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 2012 Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities (CSFCF) was the eighth enumeration of state institutions and the fifth enumeration of federal institutions sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and its predecessors. Earlier censuses were conducted in 1974, 1979 (ICPSR 7852), 1984 (ICPSR 8444), 1990 (ICPSR 9908), 1995 (ICPSR 6953), 2000 (ICPSR 4021), and 2005 (ICPSR 24642). For each facility in the 2012 census, information was provided on security level, facility operator, sex of inmates housed, one-day counts by sex, percentage of inmates authorized to leave the facility, and anticipated changes to or closures of the facility.

The census counted prisoners held in the facilities, a custody count. Some inmates in custody in one jurisdiction may be held for a different jurisdiction. The custody count is distinct from a count of inmates under a correctional authority's jurisdiction, which includes all inmates over whom a correctional authority exercises control, regardless of where the inmate is housed. A jurisdictional count is more inclusive than a prison custody count and includes state and federal prisoners housed in local jails or other non-correctional facilities.

The 2019 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities (CCF) was the ninth enumeration of state institutions and the sixth enumeration of federal institutions sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and its predecessors. Earlier censuses were completed in 1979 (ICPSR 7852), 1984 (ICPSR 8444), 1990 (ICPSR 9908), 1995 (ICPSR 6953), 2000 (ICPSR 4021), 2005 (ICPSR 24642), and 2012 (ICPSR 37294). The 2019 CCF consisted of two data collection instruments - one for confinement facilities and one for community-based facilities. For each facility, information was provided on facility operator; sex of prisoners authorized to be housed by facility; facility functions; percentage of prisoners authorized to leave the facility; one-day counts of prisoners by sex, race/ethnicity, special populations, and holding authority; number of walkaways occurring over a one-year period; and educational and other special programs offered to prisoners. Additional information was collected from confinement facilities, including physical security level; housing for special populations; capacity; court orders for specific conditions; one-day count of correctional staff by payroll status and sex; one-day count of security staff by sex and race/ethnicity; assaults and incidents caused by prisoners; number of escapes occurring over a one-year period; and work assignments available to prisoners. Late in the data collection to avoid complete nonresponse from facilities, BJS offered the option of providing critical data elements from the two data collection instruments. These elements included facility operator; sex of prisoners authorized to be housed by facility; facility functions; percentage of prisoners authorized to leave the facility; one-day counts of prisoners by sex, and holding authority. Physical security level was an additional critical data element for confinement facilities.

The census counted prisoners held in the facilities, a custody count. Some prisoners who are held in the custody of one jurisdiction may be under the authority of a different jurisdiction. The custody count is distinct from a count of prisoners under a correctional authority's jurisdiction, which includes all prisoners over whom a correctional authority exercises control, regardless of where the prisoner is housed. A jurisdictional count is more inclusive than a prison custody count and includes state and federal prisoners housed in local jails or other non-correctional facilities.

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.

CJ-DATS 2 HIV Services Treatment Implementation in Corrections focused on implementing interventions to address the HIV continuum of care in correctional settings. There are 5 datasets associated with this study.

-Dataset 1 (DS1) contains data aggregated at the correction facility level that examines delivery of HIV services in the experimental and control study groups (215 cases).

-Dataset 2 (DS2) and Dataset 3 (DS3) detail survey responses from correctional staff about how the HIV services were changed and/or implemented at their facilities (DS2 has 68 cases and DS3 has 85 cases).

-Dataset 4 (DS4) contains survey responses from inmates about their perceptions of the HIV services provided at facilities in which they are incarcerated (2,301 cases).

-Dataset 5 (DS5) contains data merged together by the principal investigator from several surveys given to treatment staff, treatment directors, correctional officers and correctional directors. This dataset includes demographic information, staff perceptions of their work environment, perceptions of HIV infected individuals, evaluations of HIV workshops and perceptions of the delivery of HIV services at their facility (385 cases).

These 5 datasets contain a total of 889 variables.

The Urban Institute, in collaboration with the Correctional Leaders Association (CLA), the National Center on Victims of Crime (NCVC), and the Center for Effective Public Policy (CEPP), and with funding from the National Institute of Justice, conducted a two-tiered, 33-month, exploratory mixed methods study of the policies, programs, and practices used nationwide to address the needs of incarcerated women with prior trauma and victimization experiences and prevent in-custody victimization, aiming to generate actionable information for policymakers, practitioners, and program developers.

This is the first single, comprehensive study documenting the extent to which facilities implement trauma-informed and gender-responsive approaches to address women's victimization experiences, whether they offer victim services, the range of services offered, and the prevalence of trauma-informed practices in state-level women's correctional facilities. It establishes foundational knowledge for the field regarding the scope, structure, and composition of these approaches, including their trauma-informed components and use in women's correctional facilities.

