Douglas Yearwood Award Winners
Permanent URI for this collection
The publications in this collection are winners of the Douglas Yearwood Award, which recognizes outstanding efforts by Statistical Analysis Centers to apply empirical analysis to criminal justice policymaking in the states. There are two award categories: Statistical/Management and Research/Policy Analysis. Each year JRSA recognizes two SACs in each category based on the staff size. One for small SACs with fewer than five full-time staff and one for large SACs.
Browse
Recent Submissions
- ItemStatistical Transparency of Policing Report Per House Bill 2355 (2017)(Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, 2021-12-01) Oregon Criminal Justice CommissionThis publication won the 2022 Douglas Yearwood Award for Research/Policy. House Bill 2355 (2017) mandated that by 2021, all Oregon law enforcement agencies must submit data regarding officer-initiated traffic and pedestrian stops to the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, so the Commission could analyze the submitted data for evidence of racial or ethnic disparities on an annual basis. To accomplish these ends, the Commission, along with the Oregon State Police and the Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST), created the Oregon Statistical Transparency of Policing (STOP) Program. This is the third annual report to the Oregon Legislature by the STOP Program examining data received pursuant to HB 2355.
- ItemBias and Hate Crimes in Maine: Reconciling Reported and Investigated Crimes(Maine Statistical Center, University of Southern Maine, 2022-05) Brintlinger, Hannah; Shaler, George; McDevitt, JackThis publication won the 2022 Douglas Yearwood Award for Research/Policy. The Maine Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) worked with several criminal justice stakeholders across the state to determine arrest rates and outcomes for hate and bias crimes in Maine that were reported by law enforcement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Report (UCR) program from 2008 to 2017. Hate and bias-motivated crimes in Maine that were reported to the FBI’s UCR program decreased by 49% from 2008 to 2017. The Maine SAC requested arrest data from all local law enforcement agencies that reported at least one hate or bias incident to the FBI during the study period. The Maine SAC then submitted data requests to the Maine Attorney General’s office to ascertain whether a civil order was filed under the Maine Civil Rights Act for the hate and bias crimes reported during the study period. Similar to the request sent to the Attorney General’s office, the Maine SAC sent each District Attorney’s office a request asking for information about any criminal proceedings brought against the accused. Data from these three sources were then merged to determine outcomes (i.e., did an arrest occur, were civil orders filed, and was the case accepted for criminal prosecution) for each incident. A total of 445 hate and bias crimes in Maine were reported to the FBI from 2008 to 2017. Of these crimes, the Maine SAC was able to compile outcome information for 414 cases for this study. This outcome information is generally not available in states across the country. This report summarizes the findings.
- ItemRecidivism in Delaware: An Analysis of Offenders Released in 2012 Through 2014(Delaware Statistical Analysis Center, 12/1/2018) Huenke, AndrewThis publication won the 2019 Douglas Yearwood Award in the Statistical/Management category. This legislatively-mandated, annual report explores the three required recidivism measures, recommitment, reconviction, and rearrest, for 2015 prison releases. Also, the Center introduced a new measure for this year's report, return to prison. This report provides a detailed methodology of how these four categories are measured. As in previous reports, only Delaware recidivism events are utilized to calculate these rates. Since the inception of the report, three-year cumulative recidivism rates have continued to trend downward. Return to prison rates have ranged between 18-23%, recommitment rates between 62-69%, reconviction rates between 63-74%, and rearrest rates between 70-77%. Since the 2011 release cohort, all three required measures of recidivism have been at the lower end of those ranges, with the 2015 release cohort having the lowest recidivism rates for the required measures in the eight years analyzed (62.2% for recommitment, 63.4% for reconviction, and 70.3% for rearrest).
- ItemRecidivism in Delaware: An Analysis of Prisoners Released in 2012 through 2014(Delaware Statistical Analysis Center, 12/1/2018) Huenke, A.This publication won the 2019 Douglas Yearwood Award in Statistical/Management. This legislatively mandated report explores the required recidivism measure of rearrest, reconviction, and recommitment for 2014 prison release cohort. It also provides a detailed methodology on how these three categories are measured. As in previous reports, only Delaware recidivism events are utilized to calculate these rates. Since the inception of the report, three-year cumulative recidivism rates have remained consistent. Rearrest rates have ranged between 72-77%, reconviction rates between 67-74%, and recommitment rates between 63-69%. Since the 2011 release cohort, all three measures of recidivism have been at the lower end of those ranges, with the 2014 release cohort having the lowest recidivism rates in the seven years measured (72.8% for rearrest, 67.6% for reconviction, and 63.5% for recommitment).
- ItemA Study of the Root Causes of Juvenile Justice System Involvement(District of Columbia Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, 11/1/2020) Sill, KaitlynThis publication won the 2021 Douglas Yearwood Award for Statistical/Management. The Council of the District of Columbia mandated the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) submit a report to the Mayor and Council on the root causes of youth crime and prevalence of adverse childhood experiences that incorporates results from a voluntary survey of justice-involved youth on their perspectives. The CYJAA specified that the report should examine factors “such as housing instability, child abuse, family instability, substance abuse, mental illness, family criminal involvement, and other factors deemed relevant by the CJCC†(D.C. Law 21-23). In accordance with this mandate, CJCC obtained administrative data1 from multiple sectors on a representative sample of youth enrolled in public schools in the District during the 2016 – 2017 school year and identified who was justice-involved, which was defined as being arrested or petitioned/charged the following year. During the fall of 2018, we conducted surveys and focus groups with DYRS-committed and DOC-incarcerated youth under the age of 21, and, during the spring and summer of 2018, we conducted interviews with youth service providers. This report integrates the results and addresses the following questions: 1. How do justice-involved youth differ from non-justice involved youth? 2. What factors affect the likelihood that youth become involved in the juvenile justice system? 3. How and why do these factors impact youth behavior?