This project undertook the systematic collection of first-generation data concerning the nature, extent, and seriousness of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in the United States. The project was organized around the following research objectives: (1) identification of the nature, extent, and underlying causes of CSE and the commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC) occurring in the United States, (2) identification of those subgroups of children that were at the greatest risk of being sexually exploited, (3) identification of subgroups of adult perpetrators of sex crimes against children, and (4) identification of the modes of operation and other methods used by organized criminal units to recruit children into sexually exploitative activities. The study involved surveying senior staff members of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and government organizations (GOs) in the United States known to be dealing with persons involved in the transnational trafficking of children for sexual purposes. Part 1 consists of survey data from nongovernment organizations. These were local child and family agencies serving runaway and homeless youth. Part 2 consists of survey data from government organizations. These organizations were divided into local, state, and federal agencies. Local organizations included municipal law enforcement, county law enforcement, prosecutors, public defenders, and corrections. State organizations included state child welfare directors, prosecutors, and public defenders. Federal organizations included the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Public Defenders, Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Attorneys, United States Customs, and the United States Postal Service. Variables in Parts 1 and 2 include the organization's city, state, and ZIP code, the type of services provided or type of law enforcement agency, how the agency was funded, the scope of the agency's service area, how much emphasis was placed on CSEC as a policy issue or a service issue, conditions that might influence the number of CSEC cases, how staff were trained to deal with CSEC cases, how victims were identified, the number of children that experienced child abuse, sexual abuse, pornography, or other exploitation in 1999 and 2000 by age and gender, methods of recruitment, family history of victims, gang involvement, and substance abuse history of victims.

This study offers novel insights into mechanisms associated with sexual assault (SA) among sexual minority women (SMW). Experiences of bias and stigma contribute to lower rates of SA reporting by this population. This results in victims with unmet needs and fewer criminal prosecutions of SA perpetrators. This study used a mixed-methods approach to collect data from lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women to instigate changes that would improve responses from law enforcement, victim services, and anti-violence programs that serve SMW. This study comprised of three parts a: baseline survey, qualitative interview, and daily survey. Self-reported baseline questionnaires included topics like lifetime victimization (childhood sexual abuse, adult sexual aggression, and assault), discrimination, distress, mental health, alcohol use, and sexual history. The qualitative interviews focused on the most recent, and when applicable, the most salient adult sexual assault (ASA) incident. Interviews began by asking the participants to describe their ASA incidents with follow-probes asking about the victimization, perpetrator characteristics (gender and relationship to participant), and context of assault (role of alcohol or drugs and setting). Participants were also asked if they discussed the assault with anyone and their reasons for disclosure or non-disclosure. As well as short and long-term coping patterns. The daily survey asked participants about their mood, alcohol use, drinking contexts, and sexual experiences (consensual and non-consensual). This study contains demographic information such as: age, race, income, education, and BMI.

In 2023, Texas had the highest number of forcible rape cases in the United States, with 15,097 reported rapes. Delaware had the lowest number of reported forcible rape cases at 194. Number vs. rate It is perhaps unsurprising that Texas and California reported the highest number of rapes, as these states have the highest population of states in the U.S. When looking at the rape rate, or the number of rapes per 100,000 of the population, a very different picture is painted: Alaska was the state with the highest rape rate in the country in 2023, with California ranking as 30th in the nation. The prevalence of rape Rape and sexual assault are notorious for being underreported crimes, which means that the prevalence of sex crimes is likely much higher than what is reported. Additionally, more than a third of women worry about being sexually assaulted, and most sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone the victim knew.

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 project had three goals. One, to provide a more detailed description of injury evidence and biological evidence in sexual assault cases, including their timing relative to arrests. A second goal was to examine the relationship of forensic evidence to arrests. A third goal was to examine injury evidence and biological evidence in certain types of cases in which it may have had greater impact. To achieve these goals, the researchers created analysis data files that merged data from the Massachusetts Provided Sexual Crime Report, forensic evidence data from the two crime laboratories serving the state and data on arrests and criminal charges from 140 different police agencies.

