ILNews

$405,450 award aimed at improving state-funded criminal justice

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis research center is receiving a $405,450 award from the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute to study and help improve the effectiveness of state-funded criminal justice initiatives.

The ICJI gave the award to the Center for Criminal Justice Research at IUPUI, according to a news release issued July 7.

Set-up as a two-year project, the CCJR will examine criminal justice efforts financed by 10 state funding streams and compare those to what is happening nationwide, then identify what works the best for Indiana and how it might be improved.

Designed as the state’s planning agency for criminal and juvenile justice, the ICJI is turning to the academic research center to synthesize the most current information both statewide and nationally and make sure Indiana is making the best data-driven decisions when distributing funds and establishing policies.

The first stage will identify those types of programs that have proven to be the most effective. In the second stage, the project will catalog existing criminal justice data to help make criminal justice decisions for the state. A key component of this second stage will be to identify gaps in available data that limit the state’s ability to make evidence-based criminal justice decisions.

Some of the types of initiatives that will be studied include police activities to determine if they are effective at preventing crime, substance abuse treatment programs, victims’ services, and various alternatives in the juvenile justice system.

“The goal is to help ensure the state’s allocation of criminal justice dollars is sound and based on cutting-edge research,” said Thomas D. Stucky, principal investigator and director of criminal justice and public safety programs at IUPUI’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs, where the center is housed. “When this project is complete, the state of Indiana will better understand how to distribute its criminal justice dollars most effectively.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT