Data from across the government on responses to and outcomes of domestic abuse cases in the criminal justice system.

Complete data set from the Washington State Criminal Justice Data Book. Combines state data from multiple agency sources that can be queried through CrimeStats Online.

The Global Transitional Justice Dataset codes personnel transitional justice events --lustrations, purges (leadership and thorough), and truth commission. After assigning each event to one of four categories it is coded as a negative or positive event (see notes below). The number of positive and negative TJ events was then aggregated to create an annual panel, with countries as the cross section and time since transition as the temporal dimension. A panel assembled in this way allows for the creation of many different measures of personnel TJ. In addition, the raw chronologies (available with the PI) allow researchers to experiment with different systems of disaggregation.

Investigator(s): Bureau of Justice Statistics The National Justice Agency List is a master name and address file created and maintained by the United States Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The file was first created in 1970, and the Census Bureau has continued to maintain and expand the file. For the original survey, each county in the United States and each municipality and township with a 1960 population of 1,000 or more persons was surveyed to identify the names and addresses of the criminal justice agencies and institutions controlled by local government. The survey was conducted by mail canvass. In addition to the mail survey, the Census Bureau collected information on state-level governments and counties with a 1960 population of 500,000 or more and cities with a 1960 population of 300,000 or more through in-house research methods. The reference information included a variety of published government documents such as budget statements, organization manuals, and state, county, and municipal directories.

The objective of this study was to systematically review and statistically synthesize all available research that, at a minimum, compared participants in a restorative justice program to participants processed in a more traditional way using meta-analytic methods. Ideally, these studies would include research designs with random assignment to condition groups, as this provides the most credible evidence of program effectiveness. The systematic search identified 99 publications, both published and unpublished, reporting on the results of 84 evaluations nested within 60 unique research projects or studies. Results were extracted from these studies, related to delinquency, non-delinquency, and victim outcomes for the youth and victims participating in these programs.

The data contain records of sentenced offenders released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) during fiscal year 2001. The data include commitments of United States District Court, violators of conditions of release (e.g., parole, probation, or supervised release violators), offenders convicted in other courts (e.g., military or District of Columbia courts), and persons admitted to prison as material witnesses or for purposes of treatment, examination, or transfer to another authority. Records of offenders who exit federal prison temporarily, such as for transit to another location, to serve a weekend sentence, or for health care, are not included in the exiting cohort. These data include variables that describe the offender, such as age, race, citizenship, as well as variables that describe the sentences and expected prison terms. The data file contains original variables from the Bureau of Prisons' SENTRY database, as well as "SAF" variables that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 7.9-7.16. 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.

Building statistics of the Ministry of Justice 2018-2023

Statistics on the electronic services of the Ministry of Justice 2019-2023

The new FJSRC linking system, implemented with the 2008 FJSRC data, includes sets of agency dyad linked files created by improved methods of algorithmic matching. There are both inter-agency linked files and intra-agency dyad linked files. The inter-agency matched pair files (or "dyads") permit the linking of records from two different source agencies for adjacent stages of federal case processing by providing a crosswalk of the agency-specific key ID variables for the two agency data files in the pair. These agency ID variables (sequential ID numbers) may be used to link records from one agency's standard analysis file (SAF) to the next. The system enables users to track individual defendant-cases through stages of the federal criminal justice system (from arrest to prosecution, adjudication, sentencing, and corrections) sequentially, one agency dyad pair at a time. Each inter-agency paired linked file relates the sequential record numbers (i.e. SEQ_NUM) included in the SAFs from one agency/stage to another. The intra-agency matched pair files (also dyads) permit the same type of linking as described above except that the linkages are within the same federal agency. The linkages are to different stages of case processing withing a particular agency. The system covers all data years from 1994-2022. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, D.C.) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute through 2012. Data from 2013 and on were prepared by Abt Associates.

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 reports presents the main trends on the latest 12 months of activity in the criminal justice system (CJS) for England and Wales. For each process a brief description of the function is included with an explanation of some of the main procedures involved.

The Aboriginal Justice Strategy (AJS), now known as the Indigenous Justice Program, supports community-based justice programs that offer alternatives to mainstream justice processes in appropriate circumstances. Created to provide alternatives to the mainstream system, the Indigenous Justice program provides funding to communities through two categories: The Community-Based Justice fund and the Capacity-Building Fund. Community-Based Justice currently funds 197 community-based programs that serve over 750 communities.he objectives of the Community-Based Justice Fund component are: to allow Indigenous people the opportunity to assume greater responsibility for the administration of justice in their communities; to help reduce the rates of crime and incarceration among Indigenous people in communities with cost-shared programs; and, to foster improved responsiveness, fairness, inclusiveness, and effectiveness of the justice system with respect to justice and its administration so as to meet the needs and aspirations of Indigenous people. The Capacity-Building Fund is designed to support capacity-building efforts in Indigenous communities, particularly as they relate to building increased knowledge and skills for the establishment and management of community-based justice programs. The objectives of the Capacity-Building Fund are: to support the training and/or developmental needs of Indigenous communities that currently do not have community-based justice programs; to supplement the on-going training needs of current community-based justice programs where the cost-shared budget does not adequately meet these needs, including supporting evaluation activities, data collection, sharing of best practices and useful models; to support activities targeted at improved community reporting in IJP communities and the development of data management systems; to support the development of new justice programs, paying particular attention to: the current geographic/regional imbalance in programming; the commitment to develop new programs in the under-represented program models, such as dispute resolution for civil and family/child welfare; and, to support one-time or annual events and initiatives (as opposed to on-going projects and programs) that build bridges, trust and partnerships between the mainstream justice system and Indigenous communities.

Users can obtain justice statistics describing suspects and defendants processed through the Federal criminal justice system. Topics include law enforcement, prosecutions and incarceration. Background The Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center is maintained by the Urban Institute and Bureau of Justice Statistics. This website provides statistics about suspects and defendants processed through the Federal criminal justice system. This website is useful for policymakers, community organizations and community leaders seeking to understand crime, disorder and community safety. Topics include law enforcement, prosecutions and incarceration. User Functionality Users search the database to generate justice statistics pertaining to law enforcement, prosecutions and incarceration. Data can be exported into an Excel worksheet, html or PDF file. In addition to generating statistics from data queries, users can download the dataset into SAS. The data dictionary and reports can be downloaded as PDF files. Demographic information is available by race/ethnicity, age group, sex/gender, citizenship status, and level of education. Data Notes Data are available for fiscal years 1998-2009. The website does not indicate when the data are updated. Data are obtained from federal agencies including: U.S. Marshalls Service (USMS), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), U.S. Probation and Pretrial Service System, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC), and Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Data are available on a national level.

How confident persons are that the wider criminal justice system has brought people who commit crimes in Ireland to justice

In 2024, India's index for criminal justice, one of the factors in the rule of law index was ****. According to the source, this measures if criminal processes are effective, from investigations to adjudication timeliness, reducing criminal behavior are impartial, free of corruption, and follow due process of the law and rights of the accused. That year, India's ranking in the Rule of Law index stood at ** out of 142 countries, a significant increase compared to 2015.

Environmental Justice areas in this guide have been defined by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The Department defines an environmental justice area as any census tract where at least 20 percent of the population lives in poverty, and/or 30 percent or more of the population is minority.

Support for Health Equity datasets and tools provided by Amazon Web Services (AWS) through their Health Equity Initiative.