Since 2015, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has funded sites to engage in reforms intended to improve the national response to sexual assault cases. The goals of this initiative are to (1) create a coordinated community response that ensures just resolution to unsubmitted sexual assault kit (SAK) cases through a victim-centered approach and (2) build jurisdictions' capacity to prevent the development of conditions that lead to high numbers of unsubmitted sexual assault kits. Site efforts to address these issues include agencies such as law enforcement, prosecution, forensic laboratories, and victim advocacy service organizations. Westat was awarded a contract by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to assess components of BJA's Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI). The study includes (1) an evaluability assessment of 17 sites to determine their readiness for an evaluation, (2) a process evaluation and system reform assessment of the 17 sites, (3) a feasibility assessment of using case level data for an outcome evaluation, and analysis of a subset of unsubmitted SAK cases to identify how characteristics of incidents, offenders, and victims are associated with case processing decisions and outcomes, and (4) development of a long-term outcome evaluation plan. Two sources of data are archived with NAJCD: (1) coded qualitative data from primarily on-site interviews the Westat Team conducted in 2018 with stakeholders from 17 of the fiscal year (FY) 2015 SAKI grantees and 2 private lab facilities and 2) quantitative case-level data from the 2 FY 2015 SAKI grantees on SAKI cases associated with previously unsubmitted sexual assault kits that were determined to contain foreign DNA or biological evidence through laboratory testing. The interview data file contains coded data from 172 interviews the research team conducted with one or more agency representatives regarding their organization's goals, strategies, and activities for processing sexual assault kits, and associated lessons learned, challenges, and expected outcomes. The quantitative case-level data file includes case-level information on 576 sexual assault kits determined to have DNA and associated cases included in the 2 sites' SAKI inventories. The case-level data captures information on case or offense-level information (e.g., date of offense, date offense reported to police, number of victims and suspects involved, investigation and prosecution activities), victim-level information (e.g., victim age, sex, race, participation in investigation), and suspect-level information (e.g., suspect's age, race, sex, criminal history).

This dataset contains aggregate data by State Fiscal Year of all child abuse/neglect reports accepted by DCF CareLine for either a traditional Child Protective Services (CPS) Investigation or, as of SFY2012, a Family Assessment Response (FAR). Figures are provided by mandated Response Time and Response Type, for each DCF Area Office beginning with SFY2011. Each report accepted is screened for safety and risk factors, and assigned an amount of time within which the agency is required to respond to the report. Mandated response times include “Same Day”, “24 Hours”, and “72 Hours”. Traditionally, DCF responded to all reports through a Child Protective Services (CPS) Investigation only. As of April 2012, DCF began its Family Assessment Response (FAR) to low-risk reports which does not include the decision to substantiate or not to substantiate the allegations of neglect in these reports. As a result, there have been fewer substantiated allegations since its implementation but, the agency continues to serve as many or more families reported for abuse/neglect.

The numbers of single perpetrator relationships (unique count) are counted once for each relationship category. Perpetrators with two or more relationships are counted in the multiple relationship category. Numbers are for the most recent federal fiscal year for which data are available.

To view more National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) findings, click link to summary page below: https://healthdata.gov/stories/s/kaeg-w7jc

Analysis of ‘Child Protective Service Reports Accepted by State Fiscal Year, Response Time and Type’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/ede18176-12cf-4ccb-99e0-27e7ba5d8a44 on 26 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

This dataset contains aggregate data by State Fiscal Year of all child abuse/neglect reports accepted by DCF CareLine for either a traditional Child Protective Services (CPS) Investigation or, as of SFY2012, a Family Assessment Response (FAR). Figures are provided by mandated Response Time and Response Type, for each DCF Area Office beginning with SFY2011. Each report accepted is screened for safety and risk factors, and assigned an amount of time within which the agency is required to respond to the report. Mandated response times include “Same Day”, “24 Hours”, and “72 Hours”. Traditionally, DCF responded to all reports through a Child Protective Services (CPS) Investigation only. As of April 2012, DCF began its Family Assessment Response (FAR) to low-risk reports which does not include the decision to substantiate or not to substantiate the allegations of neglect in these reports. As a result, there have been fewer substantiated allegations since its implementation but, the agency continues to serve as many or more families reported for abuse/neglect.

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

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.This study presents a research-informed approach to identify the most efficient practices for addressing un-submitted sexual assault kits (SAKs) that accrue in U.S. law enforcement agencies (LEAs) as well as untested SAKs pending analysis in crime laboratories. The study examined intra- and interagency dynamics associated with SAK processing efficiency in a linked sample of crime laboratories. SAK outputs and inputs were assessed for laboratories that conduct biological forensic analysis and LEAs that submit SAK evidence to these laboratories. Production functions were estimated to examine effects of labor and capital inputs, in addition to policies, management systems, and cross-agency coordination on efficiency. Six jurisdictions were recruited for site visits, and qualitative methods were used to understand how LEAs, laboratories, and prosecutors implement practices that affect efficiency.This study contains 7 data files including:Crime Lab_Raw.dta (n=147; variables =242)Crosswalk File.dta (n=2337; variables=2)lab_analysis_sample_2017-04-06.dta (n=132; variables=92)LEA Communication LCAs.dta (n=321; variables=15merged_analysis_file_JH2017-04-30.dta (n=273; variables=117)policy Class probabilities_LABS.dta (n=139; variables=19)SAK LAB COMMUNICATION LCA.dta (n=134; variables=15)

The number of child fatalities (unique count) for the last five federal fiscal years for which data are available.

