of rearrests during the pretrial period and the factors predicting rearrest, charges and rates of conviction for crimes committed during the pretrial period, and (4) impact of pretrial release programs--effect of programs on release decisions and on the behavior of defendants. The study is limited to adult defendants processed through state and local trial courts, and to pretrial release rather than pretrial intervention or diversion programs. Part 1 is an analysis of release practices and outcomes in eight jurisdictions (Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland, Washington, DC, Dade County, Florida, Jefferson County, Kentucky, Pima County, Arizona, Santa Cruz County, California, and Santa Clara County, California). The pretrial release "delivery systems," that is, the major steps and individuals and organizations in the pretrial release process, were analyzed in each jurisdiction. Additionally, a sample of defendants from each site was studied from point of arrest to final case disposition and sentencing. Part 2 of this study examines the impact of the existence of pretrial release programs on release, court appearance, and pretrial release outcomes. An experimental design was used to compare a group of defendants who participated in a pretrial release program with a control group who did not. Experiments were conducted in Pima County (Tucson), Arizona, Baltimore City, Maryland, Lincoln, Nebraska, and Jefferson County (Beaumont-Port Arthur), Texas. In Tucson, separate experiments were conducted for felony and misdemeanor cases.

This data collection effort was designed to assess the effects of different types of supervised pretrial release (SPR). Four major types of effects were examined: (1) defendants' behaviors while awaiting trial (failure to appear and arrests for new offenses), (2) the costs of SPR to victims and the criminal justice system, (3) pretrial release practices, and (4) jail populations. This study provides detailed information for a selected group of defendants awaiting trial on criminal histories and arrests while awaiting trial. Data are also available on services provided between arrest and disposition. The study produced four different data sets. The first, Supervised Release Information System (SRIS), contains intake information on current arrest, criminal record, socio-economic status, ties with the community, contact with mental health and substance abuse facilities, and pretrial release decisions. The release section of this data base contains information on services provided, intensity of supervision, termination from program, personal characteristics at termination, criminal charges at disposition, and new charges resulting from arrests while under pretrial status. The Arrest Data Set includes variables on type and number of crimes committed by SPR defendants, property costs to victims, personal injury costs, and court disposition for each offense. The Retrospective Data Set supplies variables on charges filed and method of release, personal characteristics, length of pretrial incarceration, bail, whether the defendant was rebooked during the pretrial period, charge at disposition, sentence, total court appearances, and total failures to appear in court (FTAs). The Jail Population Data Set contains monthly counts of jail population and average daily population.

Investigator(s): Bureau of Justice Statistics The National Survey of Prosecutors is a survey of chief prosecutors in state court systems. A chief prosecutor is an official, usually locally elected and typically with the title of district attorney or county attorney, who is in charge of a prosecutorial district made up of one or more counties, and who conducts or supervises the prosecution of felony cases in a state court system. Prosecutors in courts of limited jurisdiction, such as municipal prosecutors, were not included in the survey. The survey's purpose was to obtain detailed descriptive information on prosecutors' offices, as well as information on their policies and practices. Years Produced: Every 4 to 5 years.

This study reports on the implementation in Dade County, Florida, of a proposal to involve, on a voluntary basis, victims, defendants, and police in a judicial plea negotiation conference. The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, United States Department of Justice. Parts 1-3, Defendants, Victims, and Police files, consist of responses to questionnaires given to defendants, victims, and police. The questionnaires were administered during 20-minute interviews, conducted after the case had been completed. The interview instruments were designed to collect data on three major issues: (1) the extent to which respondents reported participation in the processing of their cases, (2) respondents' knowledge of the way their cases were processed, and (3) respondents' attitudes toward the disposition of their cases and toward the criminal justice system. Part 4 is the Conference Data File. During the pretrial settlement conference, an observer wrote down in sequence as much as possible of the verbal behavior. After the session, the observer made some subjective ratings, provided descriptive data about the conclusion of the session, and classified comments into one of the following categories: (1) Facts of the Case, (2) Prior Record, (3) Law and Practices, (4) Maximum Sentence, (5) Prediction of Trial Outcome, (6) Conference Precedent, (7) Personal Background History, and (8) Recommendations. Information in Part 5, the Case Information Data File, was drawn from court records and includes type of case, number of charges, sentence type, sentence severity (stated and perceived), seriousness of offense, date of arrest, date of arraignment, date of conference, prior incarcerations, and defendant background.

