My da|ra Login

Detailed view

metadata language: English

Census of Juveniles on Probation, United States, 2012

Version
v0
Resource Type
Dataset : census/enumeration data, survey data
Creator
  • United States. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Other Title
  • CJOP 2012 (Alternative Title)
  • Archival Version (Subtitle)
Publication Date
2020-01-30
Publication Place
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Publisher
  • Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research
Funding Reference
  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Language
English
Free Keywords
Schema: ICPSR
age; gender; juvenile justice; juvenile offenders; offenses; probation; probationers; race; supervision
Description
  • Abstract

    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.
  • Methods

    DS1: Probationer's sex, race, age, year and month of birth, most serious offense, and weights. DS2: Factors for national analysis.
  • Methods

    ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Created variable labels and/or value labels.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
  • Methods

    Response Rates: Some agencies did not respond. There are many reasons for non-response. In some cases, agencies simply did not have the ability to pull data at all or could not provide it in the requested format, while other agencies did not have the staff resources to provide the data requested. In some instances, agencies elected not to participate. If a reporting agency did not respond, all juvenile data kept by the agency were considered missing. The reporting agencies varied in their coverage of geographic areas and types of juvenile probationers. Some agencies reported individual juvenile probationer data for their entire state, whereas the majority of reporters covered a single county. Some states had multiple reporters, with one that reported for the majority of their state and other reporters that represented smaller geographic areas. Sometimes, other reporters handled specific types of juvenile probationers across the entire state regardless of the area. Twenty-six states reported individual-level data for all juvenile probationers in their states, 17 states reported data for slightly less than 100% of youth on formal probation, and the remaining 8 states reported little to no individual data. Among the 8 incomplete states, 4 were able to provide aggregate counts of the number of youth on formal probation, but could not provide any individual details. The original 2012 CJP survey frame included 783 agencies, which was reduced to 694 after removing duplicates and ineligible agencies discovered after data collection. Of these 694 agencies, 368 provided individual level data on juvenile probationers. As such, the agency level response rate for reporting agencies is 53% (368/694). However, relying on this response rate alone is misleading because one reporting agency could either represent an entire state or a single local jurisdiction. Therefore, the more informative response rate for CJP is the response rate associated with the individual juveniles on probation, not of reporting agencies. This alternative response rate was calculated for 50 states and DC by dividing the national estimate of youth on probation (247,050) by the number of probationers reported by participating agencies (176,426), which yields a response rate of 71%. The large difference between the agency-level response rate and juvenile-level response rate indicates that larger reporting agencies responded more often.
  • Abstract

    Datasets:

    • DS0: Study-Level Files
    • DS1: National Data
    • DS2: Factors for National Data
Temporal Coverage
  • Time period: 2012
  • Collection date: 2013--2014
  • 2013 / 2014
Geographic Coverage
  • Alabama
  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • Arkansas
  • California
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • Delaware
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Hawaii
  • Idaho
  • Illinois
  • Indiana
  • Iowa
  • Kansas
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Maine
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Mississippi
  • Missouri
  • Montana
  • Nebraska
  • Nevada
  • New Hampshire
  • New Jersey
  • New Mexico
  • New York (state)
  • North Carolina
  • North Dakota
  • Ohio
  • Oklahoma
  • Oregon
  • Pennsylvania
  • Rhode Island
  • South Carolina
  • South Dakota
  • Tennessee
  • Texas
  • United States
  • Utah
  • Vermont
  • Virginia
  • Washington
  • West Virginia
  • Wisconsin
  • Wyoming
Sampled Universe
All juveniles on formal court-ordered probation, including those on court-ordered aftercare or reentry supervision on the reference date of October 24, 2012 in the United States. Smallest Geographic Unit: State
Sampling
Formal probation includes youth adjudicated for one or more delinquency or status offenses, and includes school-based probation if a court ordered it following adjudication. This also includes juveniles supervised via contract by private agencies. The Census of Juveniles on Probation (CJP) also includes: Juveniles receiving aftercare/reentry supervision if it is a continuation of formal court-ordered probation following release from residential placement.; Juveniles who were legally the responsibility of a responding agency but were supervised outside its jurisdiction, such as through an interstate compact agreement.; The CJP does not include the following: Persons under the jurisdiction of an adult court.; Juveniles under informal probation supervision. Informal juvenile probation is the supervision of persons who have reached an agreement with the probation authority to be supervised in the school or community. Those individuals have not been ordered by a court to serve a period of community supervision following their adjudication. ; Juveniles on school-based probation if it was not ordered by a court following adjudication.; Juveniles residing in a correctional facility, detention center, boot camp, residential treatment facility, or other community-based facility, even if they are also on probation.; Those juveniles are counted by another OJJDP data collection.; Juveniles on parole.; Juveniles supervised on behalf of another jurisdiction through interstate compact.;
Collection Mode
  • mail questionnaire
  • web-based survey
Availability
Delivery
One or more files in this study are not available for download due to special restrictions; consult the study documentation to learn more on how to obtain the data.
Alternative Identifiers
  • 37438 (Type: ICPSR Study Number)
Relations
  • Is previous version of
    DOI: 10.3886/ICPSR37438.v1

Update Metadata: 2020-01-30 | Issue Number: 2 | Registration Date: 2020-01-30

United States. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2020): Census of Juveniles on Probation, United States, 2012. Archival Version. Version: v0. ICPSR - Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37438