Search results

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

Before the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003, it was not clear the extent to which state departments of corrections (DOCs) were addressing sexual violence in systematic ways. In fact, little information existed about what strategies were being put into practice in prison systems across the country. PREA changed the way DOCs addressed prison sexual violence (PSV). Mandatory recordkeeping and a push for eliminating such incidents moved many DOCs to develop specific responses to PSV or to further refine approaches already in place. The purpose of this project was to provide a national snapshot of DOC initiatives to address PSV, as well as to identify specific practices that seemed to be, in the absence of formal evaluations, particularly promising or innovative in nature.

Researchers conducted three tasks: (1) The Survey of State Correctional Administrators (SSCA) involving written surveys and follow-up phone interviews with leaders of state DOCs. During the survey, state administrators described the state's overall approach to PSV and nominated specific strategies as particularly promising; (2) The Survey of Promising Practices (SPP) involving phone interviews with DOC representatives who spoke about promising practices nominated during the SSCA. Interviews were conducted with facility directors, service providers, or other state personnel affiliated with nominated approaches; and (3) Case studies involving site visits to states that researchers determined could provide the most informative lessons on addressing sexual violence in prison to the largest audience of practitioners, researchers, and policymakers.

The collection includes 2 Access databases, one each for the SSCA (ASCA_4_6_2006.directors.mdb) and the SSP (ASCA_FAC_4_6_2006.prompractices.mdb). The data related to the Case Studies are not available at this time.

To reduce respondent burden for the 2013 collection, the Census of Jails was combined with the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP). The census provides the sampling frame for the nationwide Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (SILJ) and the Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ). Previous jail enumerations were conducted in 1970 (ICPSR 7641), 1972 (ICPSR 7638), 1978 (ICPSR 7737), 1983 (ICPSR 8203), 1988 (ICPSR 9256), 1993 (ICPSR 6648), 1999 (ICPSR 3318), 2005 (ICPSR 20367), and 2006 (ICPSR 26602). The RTI International collected the data for the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2013. The United States Census Bureau was the collection agent from 1970-2006.

The 2013 Census of Jails gathered data from all jail detention facilities holding inmates beyond arraignment, a period normally exceeding 72 hours. Jail facilities were operated by cities and counties, by private entities under contract to correctional authorities, and by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

Excluded from the census were physically separate temporary holding facilities such as drunk tanks and police lockups that do not hold persons after being formally charged in court. Also excluded were state-operated facilities in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Alaska, which have combined jail-prison systems. Fifteen independently operated jails in Alaska were included in the Census.

The 2013 census collected facility-level information on the number of confined and nonconfined inmates, number of inmates participating in weekend programs, number of confined non-U.S. citizens, number of confined inmates by sex and adult or juvenile status, number of juveniles held as adults, conviction and sentencing status, offense type, number of inmates held by race or Hispanic origin, number of inmates held for other jurisdictions or authorities, average daily population, rated capacity, number of admissions and releases, program participation for nonconfined inmates, operating expenditures, and staff by occupational category.

To reduce respondent burden for the 2019 collection, the Census of Jails was combined with the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP). The census provides the sampling frame for the nationwide Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (SILJ) and the Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ). Previous jail enumerations were conducted in 1970 (ICPSR 7641), 1972 (ICPSR 7638), 1978 (ICPSR 7737), 1983 (ICPSR 8203), 1988 (ICPSR 9256), 1993 (ICPSR 6648), 1999 (ICPSR 3318), 2005 (ICPSR 20367), 2006 (ICPSR 26602), and 2013 (ICPSR 36128). The RTI International collected the data for the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2013 and 2019. The United States Census Bureau was the collection agent from 1970-2006.

The 2019 Census of Jails gathered data from all jail detention facilities holding inmates beyond arraignment, a period normally exceeding 72 hours. Jail facilities were operated by cities and counties, by private entities under contract to correctional authorities, and by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

Excluded from the census were physically separate temporary holding facilities such as drunk tanks and police lockups that do not hold persons after being formally charged in court. Also excluded were state-operated facilities in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Alaska, which have combined jail-prison systems. Fifteen independently operated jails in Alaska were included in the Census.

