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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT