Search Results

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 compared the adult criminal justice and child welfare system outcomes of four pathways through the juvenile justice system - Traditional Probation, Intensive Probation, Specialty Court Docket (Crossroads Program), and commitment to state youth correction services (Department of Youth Services). The study compared the effectiveness of a continuum of services and supervision in improving public safety, including re-arrest and re-incarceration, and in improving outcomes in engagement with child welfare as parents, including child welfare complaints and dispositions. The core research question is: "what is the relative effectiveness of four different juvenile justice interventions on improving public safety and child welfare outcomes?" The study population is all youths (n=2581) who entered the juvenile court from 2004-2008. It then included 7-10 years of follow-up in the adult justice and child welfare systems for all youths. The four interventions are on a continuum of intensity of services and supervision with Traditional Probation having the fewest services followed by Intensive Probation, Crossroads, and Division of Youth Services commitment. The study's deposits include 14 SPSS data files: arrest_final.sav CW_Custody_Adult_final.sav CW_Custody_child_final.sav CW_Intakes_Adult_final.sav CW_Intakes_child_final.sav CW_Placements_adult_final.sav CW_Placements_child_final.sav General_final.sav Jail_final.sav JC_charges_final.sav JC_detention_final.sav JC_disposition_final.sav JC_Gal_final.sav prison_final.sav

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2011, the reference date was Wednesday, October 26 (the last Wednesday in October). Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2013, the reference date was Wednesday, October 23 (the fourth Wednesday in October). Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2015, the reference date was Wednesday, October 28 (the fourth Wednesday in October). Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2017, the reference date was Wednesday, October 25 (the fourth Wednesday in October). Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned to a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2019, the reference date was Wednesday, October 23 (the fourth Wednesday in October). Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g., placing agency), the judicial process (e.g., court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g., age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g., facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted every other year, asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe all youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. In 2021, the reference date was Wednesday, October 27 (the fourth Wednesday in October). Each record in the data provides information on a juvenile in a residential facility on the reference date, including information on placement (e.g. placing agency), the judicial process (e.g. court adjudication status), and demographics (e.g. age). Each record that provides information about a juvenile also includes information about institutional characteristics (e.g. facility type, use of locked doors or gates), treatment services, and population of the facility in which the juvenile was held. Therefore, CJRP data can be analyzed at the individual or facility level. The census was not sent to adult facilities or to facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction.

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.

The Urban Institute developed and fostered a research partnership with the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to conduct empirical research to inform DJJ's current practice in the management of aggression issues among at-risk youth and enhance DJJ's analytic capacity. Specifically, through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and quasi-experimental evaluations, the project team assessed the effectiveness of two types of cognitive-behavioral aggression management treatment, Aggression Replacement Training (ART) and Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) for youth in secure juvenile justice facilities. The three-part evaluation consisted of a process evaluation, an impact evaluation, and cost-effectiveness analysis. The impact evaluation was based on RCT data and matched case-control data through propensity score techniques.

The Denver Youth Survey (DYS) is part of the larger "Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency" initiated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1986. The DYS is a longitudinal study of problem and successful behavior over the life course that focuses on delinquency, drug use, victimization, and mental health. The DYS is based on a probability sample of households in "high-risk" neighborhoods of Denver, Colorado. These neighborhoods were selected on the basis of their social ecology in terms of population and housing characteristics. Only socially disorganized neighborhoods with high official crime rates (top one-third) were included. The survey respondents include 1,528 children and youth who were 7, 9, 11, 13, or 15 years old in 1987, and one of their parents, who lived in one of the more than 20,000 randomly selected households. The survey respondents include 807 boys and 721 girls and include White (10 percent), Latino (45 percent), and African American (33 percent) youth, as well as 12 percent from other racial/ethnic backgrounds. The child and youth respondents, along with one caretaker, were interviewed annually from 1988 until 1992, and annually from 1995 until 1999. The age range covered by the study is from age 7 through age 26. The dataset contains 1,528 cases and 22,081 variables.