State PREA Reports- The purpose of the act is to “provide for the analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape in Federal, State, and local institutions and to provide information, resources, recommendations and funding to protect individuals from prison rape

The data contain records of defendants in criminal cases filed in United States District Court before or during fiscal year 2011 and still pending as of year-end. The data were constructed from the Administrative Office of the United States District Courts' (AOUSC) criminal file. Defendants in criminal cases may be either individuals or corporations. There is one record for each defendant in each case filed. Included in the records are data from court proceedings and offense codes for up to five offenses charged at the time the case was filed. (The most serious charge at termination may differ from the most serious charge at case filing, due to plea bargaining or action of the judge or jury.) In a case with multiple charges against the defendant, a "most serious" offense charge is determined by a hierarchy of offenses based on statutory maximum penalties associated with the charges. The data file contains variables from the original AOUSC files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 4.1-4.5 and 5.1-5.6. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Investigator(s): Bureau of Justice Statistics Data in this collection examine the processing of federal offenders. The Cases Terminated files (Parts 1-3 and 25-28) contain information about defendants in criminal cases filed in the United States Federal District Court and terminated in the calendar year indicated. Defendants in criminal cases may either be individuals or corporations, and there is one record for each defendant in each case terminated. Information on court proceedings, date the case was filed, date the case was terminated, most serious charge, and reason for termination are included. The Docket and Reporting System files (Parts 4-7 and 31-34) include information on suspects in investigative matters that took an hour or more of a United States Attorney's time with one of the following outcomes: (1) the United States Attorney declined to prosecute, (2) the case was filed in Federal District Court, or (3) the matter was disposed by a United States magistrate. Codes for each disposition and change of status are also provided.The Pretrial Services data (Parts 8 and 22) present variables on the circuit, district, and office where the defendant was charged, type of action, year of birth and sex of the defendant, major offense charge, and results of initial and detention hearings. The Parole Decisions data (Part 9) contain information from various parole hearings such as court date, appeal action, reopening decision, sentence, severity, offense, and race and ethnicity of the defendant. The Offenders Under Supervision files (Parts 15-16 and 37-40) focus on convicted offenders sentenced to probation supervision and federal prisoners released to parole supervision. The Federal Prisoner files (Parts 18 and 20) supply data on when an offender entered and was released from confinement, as well as the amount of time served for any given offense.Years Produced: Annually.NACJD has prepared a resource guide for the Federal Justice Statistics Program.

법제처 국가법령정보센터에서 제공하는 인사혁신처 소청심사위원회 특별행정심판 재결례 데이터로, 재결례에 대한 목록 정보를 조회하는 서비스입니다. 본 서비스는 인사혁신처 소청심사위원회가 의결한 특별행정심판 사건의 기본 정보를 제공하며, 의결일자나 재결례유형 등을 조건으로 검색할 수 있습니다. 각 재결례에는 사건명, 청구번호, 처분청, 재결청, 의결일자 등 주요 내용이 포함되어 있고, 상세 재결문은 링크를 통해 확인할 수 있습니다. 본 데이터는 인사 관련 특별행정심판의 체계적 관리와 유사 사건의 법적 판단 분석에 활용될 수 있습니다. 또한 특별행정심판 재결례 정보를 기반으로 한 검색·조회 서비스, 법령 기반 지식산업 개발, 자동화된 법률 정보 제공 도구 등 다양한 서비스 구현에 활용될 수 있습니다.

The National Assessment Program (NAP) Survey was conducted to determine the needs and problems of state and local criminal justice agencies. At the local level in each sampled county, survey questionnaires were distributed to police chiefs of the largest city, sheriffs, jail administrators, prosecutors, public defenders, chief trial court judges, trial court administrators (where applicable), and probation and parole agency heads. Data were collected at the state level through surveys sent to attorneys general, commissioners of corrections, prison wardens, state court administrators, and directors of probation and parole. For the 1992-1994 survey, 13 separate questionnaires were used. Police chiefs and sheriffs received the same survey instruments, with a screening procedure employed to identify sheriffs who handled law enforcement responsibilities. Of the 411 counties selected, 264 counties also employed trial court administrators. Judges and trial court administrators received identical survey instruments. A total of 546 surveys were mailed to probation and parole agencies, with the same questions asked of state and local officers. Counties that had separate agencies for probation and parole were sent two surveys. All survey instruments were divided into sections on workload (except that the wardens, jail administrators, and corrections commissioners were sent a section on jail use and crowding instead), staffing, operations and procedures, and background. The staffing section of each survey queried respondents on recruitment, retention, training, and number of staff. The other sections varied from instrument to instrument, with questions tailored to the responsibilities of the particular agency. Most of the questionnaires asked about use of automated information systems, programs, policies, or aspects of the facility or security needing improvement, agency responsibilities and jurisdictions, factors contributing to workload increases, budget, number of fulltime employees and other staff, and contracted services. Questions specific to police chiefs and sheriffs included activities aimed at drug problems and whether they anticipated increases in authorized strength in officers. Jail administrators, corrections commissioners, and wardens were asked about factors contributing to jail crowding, alternatives to jail, medical services offered, drug testing and drug-related admissions, and inmate classification. Topics covered by the surveys for prosecutors, public defenders, judges, and state and trial court administrators included types of cases handled, case timeliness, diversion and sentencing alternatives, and court and jury management. State and local probation and parole agency directors were asked about diagnostic tools, contracted services, and drug testing. Attorneys general were queried about operational issues, statutory authority, and legal services and support provided to state and local criminal justice agencies.