Domestic relationships include intimate partners, immediate family members, and other relatives.
Intimate relationships are defined as current or former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends, including same sex relationships. Intimates are distinguished from
- other relatives, such as a parent, child, sibling, grandparent, in-law, cousin
- acquaintances, such as a friend, coworker, neighbor, schoolmate, someone known
- strangers who are anyone not previously known by the victim.
Violence between intimates is difficult to measure because it often occurs in private, and victims are often reluctant to report incidents to anyone because of shame or fear of reprisal.
The types of contact in the PPCS include those initiated by residents, those initiated by police, and resulting from a traffic accident. Resident-initiated contacts include reporting a crime, disturbance, or suspicious activity; reporting a non-crime emergency, such as a medical emergency; reporting a non-emergency, such as asking for directions, custody enforcement, and court orders; participating in a block watch or other anti-crime programs; or approaching or seeking help from police for another reason. Police-initiated contacts include being stopped by police while in a public place or a parked vehicle (i.e., street stop), being stopped by police while driving a motor vehicle (i.e., traffic stop), riding as a passenger in a car that was stopped by police, being arrested, or being stopped or approached by police for some other reason. The PPCS also collected data on contacts resulting from a traffic accident.
Sworn officers have full arrest powers granted by a state or local government. Nonsworn officers do not have the ability to arrest and serve in the capacity of a security officer.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) 2003 survey, state and local law enforcement agencies with 100 or more sworn personnel, employing 59% of officers nationwide, received nearly 27,000 citizen complaints about police use of force during 2002. About 8% of these force complaints were sustained; that is, there was sufficient evidence to justify disciplinary action against the officer or officers. See Citizen Complaints about Police Use of Force
CBP officers are tasked with stopping terrorists, terrorist weapons, illegal drugs, aliens, and materials harmful to agriculture from entering the United States. These officers perform patrol and response functions along, and in the vicinity of, the 8,000 miles of U.S. boundaries.
In addition to felony criminal matters, prosecutors’ offices handled a variety of other case types. A greater number of prosecutors’ offices reported computer-based offenses and taking on homeland security responsibilities. In 2005, 60% of all state court prosecutors reported prosecuting crimes under the state’s computer crime statute, compared to 42% in 2001. About 80% of all offices reported handling credit card fraud, bankcard fraud (71%), identity theft (70%), and transmitting child pornography in 2005.
Full-time prosecutors’ offices were more likely to report prosecuting cases related to terrorism or participating in terrorism related investigations, compared to small full-time offices or part-time offices. In 2005, 2% of all prosecutor offices reported prosecuting cases related to terrorism; 7% actively participated in terrorism related investigations; and a third had members of the staff attend training on homeland security issues. Nearly a quarter of all offices participated in state or local task forces for homeland security.
Staffing and budget increases experienced by state court prosecutors' offices in the 1990s generally leveled off by 2001. Resources available to state court prosecutors' offices in 2005 were similar to those in 2001. In 2005 state court prosecutors' offices employed approximately 78,000 attorneys, investigators and support staff, had a median annual budget of $355,000, and closed about 250 or more felony cases.
In 2005, 24% of prosecutors’ offices reported problems recruiting new staff, and 35% had problems retaining staff attorneys. Thirty-seven percent of full-time medium offices and 27% of full-time large offices reported problems recruiting new staff attorneys, compared to 11% of part-time offices. Among offices identifying staff retention and recruitment problems, salary was the number one concern.
The Prosecutors in State Courts statistical series began in 1990. The series focuses on the nation's 2,300 state court prosecutors' offices that handle felony cases in state courts of general jurisdiction. The National District Attorneys Association (NDAA), prosecutors across the nation, and individuals interested in acquiring a better understanding of state prosecutor operations extensively use the data on the number of staff, annual budget, criminal caseloads, and other office characteristics. The 2007 National Census of State Court Prosecutors (NCSP), currently underway, will provide more recent estimates. See Prosecutors in State Courts, 2005, to read more about prosecutors in state courts in 2005.
