Showing 1 – 11 of 11 results.
Curated
Restricted
Changing Attitudes and Motivation in Parolees (CHAMPS) Pilot Study in Dallas, Denver, and Des Moines, 2015-2016 (ICPSR 37091)
Released/updated on: 2018-09-17
Geographic coverage: Des Moines, Iowa, United States, Texas, Colorado, Denver, Dallas
Time period: 2015-04-01--2016-08-01
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 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 examined the implementation of a pilot parole-based intervention, known as the Next Generation of Parole Supervision (NG). Drs. Caleb Lloyd and Ralph Serin developed the NG model with funding from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and the National Institute of Corrections developed the NG curriculum for parole officers to implement. The Bureau of Justice Assistance funded the implementation of NG in three study sites: Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; and Des Moines, Iowa.
This mixed-methods study focused on understanding how NG was implemented as it was piloted in the three sites, and assessed NG-trained parole officers' fidelity to the NG model. In order to better understand NG's implementation and the business as usual practices it was intended to replace, the study also included a second group of parole officers who were not trained in NG. The groups were not randomly assigned. Data collected for this study included interview data, parole officer questionnaires related to concepts of the NG curriculum, coaching logs providing measures of whether officers received coaching and its frequency, video recordings of parole supervision meetings, and parole caseload data.
Demographic variables included as part of this collection are parole officers' age and sex, and site location. The data collection includes 3 SAS data files:
- Parole officer-level data (archive_raf170831_po): Includes 31 cases and 26 variables.
- Video-level data (archive_raf170831_video): Includes 241 cases and 15 variables.
- Questionnaire-level data (archive_raf180719_tests): Includes 50 cases and 8 variables.
Curated
Effectiveness of Prisoner Reentry Services as Crime Control for Inmates Released in New York, 2000-2005 (ICPSR 27841)
Released/updated on: 2010-08-31
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 2000-01-01--2005-01-01
The Fortune Society, a private not-for-profit organization located in New York City, provides a variety of services that are intended to support former prisoners in becoming stable and productive members of society. The purpose of this evaluation was to explore the extent to which receiving supportive services at the Fortune Society improved clients' prospects for law abiding behavior. More specifically, this study examined the extent to which receipt of these services reduced recidivism and homelessness following release. The research team adopted a quasi-experimental design that compared recidivism outcomes for persons enrolled at Fortune (clients) to persons released from New York State prisons and returning to New York City and, separately, inmates released from the New York City jails, none of whom went to Fortune (non-clients). All -- clients and non-clients alike -- were released after January 1, 2000, and before November 3, 2005 (for state prisoners), and March 3, 2005 (for city jail prisoners). Information about all prisoners released during these time frames was obtained from the New York State Department of Correctional Services for state prisoners and from the New York City Department of Correction for city prisoners. The research team also obtained records from the Fortune Society for its clients and arrest and conviction information for all released prisoners from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services' criminal history repository. These records were matched and merged, producing a 72,408 case dataset on 57,349 released state prisoners (Part 1) and a 68,614 case dataset on 64,049 city jail prisoners (Part 2). The research team obtained data from the Fortune Society for 15,685 persons formally registered as clients between 1989 and 2006 (Part 3) and data on 416,943 activities provided to clients at the Fortune Society between September 1999 and March 2006 (Part 4). Additionally, the research team obtained 97,665 records from the New York City Department of Homeless Services of all persons who sought shelter or other homeless services during the period from January 2000 to July 2006 (Part 5). Part 6 contains 96,009 cases and catalogs matches between a New York State criminal record identifier and a Fortune Society client identifier. The New York State Prisons Releases Data (Part 1) contain a total of 124 variables on released prison inmate characteristics including demographic information, criminal history variables, indicator variables, geographic variables, and service variables. The New York City Jails Releases Data (Part 2) contain a total of 92 variables on released jail inmate characteristics including demographic information, criminal history variables, indicator variables, and geographic variables. The Fortune Society Client Data (Part 3) contain 44 variables including demographic, criminal history, needs/issues, and other variables. The Fortune Society Client Activity Data (Part 4) contain seven variables including two identifiers, end date, Fortune service unit, duration in hours, activity type, and activity. The Homelessness Events Data (Part 5) contain four variables including two identifiers, change in homeless status, and date of change. The New York State Criminal Record/Fortune Society Client Match Data (Part 6) contain four variables including three identifiers and a variable that indicates the type of match between a New York State criminal record identifier and a Fortune Society client identifier.