The Denver Youth Survey (DYS) is part of the larger "Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency" initiated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1986. It is a longitudinal study of problem and successful behavior over the life course that focuses on delinquency, drug use, victimization, and mental health. DYS variables also address family demographics, neighborhood characteristics, parenting, and involvement in social roles. The DYS is based on a probability sample of households in "high-risk" neighborhoods of Denver, Colorado. These neighborhoods were selected on the basis of their social ecology in terms of population and housing characteristics. Only socially disorganized neighborhoods with high (top one-third) official crime rates were included. The survey respondents include 1,528 children and youth who were 7, 9, 11, 13, or 15 years old in 1987, and one of their parents, who lived in one of the more than 20,000 randomly selected households. The survey respondents include 807 boys and 721 girls and include White (10%), Latino (45%), and African American (33%) youth, as well as 12% from other racial/ethnic backgrounds. The child and youth respondents, along with one caretaker, were interviewed annually from 1988 until 1992 (waves 1-5), annually from 1995 until 1999 (waves 6-10), and in 2003 (wave 11). The study covers an age range of 7 through 26.

Because there are few existing tools for assessing the risk of recidivism for youth with a history of sexual offending that are empirically valid and reliable, knowledge and practice in this area has historically been limited. This project examined current practice and policy in the assessment, treatment, and management of juvenile sex offenders across multiple jurisdictions (Florida, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia). The researchers developed a prototype assessment tool, state-specific risk assessment models, and practical guidance for building a risk assessment for sexual recidivism in juvenile justice settings. The data file contains individual records for the full sample (n=8,035), including their risk predictors, recidivism measures, and resulting outputs (i.e., predicted probabilities of sexual recidivism) from the risk models.

The Evaluation of Florida's Avon Park Youth Academy and STREET Smart Program, 2002-2008 contains data gathered on youth involved in programs which aim to increase educational outcomes, increase labor force participation, and reduce recidivism. Avon Park Youth Academy (APYA) is a secure custody residential facility that provides specialized, remedial education and intensive vocational training to moderate risk youth committed to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). The STREET Smart program (SS) was the reentry component of the program, which provided community support and educational and vocational services to APYA participants on a voluntary basis after their release to the community. In the last several years, APYA/SS has received national and international recognition as a "Promising Program" for juvenile offenders. Both the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) determined that a rigorous evaluation was required to assess whether APYA/SS could progress from a "Promising Program" to an "Evidence-based Practice." To conduct this evaluation, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) designed and conducted a field trial that randomly assigned youth committed to DJJ to the APYA/SS program or a control group. This experimental design permitted a rigorous test of the hypothesis that compared to the control group, APYA/SS participants would demonstrate more positive educational achievement, increased labor force participation, and reduced recidivism outcomes after community release. The 360 youth assigned to the experimental control group stayed at APYA for an average of 9.7 months from 2002-2005. Of these, 301 youth completed participation in the SS program by March 2006. The youth were observed for a three-year period after their community release dates. This included an interview following release from incarceration to collect data on educational achievements, employment, and justice system program experiences. All subjects had reached the 36-month follow-up threshold as of May 2008.

In response to growing concerns about recidivism and the welfare of youth who return to communities from incarceration, the federal government passed the Second Chance Act (SCA) in 2008 to authorize funding to support the development, implementation, and evaluation of juvenile reentry programs (H.R. 1593, 110th Cong. 2007). Since then, more than 100 juvenile SCA awards have been made to grantees across the U.S. to improve reentry programming and outcomes for youth returning home after placement in juvenile correctional institutions (State Government Justice Center, 2017). The purpose of this evaluation was to evaluate five FY2010 juvenile SCA grantees who were funded to implement comprehensive reentry programs for high-risk youth, and to provide policymakers, practitioners, and funders with empirical evidence about the degree to which the SCA program effectively reduced recidivism and improved reintegration outcomes for youth offenders, and to inform future comprehensive juvenile reentry efforts. Specific goals of this study included: identifying strong sites for an impact evaluation; assessing the extent to which the sites successfully implemented a comprehensive and integrated model of juvenile reentry for a high-risk, high-needs population; assessing program operations and adherence to reentry principles; evaluating the impact of the SCA programs; determining the cost effectiveness of the SCA programs, and their cost-benefit in terms of crime prevented; and disseminating evaluation findings to practitioner and researcher audiences.