To view more National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) findings, click link to summary page below: https://healthdata.gov/stories/s/kaeg-w7jc

Numbers and rates of child victims by single year age and by state for the most recent federal fiscal year for which data are available. To view more National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) findings, click link to summary page below: https://healthdata.gov/stories/s/kaeg-w7jc

Child Protective Investigations (CPI) is authorized to investigate abuse and neglect allegedly committed by a person responsible for a child's care, custody or welfare and to protect abused and neglected children from further harm. This authorization is derived from the U.S. Social Securities Act, Texas Family Code, Human Resources Code, Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, Indian Child Welfare Act and the Adam Walsh Act. CPI conducts either a traditional investigation or Alternative Response (AR). Both require CPI to assess safety and take needed actions to protect a child and assess the risk of future abuse or neglect in the foreseeable future. AR, however, allows for a more flexible, family engaging approach on lower priority cases involving alleged victims who are age 6 or older. AR differs from traditional investigations in that there is no substantiation of allegations, no entry of perpetrators into the Central Registry (a repository for reports of child abuse and neglect), and there a heightened focus on guiding the family to plan for safety in a way that works for them and therefore sustains the safety. Completed investigations only include those cases conducted as a traditional investigation that were not administratively closed or merged into another stage. An investigation can only be administratively closed if all allegations have a disposition of administrative closure. A completed investigation can include more than one alleged victim. Completed investigations do not include any Alternative Response cases. A description of Alternative Response and how it differs from a traditional investigation is in the glossary. FOOTNOTES An investigation represents a report of abuse or neglect and can involve multiple children. The data on completed investigations does not include investigative stages that were administratively closed or merged into another investigation. All completed investigations have a case disposition and a risk finding. Visit dfps.state.tx.us for information on Abuse/Neglect Investigations and all DFPS programs.

Statewide Intake (SWI) has the responsibility to assess information received to the definitions of possible abuse, neglect or exploitation for each program served and to prioritize and route the information to the correct destination workload. SWI is the centralized point of intake for child abuse and neglect, abuse, neglect or exploitation of people age 65 or older or adults with disabilities, clients served by DSHS or DADS employees in State Hospitals or State Supported Living Centers, and children in licensed child-care facilities or treatment centers for the entire State of Texas. SWI receives intake reports for the following Programs: Adult Protective Services (APS) Adult Provider Investigations Child Protective Investigations (CPI) Day Care Licensing (DCL) Residential Child Care Licensing (RCCL) FOOTNOTES Not all reports are assigned for investigation. There can be more than one source per contact. This dashboard counts report contacts determined by the date of contact. Visit dfps.state.tx.us for information on all DFPS programs

This dataset contains aggregate data by State Fiscal Year of all child abuse/neglect reports accepted by DCF CareLine for either a traditional Child Protective Services (CPS) Investigation or, as of SFY2012, a Family Assessment Response (FAR). Figures are provided by mandated Response Time and Response Type, for each DCF Area Office beginning with SFY2011. Each report accepted is screened for safety and risk factors, and assigned an amount of time within which the agency is required to respond to the report. Mandated response times include “Same Day”, “24 Hours”, and “72 Hours”. Traditionally, DCF responded to all reports through a Child Protective Services (CPS) Investigation only. As of April 2012, DCF began its Family Assessment Response (FAR) to low-risk reports which does not include the decision to substantiate or not to substantiate the allegations of neglect in these reports. As a result, there have been fewer substantiated allegations since its implementation but, the agency continues to serve as many or more families reported for abuse/neglect.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether adult sexual assault cases in a Midwestern community were more likely to be investigated and prosecuted after the implementation of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program, and to identify the 'critical ingredients' that contributed to that increase. Part 1 (Study 1: Case Records Quantitative Data) used a quasi-experimental, nonequivalent comparison group cohort design to compare criminal justice systems outcomes for adult sexual assault cases treated in county hospitals five years prior to the implementation of the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program (January 1994 to August 1999) (the comparison group, n=156) to cases treated in the focal SANE program during its first seven years of operation (September 1999 to December 2005) (the intervention group, n=137). Variables include focus on case outcome, law enforcement agency that handled the case, DNA findings, and county-level factors, including prosecutor elections and the emergence of the focal SANE program. Part 2 (Study 2: Case Characteristics Quantitative Data) used the adult sexual assault cases from the Study 1 intervention group (post-SANE) (n=137) to examine whether victim characteristics, assault characteristics, and the presence and type of medical forensic evidence predicted case progression outcomes. Part 3 (Study 3: Police and Prosecutors Interview Qualitative Data) used in-depth interviews in April and May of 2007 with law enforcement supervisors (n=9) and prosecutors (n=6) in the focal county responsible for the prosecution of adult sexual assault crimes to explore if and how the SANEs affect the way in which police and prosecutors approach such cases. The interviews focused on four main topics: (1) whether they perceived a change in investigations and prosecution of adult sexual assault cases in post-SANE, (2) their assessment of the quality and utility of the forensic evidence provided by SANEs, (3) their perceptions regarding whether inter-agency training has improved the quality of police investigations and reports post-SANE, and (4) their perceptions regarding if and how the SANE program increased communication and collaboration among legal and medical personnel, and if such changes have influenced law enforcement investigational practices or prosecutor charging decisions.Part 4 (Study 4: Police Reports Quantitative Data) examined police reports written before and after the implementation of the SANE program to determine whether there had been substantive changes in ways sexual assaults cases were investigated since the emergence of the SANE program. Variables include whether the police had referred the case to the prosecutor, indicators of SANE involvement, and indicators of law enforcement effort. Part 5 (Study 5: Survivor Interview Qualitative Data) focused on understanding how victims characterized the care they received at the focal SANE program as well as their expriences with the criminal justices system. Using prospective sampling and community-based retrospective purposive sampling, twenty adult sexual assault vicitims were identified and interviewed between January 2006 and May 2007. Interviews covered four topics: (1) the rape itself and initial disclosures, (2) victims' experiences with SANE program staff including nurses and victim support advocates, (3) the specific role forensic evidence played in victims' decisions to participate in prosecution, and (4) victims' experiences with law enforcement, prosecutors, and judicial proceedings, and if/how the forensic nurses and advocates influenced those interactions. Part 6 (Study 6: Forensic Nurse Interview Qualitative Data) examined forensic nurses' perspectives on how the SANE program could affect survivor participation with prosecution indirectly and how the interactions between SANEs and law enforcement could be contributing to increased investigational effort. Between July and August of 2008, six Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANEs) were interviewed. The interviews explored three topics: (1) the nurses' philosophy on victim reporting and participating in prosecution, (2) their perceptions regarding how patient care may or may not affect victim participation in the criminal justice system, and (3) their perception of how the SANE programs influence the work of law enforcement investigational practices.The interviews explored three topics: (1) the nurses' philosophy on victim reporting and participating in prosecution, (2) their perceptions regarding how patient care may or may not affect victim participation in the criminal justice system, and (3) their perception of how the SANE programs influence the work of law enforcement investigational practices.

Analysis of ‘Child Victims by Age’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/e087a1be-61dc-4425-aa05-44a6c1a544b2 on 27 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Numbers and rates of child victims by single year age and by state for the most recent federal fiscal year for which data are available.

To view more National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) findings, click link to summary page below: https://healthdata.gov/stories/s/kaeg-w7jc

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

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 project explored the use and impact of injury evidence and biological evidence through a study of the role of these forms of evidence in prosecuting sexual assault in an urban district attorney's office in a metropolitan area in the eastern United States. The research questions addressed in this summary overview were as follows: How frequent were different forms of injury evidence and biological evidence in the sample? Is the presence of injury evidence and biological evidence correlated with the presence of other forms of evidence?Which types of cases and case circumstances are more likely to yield injury evidence and biological evidence? Do the presence of injury evidence and biological evidence predict criminal justice outcomes, taking into account the effects of other predictors? In what ways do prosecutors use injury evidence and biological evidence and what is their appraisal of their impact on case outcomes? The collection contains 1 SPSS data file, DataArchiveFile_InjuryEvidenceForensicEvidenceandthe ProsecutionofSexualAssault4-7-17.sav (n=257; 417 variables).The qualitative data files were excluded from deposit with ICPSR and are not available as part of this data collection at this time.