Curated
Evaluation of the Community Supervision Mapping System for Released Prisoners in Rhode Island, 2008-2010 (ICPSR 32004)
Released/updated on: 2014-09-30
Geographic coverage: Rhode Island, United States
Time period: 2008-01-01--2010-01-01
This study evaluated the Community Supervision Mapping System (CSMS), an online geospatial tool that enables users to map the formerly incarcerated and others on probation, along with related data such as service provider locations and police districts. Probation officers in the state of Rhode Island were surveyed a few weeks before and 18 months after the implementation of CSMS. A total of 56 probation officers participated in the first wave of the study (pre-implementation survey), and 52 probation officers participated in the second wave (post-implementation survey), yielding an overall sample size of 108 probation officers. Dataset 1 contains the data for both waves of the study. The dataset is comprised of 140 variables. Both waves of the study examined the following categories of variables: the probation officer's professional background, contact with clients, amount of time spent on job duties specific to the profession, contact with other agencies, and computer usage. The second wave added 86 variables to explore officers' experiences with CSMS, which features they used, how it impacted their work, and their expected use of CSMS in the future.
Curated
Examination of Actuarial Offender-Based Prediction Assessments in Texas, 1993-1996 (ICPSR 20403)
Released/updated on: 2008-06-23
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas
Time period: 1993-01-01--1996-01-01
The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive assessment of the usefulness and effectiveness of prediction and classification of offenders under community supervision. A felony cohort data collection instrument was developed to test the validity of the Wisconsin Risk and Need Instrument in use in Texas, as well as to develop "better" predictor variables for a variety of dependent variables. Using the felony cohort data instrument, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Community Justice Assistance Division (TDCJ-CJAD) collected detailed statewide information on 3,405 felony offenders placed on probation in Texas during October 1993. Specifically, the form was completed by a probation officer on all felony probation intakes at the time the initial case classification risk/needs assessment was conducted. Additionally, follow-up forms were developed and administered to track the offenders' progress at one year, two years, and three years. Variables include probationer information, current offense, criminal history, social history, substance abuse, probation sanctions, case classification risk items, and case classification need items. Additional variables include felony cohort one-year follow-up data form questions, felony cohort second-year follow-up data form questions, and felony cohort third-year follow-up data form questions.
Curated
Implementation of Community Corrections in Oregon, Colorado, and Connecticut [1981] (ICPSR 8407)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Colorado, Connecticut
Data were collected from three states to evaluate the success of community corrections programs and to identify the conditions that underlie these successes. In-person field interviews, telephone interviews, and mailback questionnaires were used at state, county, and district levels. The variables in the study were designed to examine the kinds of people who implement and maintain these programs, the level of commitment by judicial and prison officials to these programs, community support, and the goals of cost reduction, work training, and rehabilitation.
Curated
Restricted
Monitoring High-Risk Sex Offenders with GPS Technology in California, 2006-2009 (ICPSR 34221)
Released/updated on: 2016-02-05
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 2006-01-01--2010-03-01
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 for NACJD 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.
The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the effectiveness of global positioning system (GPS) monitoring of high-risk sex offenders (HRSOs) who were placed on parole in California between 2006 and 2009. This study integrates both outcome and process evaluation components to assess the impact of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) GPS supervision program by employing a nonequivalent-group quasi-experimental design with a multilevel survival model. The outcome of interest was recidivism. A propensity score matching procedure was used to account for the differences between the treatment and comparison groups. Parolee data were collected from six sources: the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) data management system, official arrest records, parole supervision records, GPS monitoring data, CDCR cost information, and a CDCR parole agent survey. The final sample included 516 parolees equally divided between the treatment and control groups and 153 GPS parole agents with HRSO caseloads.
Curated
National Assessment of Criminal Justice Needs, 1983: [United States] (ICPSR 8362)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
In 1983, the National Institute of Justice sponsored a program evaluation survey by Abt Associates that was designed to identify the highest priority needs for management and operational improvements in the criminal justice system. Six groups were surveyed: judges and trial court administrators, corrections officials, public defenders, police, prosecutors, and probation/parole officials. Variables in this study include background information on the respondents' agencies, such as operating budget and number of employees, financial resources available to the agency, and technical assistance, research, and initiative programs used by the agency. The codebook includes the mailed questionnaire sent to each of the six groups in the study as well as a copy of the telephone interview guide.