This study was a secondary analysis of Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) 2003 [United States] ICPSR 34304. In recent years, considerable empirical and theoretical attention has been given to the overlap between gang membership and victimization. Gang-involved youth are significantly more likely to experience both violent and nonviolent victimization than are their non-gang peers. Much of what is known about the gang-victimization link, however, comes from studies of youth in the community. In this study, we explore the relationship between gang affiliation and victimization in a nationally representative sample of youth in residential placement.

This study contains data from the Northwestern Juvenile Project (NJP) series, a prospective longitudinal study of the mental health needs and outcomes of youth in detention. This study examined the following goals: (1) firearm involvement (access, ownership, and use) during adolescence and young adulthood; (2) perpetration of firearm violence over time; and (3) patterns of firearm victimization (injury and mortality) over time. This study addressed the association between early involvement with firearms and firearm-firearm perpetration and victimization in adulthood. The original sample included 1,829 randomly selected youth, 1,172 males and 657 females, then 10 to 18 years old, enrolled in the study as they entered the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center from 1995 to 1998. Among the sample were 1,005 African Americans, 524 Hispanics, and 296 non-Hispanic white respondents. Participants were tracked from the time they left detention. Re-interviews were conducted regardless of where respondents were living when their follow-up interview was due: in the community, correctional settings, or by telephone if they lived farther than two hours from Chicago.

This study contains data from the Northwestern Juvenile Project (NJP) series, a prospective longitudinal study of the mental health needs and outcomes of youth in detention. The research team interviewed participants from the Northwestern Juvenile Project (NJP) (originally enrolled as they entered the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center from 1995 to 1998, and now parents ages 34-43 years) and their oldest child age 10 to 17 years when sampled, and leveraged data already collected on parents' firearm involvement--during their own adolescence and young adulthood for the NJP.

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. To assess "double transition" (the transition from confinement to community in addition to the transition from adolescence to adulthood), the study used nationally representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) to compare psychosocial maturity for three groups: approximately 162 adolescents placed in correctional confinement, 398 young adults who reported an arrest before age 18 but no juvenile correctional confinement, and 11,614 youths who reported no arrests before age 18. Three dimensions of psychosocial maturity (responsibility, temperance, and perspective) were assessed at Waves 1 (baseline) and Wave 3 (post-confinement) in models assessing the effects of confinement on the attainment (or non-attainment) of markers of successful transition to adulthood at Wave 4. Results were contextualized with data from the Survey of Youth in Residential Facilities and discussed with respect to the role of confinement in interrupting the development of psychosocial maturity in the transition to adulthood and for young adult attainment more generally. There are no data files available with this study. Only syntax files used by the researchers are provided.

The overall goal of this research project was to examine the impact that risk assessment has on the sentencing of racial minority youth and youth from disadvantaged neighborhoods. One of the main goals of correctional risk assessment is to reduce disparate outcomes for certain groups of youth in the juvenile justice system (e.g. Black youth). In practice, risk assessment is used with this goal in mind. However, there is very little research which shows whether or not risk assessment actually has its intended effects on sentencing. Therefore, this study set out to examine whether or not risk assessment reduces the sentencing gap seen in most research for minority youth and youth from disadvantaged neighborhoods. In addition, several other important research topics were explored to understand the role that race and socioeconomic disadvantage play in the juvenile justice system. These research topics included: (1) variation in the predictive validity of risk assessment across race, (2) variation in the predictive validity of risk assessment across neighborhood disadvantage, and (3) the moderating effects of race/gender and court dispositions on the predictive validity of risk assessment. To achieve the research goals in this study, data was collected from a large juvenile court in a Midwestern County. Information from 4,383 youth that came into contact with the court between January 2010 and December 2016 were included in the study. Data was collected that related to youth demographics, neighborhood characteristics in which youth lived, risk assessments data measured by the Ohio Youth Assessment System (OYAS), treatment programming received, court dispositions/sentencing, and recidivism.