Overall, plaintiffs won in 56% of all tort and contract trials in 2005. The rate of plaintiff success varied according to the type of case litigated. Plaintiff win rates were not applicable to real property trials.
Plaintiffs were more likely to win in contract cases (66%) than in tort cases (52%). Mortgage foreclosure (89%), animal attack (75%), and seller plaintiff (75%) cases had the highest percentage of plaintiffs who prevailed. Plaintiffs won in over half of the trials for motor vehicle accidents (64%), employment discrimination (61%), and product liability (55%) cases, but prevailed in less than a third of medical malpractice (23%) cases.
The 2005 Civil Justice Survey of State Courts (CJSSC) shows that about 26,950 tort, contact, and real property cases were disposed of by bench or jury trial in state courts of general jurisdiction nationwide. This amounts to a trial rate of approximately 3% for all general civil cases filed in 2005. Of the almost 27,000 trials, 68% were jury trials while in the remaining 32%, litigants waived their rights to a jury trial and had their cases heard before a judge only. See Civil Bench and Jury Trials in State Courts, 2005.
In 2005 estimated $6 billion in compensatory and punitive damages was awarded to plaintiffs who won in civil trials. The median amount awarded to plaintiff winners in all trial cases was $28,000. Contract trials garnered higher median awards ($35,000), compared to tort trials ($24,000). About 10% of plaintiffs who won in general civil trials were awarded over $250,000 in total damages while about 4% were awarded $1 million or more.
The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA), Pub. L. 110-180, was signed into law by the President on January 8, 2008. The NIAA amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 ("the Brady Act") (Pub. L. 103-159), under which the Attorney General established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The Brady Act requires Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to contact the NICS before transferring a firearm to an unlicensed person for information on whether the proposed transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under state or federal law. The NIAA was a bipartisan effort to strengthen the NICS by increasing the quantity and quality of relevant records accessible to the system.
The NIAA was enacted in the wake of the April 2007 shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech. The Virginia Tech shooter was able to purchase firearms from an FFL because information about his prohibiting mental health history was not available to the NICS and the system was therefore unable to deny the transfer of the firearms used in the shootings. The NICS is a critical tool in keeping firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons, but it is only as effective as the information entered into the databases upon which it relies. The NIAA seeks to address the gap in information available to NICS about such prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments and other prohibiting backgrounds. Filling these information gaps will better enable the system to operate as intended to keep guns out of the hands of persons prohibited by federal or state law from receiving or possessing firearms.
The NICS is a national system that checks available records in three databases to determine if prospective transferees are disqualified from receiving firearms. It is administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A NICS check includes a check of the following three databases that are maintained by the FBI:
- Interstate Identification Index (III), a database of criminal history record information,
- National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which includes information on persons subject to civil protection orders and arrest warrants
- NICS Indices, which includes the information contributed by federal and state agencies identifying persons prohibited from possessing firearms who are not included in the III or NCIC, such as persons with a prohibiting mental health history or who are illegal or unlawful aliens.
When the transferee is not a U.S. citizen, a separate query is run to confirm the transferee's immigration status. If a NICS check identifies a person as falling within a prohibited category, the FBI advises the FFL that the transfer is "denied." Individuals can appeal denials and seek correction of information in the FBI databases by either applying to the FBI or the federal or state agency that contributed the information to the FBI.
The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, 18 U.S.C. 921, et seq., establishes the following categories of persons who are prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm: Any person pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(g) or (n) who—
- has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
- is a fugitive from justice
- is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
- has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution
- is an illegal or unlawful alien or a non-immigrant alien (with certain exceptions)
- has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
- having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship
- is subject to a domestic violence protection order that meets certain requirements
- has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
- is under indictment for or has been charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
Section 922(g)(4), Title 18, United States Code, prohibits the receipt or possession of firearms by an individual who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution." Regulations issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, define these terms as follows:
Adjudicated as a mental defective.
(1) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease—
- is a danger to himself or to others
- lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(2) The term shall include —
- a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case
- those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.
Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily and a commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.
