Corrothers, Helen G. Availability and Use of Intermediate Sanctions by Judges and Corrections Professionals in the United States, 1994. ICPSR06788-v2. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2013-05-15. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06788
Persistent URL: https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06788.v2
- RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
- EndNote XML (EndNote X4.0.1 or higher)
community service programs,
Date of Collection:
Unit of Observation:
Intermediate sanctions/programs operating in jurisdictions across
the United States.
Data Collection Notes:
The codebooks, user guide, and data collection instruments are
provided as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The PDF file format was
developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader
software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy
of the Acrobat Reader is provided through the ICPSR Website on the Internet.
The purpose of this survey was to ascertain the
attitudes and practices of judges, system administrators, and program
directors regarding intermediate sanctions with the further objective of
exploring ways to increase the availability and use of intermediate
sanctions on a national level.
Survey questionnaires were mailed to judges,
program directors, and administrators to elicit information on
attitudes and practices with respect to IS.
A 10-percent random sample was used for the judges survey.
Both federal and state jurisdictions were sampled -- federal district
courts and state courts of general jurisdiction. Officials responsible
for community corrections in each jurisdiction were selected from the
"1993 Directory of Juvenile and Adult Correctional Departments,
Agencies, and Paroling Authorities." System administrators were
asked to identify personnel who actually operated their IS programs.
self-enumerated mailed questionnaires
Description of Variables:
Data were collected on the availability and
frequency of use of IS, as well as costs, client/staffing ratios, use
of rehabilitative programming, respondents' opinions concerning the
field's needs, and program eligibility criteria. Information was also
gathered on how decisions were made to place offenders into the
program outcome and whether the program was
viewed as being successful (and how this was measured),
and types of new programs needed.
The survey of judges yielded a 32-percent response rate
without follow-up. The survey of correctional administrators resulted in
responses for 41 jurisdictions without follow-up. Regarding program
directors, for whom follow-up contact was desired, responses were
received from all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and the Federal Bureau of Prisons for 158 different sanctions
Presence of Common Scales:
Extent of Processing: 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.
Standardized missing values.
Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.