Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:30 pm
Time: 10:30 pm
Results for data analysis
3 results foundAuthor: Gray, Brett Title: Exploring the Benefits of Data Mining on Juvenile Justice Data: QCIF Final Report Summary: Although data mining has proven to be a useful methodology in a number of fields, its use in criminal justice applications and research is in its infancy. Given this, the purpose of this project is to apply a number of data mining techniques to data of Queensland juvenile court appearances to extract relevant, potentially unforseen, relationships. Details: Mt. Gravatt, Queensland: Griffith University, Justice Modelling, 2008. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2010 at: http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/10072/21293/1/53136__1.pdf Year: 2008 Country: Australia URL: http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/10072/21293/1/53136__1.pdf Shelf Number: 117390 Keywords: Data AnalysisJuvenile Justice Statistics |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Assistance Title: PREA Data Collection Activities, 2011 Summary: The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108-79) requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to carry out, for each calendar year, a comprehensive statistical review of the incidence and effects of prison rape in randomly selected federal, state, and county correctional facilities. Every year since 2004, BJS has collected administrative records on allegations and substantiated incidents of sexual victimization in correctional facilities nationwide. BJS also conducted interviews with prison and jail inmates in 2007 and 2008-09 and youth held in juvenile correctional facilities in 2008-09. During 2010, BJS in collaboration with the National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a feasibility study using clinical indicators to track sexual violence in prisons and jails. This report provides selected findings and status updates on each of these data collection efforts. Details: Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 2011. 4p. Source: NCJ 234183: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2012 at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pdca11.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pdca11.pdf Shelf Number: 124579 Keywords: Data AnalysisPrison Rape |
Author: Friedmann, Robert R. Title: Improving Crime Data Project Summary: The criminal justice system lags behind other social service providers and the private sector in the development, timely dissemination, and use of reliable statistical indicators to monitor, predict, and prevent crime. Deficiencies in the nation’s crime data infrastructure deny policymakers the ability to make decisions based on sound and timely information. In contrast, health, education, business, and economics possess readily available data for forecasting and planning. Too often in criminal justice data are not compiled in standardized formats suitable for policy development or program evaluation without time-consuming, repetitive, and costly compilation and analysis efforts. In smaller agencies large amounts of data are still collected by hand and few agencies are able to routinely share comparable data across jurisdictions. Moreover, law enforcement data are generally devoid of other relevant attributes (such as census information) and are reported in tabular or aggregate formats that are not suitable for policy-relevant research. These problems indicate a demonstrable need for improvements in criminal justice data collection, analysis, and dissemination methods to facilitate better strategic choices and policy decisions. Georgia State University and the University of Missouri-St. Louis, in conjunction with the Great Cities’ Universities (GCU) coalition of urban public universities, proposed to develop a model for improved data compilation, analysis, and dissemination across criminal justice jurisdictions in the United States. The objective was to enable agencies to “talk” to each other so that, for example, what is defined as a gang-related assault or drug-related robbery in one jurisdiction is comparable to the same behavior in another jurisdiction. The project focused on improving crime data produced and used primarily by law enforcement agencies. But the proposed model also can be applied across levels within the justice system so that data can be more smoothly transferred between the various system components (law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, courts, corrections). This project - Improving Crime Data (ICD) - was earmarked in legislation and housed in the National Institute of Justice. It is not a standard research project, but rather a demonstration project intended to devise and implement a model of crime data compilation and analysis that can be used by multiple agencies. The project team also provided technical assistance to participating agencies to facilitate implementation and use of the model. As important background, the project team conducted an assessment of the current state of major crime indicators (UCR, NIBRS). The major conclusion of that assessment is that the current indicators do not provide timely or useful information for policy development or evaluation or for strategic initiatives by police managers. The UCR data lack sufficient detail and are badly out of date when disseminated. NIBRS is more promising, but nationwide implementation is a long way off. In response, we sought to assemble a coalition of law enforcement agencies and with their continuous input develop model crime indicators and information technology to access and analyze them that can be applied directly and immediately to crime issues in the areas in which the agencies are located. The project succeeded in establishing basic “proof of concept” for the model crime indicators, a common data platform, and common analysis capabilities. But we had to address several challenges along the way, both technical and organizational, that highlight the fragility of interagency coalitions, the arduous task of sharing even basic data elements across agencies, and the ambivalence of many police managers regarding the utility of cross-jurisdictional data sharing for meeting pressing organizational objectives. Details: Atlanta, GA: Statistical Analysis Bureau, Georgia State University, 2010. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 24, 2012 at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237988.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237988.pdf Shelf Number: 125056 Keywords: Crime DataCrime StatisticsData AnalysisData Sharing |