No. The NICS does not maintain a database of medical records or information on mental health diagnoses or treatment plans. When a record of a person prohibited from possessing a firearm as a result of mental health issues (i.e., a person who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or adjudicated a "mental defective" by a court, board, or other lawful authority) is entered in the NICS Indices, the entry contains only a name, other biographic identifiers (e.g., date of birth), and codes for the submitting entity and prohibited category. The NICS Indices does not contain medical records or medical information.
When information about such adjudications and commitments is provided to the NICS, the FBI can deny firearm transfers to persons with disqualifying mental health histories, both in the state where the record was created and in other states to which the individual may have subsequently moved.
The information in the NICS is subject to the Privacy Act and the privacy of the information is protected in a number of ways. The only responses provided by the NICS to a request for a NICS check is "Proceed," "Denied," or "Delayed." In cases of a "Denied" response, neither the general prohibiting category nor information about the specific event that places an individual in that prohibited category is provided to the FFL. The individual, however, is able to request information about the reason for the denial from the FBI and can appeal the denial and seek to correct incomplete or inaccurate information in the system upon which the denial is based.
In addition, as noted above, the information identifying mental health adjudications or commitments contributed by federal and state agencies is maintained in the NICS Indices. The regulations governing the NICS limits the use of the NICS Indices to (1) checks under the Brady Act by FFLs of proposed firearms transferees; (2) checks by federal, state, or local criminal justice agencies in connection with the issuance of a firearms-related or explosives-related license or permit; and (3) requests by ATF in connection with civil or criminal law enforcement relating to the federal Gun Control Act (18 U.S.C. Chapter 44) or National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. Chapter 53). Checks of the NICS Indices for general law enforcement purposes are not permitted under the regulations. See 28 CFR. 25.6(j).
The NIAA seeks to improve the information available to the NICS, so that the system can more accurately identify prohibited persons, by—
- enhancing the Brady Act requirement that federal departments and agencies provide relevant information to the NICS
- providing incentives to states to submit complete information to the Attorney General on persons prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms through—
- authorizing new grant programs for state executive and judicial branch agencies to improve information available to the NICS
- providing for Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program penalties for states that do not comply with the Act's record completeness goals.
FOR STATES: The NIAA has provisions that encourage states to meet specified goals for completeness of the records submitted to the Attorney General on individuals prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms. The records covered include automated information needed by the NICS to identify felony convictions, felony indictments, fugitives from justice, drug arrests and convictions, federally prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments, domestic violence protection orders, and misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. The Act provides for a number of incentives for states to meet the goals it sets for greater record completeness.
- First, the Act allows states to obtain a waiver, beginning in 2011, of the National Criminal History Improvement Program's (NCHIP) state matching requirement for NCHIP grants, if a state provides at least 90 percent of its records identifying the specified prohibited persons.
- Second, the Act authorizes a separate grant program to be administered consistent with NCHIP, for state executive and judicial agencies to establish and upgrade information automation and identification technologies for timely submission of final criminal record dispositions and other information relevant to NICS checks. Up to 5% of the grants may be reserved for Indian tribal governments and judicial systems.
- Finally, the Act provides for discretionary and mandatory Byrne grant penalties for non-compliance with record completeness requirements: During the 2-year period beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of the Act, up to 3% may be withheld in the case of less than 50% completeness; during the 5-year period beginning 5 years after the date of enactment of the Act, up to 4% may be withheld in the case of less than 70% completeness; thereafter, 5% must be withheld in the case of less than 90% completeness (although the mandatory reduction can be waived if there is substantial evidence of the state making a reasonable effort to comply).
IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM: The NIAA creates an independent statutory obligation for federal agencies to report records identifying prohibited persons to the Attorney General no less than quarterly. It also requires federal agencies that issue prohibiting mental health adjudications or commitments establish a program under which a person subject to such an adjudication or commitment can apply for relief from his or her firearms disability according to standards under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). Additionally, the Act provides that a prohibiting adjudication or commitment issued by a federal agency or department may be nullified in certain instances by a qualified set aside, expungement, release from mandatory treatment, or other specified means.