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 investigators if further information is needed. This study is a secondary analysis (syntax only, no data) of Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Subject Measures, 2000-2010 (ICPSR 29961) and Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Calendar Data, 2000-2010 [Restricted] (ICPSR 32282). The purpose of this study was to further existing knowledge of juvenile justice intervention and how juvenile justice intervention is related to positive outcomes during the transition to adulthood. This study examines three main aims using data from the Pathways to Desistance study, which followed a sample of serious adolescent offenders for seven years to examine the desistance process. First, trajectories of secure institutional placement for serious offenders during the study period were identified. Second, trajectories of gainful activities for serious adolescent offenders during the study period were identified. Gainful activities were defined as working or attending school. Third, factors associated with turning points in the gainful activities trajectories were explored. In the course of estimating the gainful activities trajectories, there appeared to be a key moment, around year 3, where multiple trajectories with moderate levels of engagement in gainful activities diverged. Together, these three aims will inform how juvenile justice intervention is related to positive outcomes during the transition to adulthood and identify factors that may be related to positive outcomes and critical turning points in the trajectories of serious adolescent offenders. Group differences were examined by testing bivariate differences in a broad range of variables: demographic variables (gender, age, and race/ethnicity); study site and year of interview; characteristics of prior service receipt at baseline (location and orientation); school, family and neighborhood characteristics; characteristics of the offense and offense history; individual factors (mental health and substance use symptoms); and risk scores.

This study investigated root causes of school shootings by using a case-control methodology to compare 157 adolescent school shooters (cases) to samples of two key comparison groups: 157 non-school adolescent shooting offenders and 157 non-offending youths who attended the same school as the school shooter (controls) in the United States between 1990 and 2020 (overall n=471). Specifically, the researchers compared: Adolescent school shooters who committed shootings both fatal and non-fatal to adolescents who committed shootings both fatal and non-fatal outside school grounds in the community. Adolescent school shooters who committed homicide to adolescents who committed shooting homicides outside school grounds in the community. Adolescent school shooters who caused non-fatal injuries to adolescents who committed non-fatal shootings with injuries outside school grounds in the community. Adolescent school shooters to non-offending students from the same school. All groups were compared on items theorized to be risk and protective factors to crime based on major criminology theories, such as social learning, general strain, social control, bio-social, life course, and psychology. Building upon the methodology used in The American School Shooting Study (TASSS), this study relied on open-source, content analysis research methods to obtain all publicly available information on the sampled individuals. Files were collected from over 60 databases, major search engines, and archival resources, which were then reviewed and coded by the research team for evidence of risk and protective factors.

The purpose of this census was to provide information on juvenile detention centers throughout the United States. The data include information on type of facility, level of government administering the facility, resident population by sex, by age range, by detention status, and by offense, admissions and discharges, average length of stay, staffing and expenditures, age and capacity of facility, and programs and services available.

The 1974 census includes juvenile detention and correctional facilities that were operated by state or local governments in November 1974, and had been in operation for at least a month prior to June 30, 1974. There is one record for each juvenile detention facility that had a population of at least 50 percent juveniles. Each record is classified into one of six categories: detention centers or shelters, reception or diagnostic centers, training schools, ranches, forestry camps and farms, and halfway houses and group homes. Data include state, county, and city identification, level of government responsible for the facility, type of agency, agency identification, resident population by sex, age range, detention status, and offense, admissions and departures of population, average length of stay, staffing and expenditures, age and capacity of the facility, and programs and services available.