With the third highest rates of overdose fatalities in the state and complexities with providing treatment in a rural setting, Franklin County Sheriff's Office (FCSO) in Massachusetts made a strategic decision in 2011 to shift their jail facility away from simply operating as a place to contain people, to becoming a jail that played an important role in the treatment solution to the opioid use epidemic. After more than 10 years of this transformation, FCSO has been able to offer all three federally approved Medications for Opioid Use Disorders (MOUD) (i.e., buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone), provide high quality individual and group counseling, and facilitate a continuum of treatment care upon reentry. In 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, FCSO capitalized on its previously built infrastructure and system partners to continue to offer its services. FCSO also continued offering individual and group counseling via telehealth throughout the pandemic and shifted to a mix of telehealth and in-person services in 2022.

From 2020 to 2023, the research team partnered with FCSO to study how their jail approached MOUD treatment, particularly via telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. The mixed-methods study aimed to understand whether treatment and individual counseling as its critical component could be done remotely, what facilitated or hindered its successful application, and how clients (i.e., incarcerated people) and the professionals supporting them perceived the effects.

The study developed and tested the Brief Mental Health Screening Tool to enhance the identification of psychiatric disorders among adult detainees. Participants were randomly recruited within 24 to 72 hours of entering State-run jails in Connecticut. In the first phase, participants completed a 25-minute screening interview, after which 20 percent of the participants were asked to complete a longer interview 1 week later to establish a more detailed account of Axis I and Axis II psychiatric disorders and psychosocial functioning. In a second phase, the new Brief Mental Health Screening Tool was tested and validated on a new sample of participants.

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.

This study includes 802 interviews that were conducted in two Texas prisons with inmates who were within a week of release. 532 of these individuals were re-interviewed within roughly one month of their release and 482 were re-interviewed roughly nine months after release. In addition to interviews, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Records were made available to the research team and half of the interviews were conducted with identified gang members. This study assesses whether gang members can be surveyed in prisons with fidelity and reports descriptive statistics on gang and non-gang members. More than forty separate scales were included in the interview.

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 project utilized three strategies to investigate the impact of incarceration on families. First, a statewide integrated data system was used to examine impacts of incarceration in a novel way, using administrative data from corrections, juvenile justice, mental health, social services, substance use services, healthcare, and education. Second, researchers linked multi-agency data to address specific research questions regarding impact of incarceration on families, including impact of incarceration on family physical and mental health, children's involvement with the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, family economic status, and school performance. Third, researchers conducted focus groups and family interviews with 77 inmates and 21 inmate family members sampled from three correctional facilities. Researchers identified qualitative themes regarding impact of incarceration in the lives of inmates and their families.

Only data from the focus groups is included in this collection. The collection includes two SPSS data files: "Inmate_Demographic_Data.sav" with 15 variables and 77 cases and "Family_Demographic_Data.sav" with 19 variables and 21 cases. The actual focus group interviews with inmates and their family members are not available as part of this collection at this time. Administrative data from the South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office was not made available for archiving. Users interested in obtaining these data should consult the accompanying documentation.

Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, Congress mandated that the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) investigate former prisoners' experiences in prison to assist in understanding the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization within the prison setting. BJS and its subcontractor, NORC at the University of Chicago, led a national data collection effort focusing on prison sexual assault as reported by former state prisoners.

The focus of the National Former Prisoner Survey (NFPS) was sexual victimization among former state prisoners. The survey was divided into 6 sections. The first two sections were administered using a computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) method and focused on demographic and criminal history information. The remaining sections, covering more sensitive information, were administered using a touch-screen-audio-assisted-computer-self-interviewing (TACASI) method.

Sections A and B of the instrument collected demographic and criminal history information, as well as information on placements during the last continuous incarceration. Sections C and D captured detailed inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization during the last continuous incarceration, including the type of sexual activity, identification of facilities at which such incidents occurred, frequency of occurrences, and other specifics regarding sexual victimization. Section E addressed staff-on-inmate sexual victimization and misconduct, whether considered willing or unwilling, and gathered specifics of activity indicated. The last section, F, focused on the impacts of sexual assault on victimized respondents, as well as parole supervision characteristics for all respondents.

The National Former Prisoner Survey (NFPS) began in January 2008 and concluded in October 2008, and involved the random selection of approximately 250 parole offices across the country using probability proportional-to-size (PPS) sampling procedures. Completed interviews were obtained for 17,738 respondents; supplemental data was collected on all former prisoners sampled in order to develop weights for national estimations.