The 2019 census collected information on the number of confined inmates, number of persons supervised outside jail, number of inmates participating in weekend programs, number of confined non-U.S. citizens, number of inmates by sex and adult or juvenile status, number of juveniles held as adults, number of inmates who were parole or probation violators, number of inmates by conviction status, number of inmates by felony or misdemeanor status, number of inmates held by race or Hispanic origin, number of inmates held for other jurisdictions or authorities, average daily population, rated capacity, admissions and releases, number of staff employed by local jails, facility functions, and number of jails under court orders and consent decrees.

The 2019 census also included a module to collect data on the effects of the opioid epidemic on local jails and jail responses to the epidemic. Items included:

• Jail practices on opioid use disorder testing, screening, and treatment.
• Number of local jail admissions screened during June 2019.
• Number of positive screens.
• Number of admissions treated for opioid use disorder.
• Number of jail inmates treated for opioid withdrawal at midyear 2019.

The Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies 2 (CJ-DATS 2) was launched in 2008 with a focus on conducting implementation research in criminal justice settings. NIDA's ultimate goal for CJ-DATS 2 was to identify implementation strategies that maximize the likelihood of sustained delivery of evidence-based practices to improve offender drug abuse and HIV outcomes, and to decrease their risk of incarceration.

The Organizational Process Improvement Intervention (OPII) study (aka Assessment study) focused on implementing assessment and treatment planning processes. Screening and assessment were used to identify substance abuse-related problems and to develop programming to address the problems so identified.

The OPII study engaged corrections and treatment agencies to improve the quality of interagency communication through the effective use of assessment and case planning processes and treatment referrals. Both inter-agency and intra-agency change processes were targeted. A multi-phase implementation protocol was used, wherein agencies engaged in team development, needs assessment, planning, implementation, and sustainability in distinct steps. Early- and delayed-start sites allowed the research team to control for effects of environmental changes within states. The protocol targeted critical communications channels between otherwise often highly segregated correctional and treatment agencies.

Evaluation of the OPII used a multi-site cluster randomized design with multiple measures over the course of the intervention. Clusters consisted of a criminal justice agency and one or more community treatment providers that received referrals from that criminal justice agency. Each of the 9 centers had two clusters (one had three), and each cluster was randomized to an Early-Start or a Delayed-Start condition with multiple measures over the course of the intervention. After randomization, the Early-Start sites began the OPII, while the Delayed-Start sites conducted business as usual, without any additional intervention. After approximately 12 months, or when the Early-Start change team completed the Implementation phase, the Delayed-Start change team began to carry out the protocol.

Throughout the study period different subsets of individuals working at correctional facilities and treatment programs at the study sites were asked to complete surveys. During the Baseline period of the study survey data were collected from correctional staff, correctional directors, treatment staff, treatment directors, correctional executives and treatment executives. These data can be found in (DS1-DS12). The executive respondents provided information at the organizational level for the programs they oversaw (DS5, DS6). Next, Needs Assessments were completed by the change teams and their facilitators (DS13-DS14). The change teams and facilitators also responded to surveys on Process Improvement Planning (DS15-DS19). During the Implementation stage, surveys were administered to select substance abuse treatment programs, change team facilitators, change team members and the immediate supervisors of the change team members (DS20-DS27). Selected correctional and treatment staff members (in the Early-Start sites only) were asked to complete Follow-up surveys at the end of the OPII process (DS28-DS33). Staff members who completed surveys also provided demographic data (DS36-DS41). DS42 is a restricted use version of DS41. Change team members kept track of the time they spent on OPII activities (DS35). Change team success was evaluated by a subset of raters (DS34).

Surveys were administered at 21 study sites and there was a total of over 2,700 survey respondents.

Guided by a life course perspective, this study used a mixed methodological approach (i.e., quantitative administrative data and qualitative interviews) to identify the differences in events, motivations, and experiences related to gang affiliation and the differences across (a) system-documented, gang-involved individuals, (b) system-documented gang-involved individuals who have gang-involved family members, and (c) other high-risk youth who are suspected of involvement. The overall goal of this research was to identify distinct pathways to gang activity that could inform practitioners and policymakers about useful intervention strategies. The study context was specific to Multnomah County, Oregon.