The 1975 census includes juvenile detention and correctional facilities that were operated by state or local governments in November, 1975, and had been in operation at least a month prior to June 30, 1975. There is one record for each juvenile detention facility that had a population of at least 50 percent juveniles. Each record is classified into one of six categories: detention centers or shelters, reception or diagnostic centers, training schools, ranches, forestry camps and farms, and halfway houses and group homes. Data include state, county, and city identification, level of government responsible for the facility, type of agency, agency identification, resident population by sex, age range, detention status, and offense, admissions and departures of population, average length of stay, staffing and expenditures, age and capacity of the facility, and programs and services available.

The 1977 Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facility Census, is the fifth in a series of surveys of state and local public residential facilities in the juvenile justice system. There is one record for each juvenile detention facility that had a population of at least 50 percent juveniles. Each record is classified into one of six categories: detention centers or shelters, reception or diagnostic centers, training schools, ranches, forestry camps and farms, and halfway houses and group homes. Data include state, county, and city identification, level of government responsible for the facility, type of agency, agency identification, resident population by sex, age range, detention status, and offense, admissions and departures of population, average length of stay, staffing and expenditures, age and capacity of the facility, and programs and services available.

The 1979 Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facility Census is the sixth in a series of surveys of state and local public residential facilities in the juvenile justice system. There is one record for each juvenile detention facility that had a population of at least 50 percent juveniles. Each record is classified into one of six categories: detention centers or shelters, reception or diagnostic centers, training schools, ranches, forestry camps and farms, and halfway houses and group homes. Data include state, county, and city identification, level of government responsible for the facility, type of agency, agency identification, resident population by sex, age range, detention status, and offense, admissions and departures of population, average length of stay, staffing and expenditures, age and capacity of the facility, and programs and services available.

This is the seventh in a series of surveys conducted by the Bureau of the Census. It contains information on state and local public residential facilities operated by the juvenile justice system during the fiscal year 1982. Each data record is classified into one of six categories: (1) detention center, (2) shelter, (3) reception or diagnostic center, (4) training school, (5) ranch, forestry camp, or farm, and (6) halfway house or group home. Data include state, county, and city identification, level of government responsible for the facility, type of agency, agency identification, resident population by sex, age range, detention status, and offense, and admissions and departures of population. Also included in the data are average length of stay, staffing expenditures, capacity of the facility, and programs and services available.

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC), which is conducted biennially, collects basic information on juvenile residential facility characteristics, including security, capacity and crowding, injuries and deaths in custody, and facility ownership and operation. The JRFC also includes questions about facility type (such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home) and residential services provided by the facility (such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements). In 2012, the JRFC was divided into four sections: General facility information Events in the 30 days prior to the census reference date Deaths in the year prior to the census reference date Space shared with other facilities Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; the JRFC gathers this information and offers a portrait of the nation's juvenile facilities. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC), which is conducted biennially, collects basic information on juvenile residential facility characteristics, including security, capacity and crowding, injuries and deaths in custody, and facility ownership and operation. The JRFC also includes questions about facility type (such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home) and residential services provided by the facility (such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements), and detailed questions about mental health, substance abuse, and educational services provided to young persons. In 2014, the JRFC was divided into seven sections: General facility information Mental health services Educational services Substance abuse services Events in the 30 days prior to the census reference date Deaths in the year prior to the census reference date Space shared with other facilities Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; the JRFC gathers this information and offers a portrait of the nation's juvenile facilities. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.

This study examined the evolution of exposure to violence and psychological distress among adolescents using a sample of 1,354 male and female youths who completed a baseline assessment and 10 follow-up interviews over a seven-year period as part of the Pathways to Desistence study. Statistical analyses were utilized to identify a taxonomy based on adolescents' patterns of exposure to violence as well as to explore the association between the analytically-identified exposure to violence patterns and various psychological symptoms. Additional models were analyzed to examine changes in exposure to violence over time, changes in psychological distress over time, the contemporaneous, parallel processes of changes in exposure to violence and psychological distress over time, and differences in the evolution of violence exposure and psychological distress across sex and race/ethnicity.