CHANGE TO THE MENTAL HEALTH PROHIBITOR: Prior to the NIAA, section 922(g)(4) was effectively a lifetime prohibition on possessing firearms by any person "who had been adjudicated a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution." The Act, however, provides that when relief is granted under a federal or state relief from disabilities program that meets the requirements of the Act, or when certain automatic relief conditions are met with respect to persons federally adjudicated or committed, the event giving rise to the mental health disability is "deemed not to have occurred" for purposes of the federal firearm prohibition.
There are two conditions that each state must satisfy before being eligible to receive grants:
- First, a state must provide to the Attorney General a "reasonable estimate," based on a methodology established by the Attorney General, of records subject to the Act's completeness requirements.
- Second, a state must certify, to the satisfaction of the Attorney General, that the state has implemented a program permitting persons who have been adjudicated a mental defective or committed to a mental institution to obtain relief from the firearms disabilities imposed by law as a result of such adjudication or commitment. This relief must be granted, in accordance with principles of due process, by a state court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The relief must be based on a finding that the circumstances of the disability and the person's record and reputation are such that the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety and that the granting of relief would not be contrary to the public interest.
Before the enactment of the NICS Improvement Act, a person's adjudication as a mental defective or commitment to a mental institution was effectively a lifetime prohibition. Concerns were expressed to Congress about the permanence of this prohibitor and the life-long effect it would have on persons whose mental health adjudication or commitment records would be provided to the NICS under the Act's provisions. To address these concerns, the Act included not only provisions to require or promote the sharing of the existence of information about this disability for use by the NICS, but also provisions that require or authorize the establishment of federal and state programs that allow individuals to seek relief from the federal mental health firearms disability if circumstances warrant. As of December 2017, 31 states have enacted relief programs that have been certified by the state and approved by ATF.
ATF is available to answer questions about whether existing state laws meet the standards contemplated for the state relief from disability programs contemplated in the NICS Improvement Act. ATF is also available to provide technical assistance to states seeking to establish such programs under the Act. Also see State Relief from Disabilities Program Criteria.
The Act requires the Attorney General to establish for use by the states a methodology to calculate estimates of the total number of records in each of the subcategories of records subject to the grant program's reporting requirements. The Justice Department's Bureau of Justice of Statistics (BJS) developed a data collection instrument setting forth this methodology to send to each state's NCHIP point of contact agency. In doing so, BJS coordinated with representatives of the state criminal justice information repositories, state court administrators, the National Center for State Courts, the National Association of State Mental Health Directors, and others to obtain input on state record-keeping practices to help inform the development of a methodology. The previous data collection, State Estimates of Available Records Information Collection, approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), was sent to each state for completion. To date, BJS has received estimates from 47 jurisdictions. A Frequently Asked Questions document was also available to assist respondents in completing the form. Three years of data have been collected to date. The NICS Improvement Amendments Act: State Records Estimates Development and Validation Project, Year Three Report provides information on the results of the third year of collection. BJS is continuing to work with state and federal partners to explore revised methodologies to assess record completeness and availability.
Recognizing the need to automate state record systems that contribute most of the relevant information to the FBI record systems that would be checked by the NICS, the Brady Act established NCHIP, a program of grants to be used by the states to create or improve computerized criminal history record systems, assist in the transmittal of criminal records for use by the NICS, and improve access to the NICS. NCHIP is administered by the Department's Office of Justice Programs through the Bureau of Justice Statistics. At the state level, NCHIP grants are administered by state agencies designated by the Governor for this purpose. Since 1995, NCHIP has provided over $699 million in grants to the states to improve the automation of their record systems that contribute to the FBI information used in NICS checks.
Notwithstanding these efforts under NCHIP and the tremendous progress the state and federal criminal justice information repositories have made in record automation since 1995, the databases checked by the FBI are still missing significant percentages of relevant data that originate in the states, including final dispositions of records of arrests for prohibiting offenses, records of convictions for domestic violence misdemeanor offenses, and information identifying persons with prohibiting domestic violence protection orders or with disqualifying mental health adjudications and commitments.