To achieve this, separate and distinct juvenile and adult systems databases were integrated to create critical linkages between juvenile services data (including risk assessments), adult community corrections data, and federal corrections data (n=2,210 individual records). This allowed for the examination of the trajectory of each individual - regardless of gang system documented gang status - from juvenile services through state adult corrections through federal adult corrections. It also permitted the investigation into the similarities or differences among different system-identified groups (i.e., gang involved, suspected gang involved, or no documentation of gang involvement). Additionally, the inclusion of familial and peer criminal justice records and system gang identification enabled the research team to control for family and peer influences while focusing on how the father's criminality and gang status might be a risk factor for youth criminal legal involvement and escalation into the adult system. Research questions for the quantitative data collection were:

1. What aspects of early criminal offending and other problematic behaviors differ between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
2. Are there significant differences in the likelihood of youth escalation into the adult criminal justice system and the Federal Corrections System between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
3. Are there consistent age-related trends in risk as measured by the Juvenile Crime Prevention (JCP) tool? Do these trends vary by gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
4. What is the timing of important life events across the life course of justice-involved youth? Does the timing differ between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
5. Does the close proximity of the timing of these life events increase the likelihood of youth escalation into the adult criminal justice system and the Federal Corrections System? Do these predictions differ between gang-affiliated youth, gang-affiliated youth with gang-involved parents, and other high-risk youth?
6. How do parental offending and incarceration patterns predict their child's likelihood of becoming gang-affiliated and likelihood of escalation into the adult criminal justice system?
7. How do the answers to the above research questions vary by youth race, ethnicity, geography, and offense type?

In addition to quantitative measures of gang pathways, semi-structured interviews were conducted with two groups: gang-affiliated and gang-involved youth supervised in the Department of Community Justice Gang Unit during the study time period (n=32), and corrections staff who had current or previous experience working with gang-affiliated or gang-involved youth (n=12). Original research questions for the qualitative data collection were:

1. What are the critical transition periods for becoming gang-affiliated, and how are they experienced as an emotional event and/or a deliberate decision? How do these differ between individuals who have no criminal justice system involved family members, individuals with criminal justice involved family members, and individuals with gang-affiliated family members?
2. What is the relational and emotional experience of recruiting a familial relation to gang affiliation, and of being recruited by a familial relation to gang affiliation and gang activities?
3. What are the motivations for recruiting a familial relation into gang affiliation, and for allowing oneself to be successfully recruited by a family member?
4. What are the methods employed by gang-affiliated individuals in recruiting their family members?
5. Do the recruiter and recruited have significant or patterned differences in the event and experience of recruitment into gang affiliation and activities?
6. Do the recruiter and recruited have significant or patterned differences in their views and experiences of the criminal justice system?

Qualitative data will be made available in a future update.

This study sought to better understand the long-term implications of critical incident exposure on mental health outcomes among correctional officers. To accomplish this objective, the research team compiled a longitudinal dataset comprised of three types of assessments. First, to assess mental health outcomes as well as subjective appraisals of psychological stress, the researchers surveyed correctional officers at three waves of data collection, spaced approximately six months apart. These surveys included questions related to demographics, work assignments, perceptions of workplace danger, work-family conflict, social support, and work-related psychological stress. In addition, the wave 1 and wave 3 surveys included items from psychometrically validated measures of mental health problems--posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. Second, to assess changes in physiological stress over the study period, the research team collected salivary biomarkers Cortisol and Alpha-Amylase during each wave of data collection. Third, the researchers compiled objective indicators of critical incident exposure (e.g. disciplinary data and detailed incident reports) rather than relying on subjective assessments. The compiled dataset allowed for not only the direct association between critical incident exposure and mental health problems, but also indirect pathways that included psychological stress and physiological stress. The resulting dataset consists of 488 officers employed at three correctional institutions across Minnesota.