The Long-Term Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Impact Study was a pre-post, quasi-experimental study of the impact of the implementation of risk-needs assessment (RNA) and risk-need-responsivity-related (RNR) case management in 5 juvenile probation offices in 2 states. This study used 3 time points (pre-implementation, 1st year post-implementation, and 7th-year post-implementation) to examine the 7-year sustainability of impacts on system-responses (rates of informal processing, different dispositions, and out-of-home placements), youth outcomes (school and employment), and recidivism; as well as cost-effectiveness. This study also examined whether there was a significant difference in the impacts of implementation after 7 years between probation offices that were effective versus ineffective in their first year of implementation.

The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) compiles offender-level data on admissions and releases from state and federal prisons and post-confinement community supervision. The data are used to monitor the nation's correctional population and address specific policy questions related to recidivism, prisoner reentry, and trends in demographic characteristics of the incarcerated and community supervision populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the NCRP since 1983. Abt Associates has served as the NCRP data collection agent since October 2010. This version of the NCRP contains selected variables making it suitable for public release.

The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) compiles offender-level data on admissions and releases from state and federal prisons and post-confinement community supervision. The data are used to monitor the nation's correctional population and address specific policy questions related to recidivism, prisoner reentry, and trends in demographic characteristics of the incarcerated and community supervision populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the NCRP since 1983. Abt Associates has served as the NCRP data collection agent since October 2010. This version of the NCRP contains selected variables making it suitable for public release.

The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) compiles offender-level data on admissions and releases from state and federal prisons and post-confinement community supervision. The data are used to monitor the nation's correctional population and address specific policy questions related to recidivism, prisoner reentry, and trends in demographic characteristics of the incarcerated and community supervision populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the NCRP since 1983. Abt Associates has served as the NCRP data collection agent since October 2010. This version of the NCRP contains selected variables making it suitable for public release.

The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) compiles offender-level data on admissions and releases from state prison, post-confinement community supervision and year-end prison custody records. The data are used to monitor the nation's correctional population and address specific policy questions related to recidivism, prisoner reentry, and trends in demographic characteristics of the incarcerated and community supervision populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the NCRP since 1983. Abt Associates has served as the NCRP data collection agent since October 2010. As with all other BJS data collections, participation is voluntary, and not all states submit NCRP data each year. This version of the NCRP data contains data for term records, prison admissions, prison releases, and year-end prison population counts. The data files have selected variables making the data suitable for public release. The complete version of NCRP data is classified as restricted access. Please search for ICPSR No. 37608 to find the analogous complete version of this file.

The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) compiles offender-level data on admissions and releases from state prison, post-confinement community supervision and year-end prison custody records. The data are used to monitor the nation's correctional population and address specific policy questions related to recidivism, prisoner reentry, and trends in demographic characteristics of the incarcerated and community supervision populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the NCRP since 1983. Abt Associates has served as the NCRP data collection agent since October 2010. As with all other BJS data collections, participation is voluntary, and not all states submit NCRP data each year. This version of the NCRP data contains data for term records, prison admissions, prison releases, and year-end prison population counts. The data files have selected variables making the data suitable for public release. The complete version of NCRP data is classified as restricted access. Please search for ICPSR No. 37971 to find the analogous complete version of this file.

The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) compiles offender-level data on admissions and releases from state and federal prisons and post-confinement community supervision. The data are used to monitor the nation's correctional population and address specific policy questions related to recidivism, prisoner reentry, and trends in demographic characteristics of the incarcerated and community supervision populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the NCRP since 1983. Abt Associates has served as the NCRP data collection agent since October 2010. This version of the NCRP contains selected variables making it suitable for public release. This version of the NCRP data contains data for term records, prison admissions, prison releases, and year-end prison population counts. The data files have selected variables making the data suitable for public release. The complete version of NCRP data is classified as restricted access. Please search for (ICPSR No. 38047) to find the analogous complete version of this file.