The NICS Improvement Act grant programs do not supplant NCHIP. Rather, the NICS Improvement Act grants are to be made in a manner "consistent with" and "in accordance with" NCHIP. The major difference from NCHIP is that the NICS Improvement Act grants may only be used for specified purposes that are related to achieving the completeness goals for the records directly related to NICS checks. In addition, the NICS Improvement Act authorizes a separate grant program for funding that is dedicated to be used by state courts systems, where most of the disposition information missing from the national repositories originates.
Fifteen states received NICS Improvement Amendments Act funding in FY 2017, totaling $11.2 million.
For more information on state-specific projects go to State-by-State Information.
Eligible applicants are professional or scholarly societies that must—
- be a U.S. based national or international organization whose members pursue scholarly, scientific, and professional knowledge concerning the measurement, etiology, consequences, prevention, control, and treatment of crime and delinquency
- have a history of promoting criminal justice education, scholarly research, and policy analysis
- have a membership that includes scholars who are national or international in scope and multidisciplinary in orientation, research professionals in agencies from all sectors of the criminal justice system, and students pursuing studies in criminal justice or related social sciences areas
- convene an annual meeting that provides a forum for sharing and discussing research and policy analyses relevant to crime and delinquency, at which funded fellowships will be featured
- if it is a for-profit organization, agree to forgo any profit or management fee.
Foreign governments, foreign organizations, and foreign institutions of higher education are not eligible to apply.
Under this program, the recipient organization, BJS, and selected research fellows will have specific responsibilities.
Professional or scholarly society responsibilities. The selected organization will ensure that the following requirements are fulfilled:
- A program coordinator is identified who will oversee the administration of the fellowship program on behalf of the professional or scholarly society.
- A solicitation for fellowship applications is developed and published annually in collaboration with BJS.
- Eligible fellowship applicants will be defined as members of the selected professional or scholarly society who are—
Preference will be given to new faculty members and persons who recently received their doctorate degree. Funded fellowships will be limited to one per institution or agency per year.
- full-time faculty members of all ranks and non-faculty research staff (including post-doctoral research fellows) who have doctorate degrees and who are employed by a fully accredited degree-granting educational institution in the United States. The recipient organization will ensure that members at historically black colleges and universities, and Hispanic-serving institutions are encouraged to apply for a fellowship.
- researchers holding doctorate degrees and who are currently employed full time in a local or state governmental criminal justice agency.
- The research project proposed by fellowship applicants must—
- use, in whole or in part, existing data made available by BJS
- have direct implications for criminal justice policy and practice in the United States
- clearly demonstrate how the proposed project will use or improve BJS data or statistical series
- advance criminal justice knowledge, practice, or policy for criminal justice agencies in the United States
- be completed within 9 months.
- Applications that involve multiple recipients of fellowships may be submitted. However, such projects may not involve more than three fellowships, and individuals who are proposed as fellows may only be connected to one application.
- Priority for fellowships will be given to applicants who use existing BJS datasets. However, applications that propose using other available data that could inform gaps in BJS's current statistical collection portfolio may also be considered. Applicants proposing to use non-BJS data must demonstrate how these data meet standards related to validity and reliability for the research question posed, and how the data inform technical and substantive issues related to the identified gap in knowledge.
- Fellowship applicants interested in analyzing BJS restricted-use data to create linkages to other BJS data or auxiliary files from other statistical agencies or sources, or to identify local geographic areas, are strongly encouraged to contact BJS to—
This outreach and communication must be reflected in fellowship applications.
- assess the feasibility of the proposed research topic and availability of the data to be used
- clarify processes for accessing such data.
- The fellowship program encourages quantitative, qualitative, primary, and secondary data analysis. Special consideration will be given to applicants who use the most rigorous statistical methods applicable to their proposed research topic to maximize the validity and reliability of findings.
- Human subjects protection paperwork are completed (if applicable), including Institutional Review Board (IRB) documentation, forms, and a privacy certificate. The documentation is not required at the time of application. However, if awarded and if applicable to the project, successful applicants will be required to submit this paperwork.