The number of maltreatment types (duplicate count) are counted once for each substantiated maltreatment, but only once per category, by state. Percentages are calculated against the number of victims (unique count).

To view more National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) findings, click link to summary page below: https://healthdata.gov/stories/s/kaeg-w7jc

This chart counts perpetrators in completed investigations. Completed investigations only include those cases conducted as a traditional investigation that were not administratively closed or merged into another stage. An investigation can only be administratively closed if all allegations have a disposition of administrative closure. A completed investigation can include more than one alleged victim. Completed investigations do not include any Alternative Response cases. A confirmed perpetrator on a completed investigation is an individual who is a confirmed perpetrator on at least one allegation with a disposition of reason to believe. An alleged perpetrator on a completed investigation is an individual where all the allegations on which they were an alleged perpetrator have a disposition of ruled out, unable to complete or unable to determine. A description of Alternative Response and how it differs from a traditional investigation and the definitions of the different dispositions in a traditional investigation are in the glossary. FOOTNOTES 1. Each victim may have more than one perpetrator in an investigation. 2. Each perpetrator may have more than one victim. Visit dfps.state.tx.us for information on CPS Abuse/Neglect Investigations and all DFPS programs.

Abstract (en): This Sexual Assault Among Latinas (SALAS) study was designed to examine interpersonal victimization among a national sample of Latino women, particularly focusing on help-seeking behaviors, culturally relevant factors, and psychosocial impacts. A national sample of 2,000 adult Latino women living in the United States participated in the study. An experienced survey research firm with specialization in doing surveys that ask about sensitive subjects conducted interviews between May 28, 2008 and September 3, 2008 using a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) system. The data contain a total of 1,388 variables including demographics, victimization history, help-seeking efforts, mental health status, and religious behavior and beliefs variables. This study was designed to examine interpersonal victimization among a national sample of Latino women, particularly focusing on help-seeking behaviors, culturally relevant factors, and psychosocial impacts. More specifically, the researchers aimed to fulfill the following research goals: Determine the extent of sexual victimization amongst adult Latino females.; Determine the coexistence of other forms of victimization among those sexually victimized.; Examine formal service utilization among sexually victimized Latino women.; Examine informal help-seeking among sexually victimized Latino women.; Examine culturally-relevant factors associated with the experience of and responses to sexual violence.; Determine the psychosocial impact of sexual victimization on Latino women.; A national sample of 2,000 adult Latino women living in the United States participated in the study. An experienced survey research firm with specialization in doing surveys that ask about sensitive subjects (e.g., interpersonal violence) conducted the interviews in either English or Spanish using a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) system. The interviewers were specifically trained on the SALAS survey and closely supervised during the data collection process. Only female interviewers were used since previous surveys using this methodology showed that potential respondents were more likely to participate in the study if the interviewer is a woman. An initial attempt and four callbacks were made to reach a specific household, and then an additional three calls were made once a case was reached until final disposition was obtained (e.g., a completed survey or refusal). All calls were made between 5pm and 9pm during the weekdays, between 10am and 9pm on Saturdays, and 11am to 9pm on Sundays and all interviews were conducted between May 28, 2008 and September 3, 2008. Once a respondent was selected, they were read the informed consent and asked if they were willing to participate in the study. If they agreed to participate, they were interviewed at the current time or asked if they wished to be called back at a more convenient time. Before starting the survey questions, participants were given a code phrase to say ("OK, you're welcome") if they needed to suddenly end the call (e.g., due to safety or confidentiality concerns). Participants were then asked the various study instruments in the following order: questions about state of social issues, demographic information, acculturation, lifetime victimization, help-seeking behaviors for the event that took place in the United States that was most upsetting, religiosity, gender role ideology, psychological symptoms, and posttraumatic symptoms. Upon completion of the survey, participants were paid $10 for their participation The data contain a total of 1,388 variables including demographics, state of social issues, victimization history, help-seeking efforts, mental health status, and religious behavior and beliefs variables. Regarding demographics, the dataset has questions on the participant's age, country of origin, citizenship status, preferred language, sexual orientation, education level, employment status, household income, housing status, and relationship status (e.g., married, single, etc). In addition, the data include questions that assess the degree to which participants view discrimination, violent crime, domestic violence, sexual assault and sexual harassment as problems in society. The survey also asks questions about stalking, physical assaults, weapon assaults, physical assaults in childhood, threats, threats with weapons, sexual assault, attempted sexual assault, sexual fondling, kidnapping, and witnessed victimizat...