The overall purpose of this mixed methods, multi-site study was to explore the use of restrictive housing in United States prisons and jails from the perspective of incarcerated individuals and corrections officers who work in restrictive housing units. Restrictive housing, also known as solitary confinement or segregation, is defined as keeping an incarcerated person in their cell for 22 or more hours per day.

To study the extent to which exposure to restrictive housing affects outcomes (i.e., mental/physical health problems, deterrence from future misconduct) for incarcerated individuals, the research team collected administrative records of housing moves ("stints") from the Colorado Department of Corrections and Missouri Department of Corrections. Records are available for all individuals incarcerated between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017. Data from Colorado includes roughly 1.3 million observations from 39,849 incarcerations. Data from Missouri includes roughly 1.1 million observations from 79,208 incarcerations. To study the impact of working in restrictive housing units on officers' physical, emotional, and mental wellbeing, the team administered surveys to officers working in correctional facilities in Missouri (n=376), North Carolina (n=249), and Oregon (site 1 n=47, site 2 n=133).

The research team also conducted officer focus groups, interviews with agency leadership, observations of restrictive housing and general population units, and a national comprehensive survey about the use of restrictive housing in jails. Only the administrative records and officer wellbeing survey data are available in this collection.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The California correctional system underwent a dramatic transformation under California's Public Safety Realignment Act (AB 109) in 2011, a law that shifted from the state to the counties the responsibility for monitoring, tracking, and incarcerating lower level offenders previously bound for state prison. Realignment, therefore, presents the opportunity to witness 58 natural experiments in the downsizing of prisons. Counties faced different types of offenders, implemented different programs in different community and jail environments, and adopted differing sanctioning policies. This study examines the California's Public Safety Realignment Act's effect on counties' criminal justice institutions, including the disparities that result in charging, sentencing, and resource decisions.

The project involved a partnership between the research team at Northeastern University, the Office of Strategic Planning and Research at the Massachusetts Department of Correction (MA DOC), the Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union (MCOFU) and clinical direct service providers at the Riverside Trauma Center (RTC), a program of Riverside Community Care (RCC).

The research was conducted in two overlapping phases, with findings from the first phase informing key elements of the second phase. In phase one, the Northeastern University research team conducted comprehensive qualitative case studies of the occupational and personal lives of the 20 correction officers and retirees who had died by suicide between 2010 and 2015.

In phase two, researchers collected both qualitative and quantitative data to assess the impacts of the correction officer suicides on correction officers still working in the state's prisons. Researchers conducted on-site and on-shift in-person interviews with 440 officers and administrators to assess the impacts of officer suicide on attitudinal, behavioral, and psychological well-being outcomes. The phase two officer interview opened with questions designed to collect egocentric social network data from each officer and included assessments of behavioral, emotional, and psychological health using validated instruments.

Researchers collected qualitative data for this study which are not currently available. The qualitative data will be made available at a later date.

In partnership with the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC), this study a) collected prison administrative data to create person-level cohort-analysis files of inmates admitted to and released from Florida prisons between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2015, b) collected stock population data of inmates incarcerated on June 30, 2011, c) examined recidivism outcomes, d) examined the effects of long-term solitary confinement on inmate behavior and mental health, and e) conducted a survey of prison personnel from November 4, 2019 to January 10, 2020, in order to conduct an analysis to address the need in public policy decision-making for evidence on the impacts of restricted housing on inmates, prisons and personnel, and public safety overall.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This study involved an examination of the relative effects of measures of inmate characteristics, features of facility environments, and managerial practices, including the perceived legitimacy of the correctional staff, on both the prevalence and incidence of violent, drug, and other nonviolent misconduct.Inmate, officer, and facility data were collected from each of the 33 facilities for adults in Ohio and each of the 13 state operated facilities for adults in Kentucky. The inmate data (Inmate Level Data, n=5,640) includes information on inmates collected through on-site surveys, and then supplemented with information from administrative records. The officer data (Correctional Officer Data, n=1,841) includes information on correctional officers collected through a mail survey, and then supplemented with information retrieved from administrative records. Facility data (Facility Level Data, n=46) were derived from aggregating responses to the inmate survey, from administrative records and from semi-structured interviews conducted with the wardens of each facility.