- Submitted fellowship applications will be evaluated through a peer-review process, which ensures that—
- fellowship applications include the assurances described herein
- proposed projects are consistent with the goals and objectives of the fellowship program.
- BJS is provided with final recommendations for its research fellows so BJS may approve these selections prior to any public announcement.
BJS responsibilities. BJS will—
- provide funding to the recipient organization for up to 10 fellowships at $7,500 each, depending on the appropriated funds available
- supply a list of priority research topics and datasets to the recipient organization so applicants may consider them
- make BJS staff available to respond to questions regarding datasets under consideration
- facilitate the access to restricted-use datasets, if needed
- consider publishing the successful applicants' completed report (see below) as a BJS working paper.
Research fellow responsibilities. The research fellow will—
- ensure that the application includes a letter of support from their academic institution or agency of employment
- assess the relevant literature and develop appropriate methods for analysis based on that review, regardless of the topic proposed, and include this information in the application
- produce at least one product with substantive or methodological focus that BJS will disseminate as a working paper or report
- ensure that the application proposes at least the following three deliverables:
- A publishable 20- to 30-page report on the research project that, at a minimum, includes—
- synopses of relevant literature and previous research
- a discussion of the research questions or hypotheses that guided the research
- the methodology employed, including a thorough discussion of all data used and any dataset linking or merging methods
- analytical techniques used
- key findings derived from the analysis
- major conclusions or recommendations emanating from the project, including those that may address BJS data quality issues.
- An in-person presentation based on the completed research project at the Office of Justice Programs in Washington, DC. The presentation will be arranged by BJS in consultation with the faculty research fellow.
- An in-person presentation based on the completed research project at the selected professional or scholarly society's annual meeting. The presentation will be arranged and funded by the professional or scholarly society, in consultation with the faculty research fellow and BJS.
In addition to the deliverables listed above and any required datasets, interim and final progress reports, and financial reports, BJS expects scholarly products may result from fellowships awarded under the faculty research fellowship, including one or more published, peer-reviewed, scientific journal articles, or (if appropriate) law review journal articles, books or book chapters in the academic press, or similar scientific product.
The research project carried out by the fellow must to be completed within 9 months.
Possible projects will be identified in the solicitation developed jointly by the selected professional or scholarly society and BJS. The program will be announced by BJS and the selected organization, including placement on the BJS website.
Respond to the solicitation, which is located on the Funding tab of the BJS website. The solicitation will contain more information about the application deadline, where to send the application, specific application requirements, and the selection process.
Only degree-granting educational institutions in the United States are eligible to apply. The applicant must be fully accredited by a regional institutional accreditation agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education and must apply as the sponsor of a doctoral candidate whose dissertation research substantially uses BJS data or fills a gap in BJS’s statistical portfolio.
BJS encourages eligible institutions to sponsor outstanding and promising doctoral students whose dissertation research may impact criminal justice policy and practice in the United States. BJS prioritizes applications for research that use BJS data.
Applications for research using other data that could fill a gap in BJS’s statistical portfolio will also be considered. These applications should show how the novel data are reliable and valid and how they add technical and substantive knowledge to a specific gap.
Applicants may be interested in linking BJS restricted-use data to other BJS data or to other statistical sources’ auxiliary files. Or applicants may want to use BJS data to identify local geographic areas. Such applicants should contact BJS to—
|•||assess if the research topic is feasible and what data is available|
|•||clarify processes for accessing such data.|
Successful applicants must clearly show how the dissertation research will use BJS data and advance criminal justice knowledge, practice, or policy in federal agencies. BJS encourages quantitative, qualitative, primary and secondary data analysis, and mixed-methods studies. BJS favors applications for research that use the most rigorous methods to maximize the validity and reliability of the study’s findings.
BJS will make awards in the form of grants. The amount of each award is $40,000, usable over the project period for the student's salary, tuition and fees, research expenses, and related costs.
The award’s performance period is typically 12 to 18 months and no more than 3 years.