The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) compiles offender-level data on admissions and releases from state and federal prisons and post-confinement community supervision. The data are used to monitor the nation's correctional population and address specific policy questions related to recidivism, prisoner reentry, and trends in demographic characteristics of the incarcerated and community supervision populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the NCRP since 1983. Abt Associates has served as the NCRP data collection agent since October 2010. This version of the NCRP contains selected variables making it suitable for public release. This version of the NCRP data contains data for term records, prison admissions, prison releases, and year-end prison population counts. The data files have selected variables making the data suitable for public release. The complete version of NCRP data is classified as restricted access. Please search for (ICPSR No. 38491) to find the analogous complete version of this file.

The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) compiles offender-level data on admissions and releases from state and federal prisons and post-confinement community supervision. The data are used to monitor the nation's correctional population and address specific policy questions related to recidivism, prisoner reentry, and trends in demographic characteristics of the incarcerated and community supervision populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the NCRP since 1983. Abt Associates has served as the NCRP data collection agent since October 2010.

The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) compiles offender-level data on admissions and releases from state and federal prisons and post-confinement community supervision. The data are used to monitor the nation's correctional population and address specific policy questions related to recidivism, prisoner reentry, and trends in demographic characteristics of the incarcerated and community supervision populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the NCRP since 1983. Abt Associates has served as the NCRP data collection agent since October 2010. This version of the NCRP contains selected variables making it suitable for public release.

The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) compiles offender-level data on admissions and releases from state and federal prisons and post-confinement community supervision. The data are used to monitor the nation's correctional population and address specific policy questions related to recidivism, prisoner reentry, and trends in demographic characteristics of the incarcerated and community supervision populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the NCRP since 1983. Abt Associates has served as the NCRP data collection agent since October 2010.

The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) compiles offender-level data on admissions and releases from state and federal prisons and post-confinement community supervision. The data are used to monitor the nation's correctional population and address specific policy questions related to recidivism, prisoner reentry, and trends in demographic characteristics of the incarcerated and community supervision populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the NCRP since 1983. Abt Associates has served as the NCRP data collection agent since October 2010.

The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) compiles offender-level data on admissions and releases from state and federal prisons and post-confinement community supervision. The data are used to monitor the nation's correctional population and address specific policy questions related to recidivism, prisoner reentry, and trends in demographic characteristics of the incarcerated and community supervision populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the NCRP since 1983. Abt Associates has served as the NCRP data collection agent since October 2010.

The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) compiles offender-level data on admissions and releases from state and federal prisons and post-confinement community supervision. The data are used to monitor the nation's correctional population and address specific policy questions related to recidivism, prisoner reentry, and trends in demographic characteristics of the incarcerated and community supervision populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the NCRP since 1983. Abt Associates has served as the NCRP data collection agent since October 2010.

The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) compiles offender-level data on admissions and releases from state and federal prisons and post-confinement community supervision. The data are used to monitor the nation's correctional population and address specific policy questions related to recidivism, prisoner reentry, and trends in demographic characteristics of the incarcerated and community supervision populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the NCRP since 1983. Abt Associates has served as the NCRP data collection agent since October 2010.

The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) compiles offender-level data on admissions and releases from state and federal prisons and post-confinement community supervision. The data are used to monitor the nation's correctional population and address specific policy questions related to recidivism, prisoner reentry, and trends in demographic characteristics of the incarcerated and community supervision populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the NCRP since 1983. Abt Associates has served as the NCRP data collection agent since October 2010.

The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) compiles offender-level data on admissions and releases from state and federal prisons and post-confinement community supervision. The data are used to monitor the nation's correctional population and address specific policy questions related to recidivism, prisoner reentry, and trends in demographic characteristics of the incarcerated and community supervision populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the NCRP since 1983. Abt Associates has served as the NCRP data collection agent since October 2010.

The National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC) is part of the BJS National Prison Rape Statistics Program to gather mandated data on the incidence of prevalence of sexual assault in juvenile facilities under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108-79). The Act requires a 10 percent sample of juvenile facilities to be listed by incidence of sexual assault. Data are collected directly from youth in a private setting using audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI) technology with a touch-screen laptop and an audio feed to maximize inmate confidentiality and minimize literacy issues. The NSYC-3 was administered to 6,910 youth in 332 state operated and locally or privately operated juvenile facilities within the United States. Youth were randomly assigned to either a sexual victimization questionnaire (90%) or an alternative questionnaire (10%). Sexual victimization questionnaire: Youth selected for this questionnaire received one of two versions, based on their age. The Older Youth questionnaire was administered to youths ages 15 and up, and the Younger Youth questionnaire was administered to those 14 and younger. The survey was divided into six sections. Section A collected background information, such as details of admission to facility and demographics including education, height, weight, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and history of any forced sexual contact. Section B, Facility Perceptions and Victimization, included respondents' opinions of the facility and staff, any incidence of gang activity, and any injuries that had occurred. Section C, Sexual Activity Within Facility, captured the types of sexual contact that occurred and the circumstances of sexual contact. Section D, Description of Event(s) with Youth, and Section E, Description of Event(s) with Staff, focused on when and where the contact occurred, the race and gender of the other youths or staff members, if threats or coercion were involved, and outcomes, including whether or not the sexual contact was reported. Section F collected additional information about the youth, such as disability and mental health conditions, and the facility, including living conditions and use of restrictive housing. Alternative questionnaire: A random selection of youth were assigned to an alternative questionnaire to "mask" which questions an individual might have been asked. In addition to Sections A, B, and F from the sexual victimization questionnaire, this questionnaire included sections on facility living conditions, mental health, grievance procedures, substance use, treatment programs, living arrangements, youth education and aspirations, communication with family, and post-release plans. A Facility Questionnaire (FQ) collected in-depth information on each sampled facility via an online questionnaire. Topics included number of facility staff by race/ethnicity, job category, age, and length of service; staff turnover/vacant positions; personnel screening; staff training; number of youth, admissions, and discharges; rated capacity (i.e., number of beds), occupancy, and crowding; youth disabilities; grievance process; special housing; and youth education on PREA. Other variables in the datasets include debriefing questions about respondents' experiences completing the survey, interviewer observations, created variables to summarize victimization reports (due to the complex routing in Section C), weight and stratification data,, and administrative data about the facilities.

This study contains data from the sixth follow-up interview of the Northwestern Juvenile Project (NJP), a longitudinal assessment of alcohol, drug, or mental service treatment needs of juvenile detainees. The sixth follow-up occurred approximately 8 years after the baseline interview and focused on studying the development and persistence of psychiatric disorders, related predictive variables, patterns of drug use, and other risk behaviors. The project's aims included studying (1) development and persistence of alcohol, drug, and mental disorders and (2) pathways and patterns of risky behaviors. Changes in disorders over time were studied (including onset, remission, and recurrence), comorbidity, associated functional impairments, and the risk and protective factors related to these disorders and impairments. This study addressed patterns and sequences of the development of drug use and related variables, focusing on gender differences, racial/ethnic differences, the antecedents of these risky behaviors (risk and protective factors), and how these behaviors were interrelated. The original sample included 1829 randomly selected youth, 1172 males and 657 females, then 10 to 18 years old, enrolled in the study as they entered the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center from 1995 to 1998. Among the sample were 1005 African Americans, 524 Hispanics, and 296 non-Hispanic white respondents. Participants were tracked from the time they left detention. All participants were eligible for the sixth follow-up interview. Re-interviews were conducted regardless of where respondents were living when their follow-up interview was due: in the community, correctional settings, or by telephone if they lived farther than two hours from Chicago.

In nearly every state and in the vast majority of juvenile justice agencies, risk assessments are incorporated into diversion, case management, supervision, and placement practices. Despite two decades of use within the juvenile justice system, little research regarding the methods of risk assessment development is discussed or translated to the field and practitioners. Many of the contemporary tools used today are implemented off-the-shelf, meaning that tools were developed with a specific set of methods, selecting and weighting items used in the prediction of a specified sample of youth. What is not known is how the various designs, methods, and circumstances of tool development impact the predictive performance when adopted by a jurisdiction. This study seeks to provide input into this dilemma. Demographic information in this study includes age, race, and sex.