Curated
National Manpower Survey, 1973-1976 (ICPSR 7675)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1973-01-01--1976-01-01
This data collection contains information from a series of national surveys, conducted simultaneously across the criminal justice system, to ascertain national manpower strengths and goals, agency information and characteristics, and attitudes of the agency heads during the period 1973-1976. The National Manpower Survey was undertaken to assess the adequacy of existing federal, state, and local training and education programs meeting current personnel needs in various law enforcement and criminal justice functions and operations. The study intended to project future personnel and training needs, by occupation, in relation to anticipated availability of qualified personnel in order to assess the future adequacy of training and educational resources. It also sought to establish "needs priorities" as a basis for future training and academic assistance programs to be funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The study design systematically covered the personnel needs in all state and local governmental agencies that were part of the law enforcement and criminal justice system. Sectors within the system included: (1) law enforcement, consisting of police departments and sheriff's agencies, ranging in size from one-person constabularies to large city departments employing 20,000 or more individuals, (2) corrections, including both adult and juvenile correctional institutions and agencies, and (3) the judicial process, including a wide range of courts with varying jurisdictions and scope, district attorneys or prosecutors' offices, and public defenders' offices. For this study, the Bureau of Social Science Research was responsible for the acquisition and assessment of existing statistical data as well as the design and execution of systematic mail surveys of agencies, officials, and employees within the law enforcement/criminal justice system. Nine nationwide surveys were directed to executives in criminal justice agencies, including chiefs of police (in both large and small departments), sheriffs (in both large and small departments), chief prosecutors, chief defenders, court administrators, wardens of adult correctional facilities, directors of juvenile correctional facilities, and chief probation and parole officers. Two additional surveys were sent to general and appellate jurisdiction courts. In the nine surveys directed to criminal justice executives, the instruments asked respondents for (1) an overall assessment of manpower problems, including personnel categories in which critical shortages might exist, and total personnel required to fulfill all agency duties and responsibilities, (2) desired and actual entry level standards, as well as entry level and in-service training content and requirements, (3) demographic, educational, training, and occupational background information about the executive respondent, (4) opinions about major obstacles to effectiveness and attitudes toward various issues such as team policing, plea bargaining, and computer-assisted case management, and (5) a fact sheet section dealing with agency employment by occupational category, salaries, and workloads. Each of the remaining two surveys was a census of general and appellate jurisdiction courts designed to yield basic statistical information regarding the courts and court systems' current staffing, training activities, and caseloads, and did not seek any attitudinal or subjective responses. Thus the agency itself was the reporting unit, with the respondent required only to be in a position to provide accurate, reliable information.
Curated
Problem Solving Approaches to Issues of Inmate Reentry in Indianapolis, Indiana, 2000-2003 (ICPSR 30281)
Released/updated on: 2012-10-08
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States, Indianapolis
Time period: 2000-01-01--2003-01-01
This study involved an evaluation of the reentry component of the Indianapolis Violence Reduction Partnership (IVRP). The IVRP included a problem solving approach to the issue of inmate reentry. On the basis of a problem analysis, the IVRP officials decided to implement a pilot project that involved having recently released inmates attend a neighborhood-based group meeting convened by criminal justice officials and including community representatives and service providers. The meetings were based on the notion of combining deterrence and social support (linkage to services). The pilot project was evaluated using a quasi-experimental design. The treatment group consisted of 82 former inmates who attended one of five meetings. The comparison group consisted of 103 former inmates released at the same time period as the treatment group but in a different neighborhood. Reentry lever-pulling meeting participants and comparison group members were tracked for a period of up to 24 months to determine whether they had been re-arrested during the study period.
Curated
Sentencing Practices and Time Served in the District of Columbia Prior to Truth in Sentencing, 1993-1998 (ICPSR 3403)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
This study collected data on felony sentencing practices in the District of Columbia during the period 1993 to 1998. Data are provided on (1) the characteristics of felons sentenced by the District of Columbia Superior Court (DCSC), (2) the types, lengths, and variations of sentences imposed, (3) the length of time served in prison by those committed into the DC Department of Corrections (DCDOC), and (4) parole release decisions. And the study also attempted to assess the potential effects of new sentencing practices implemented in response to the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 and the Truth in Sentencing Amendment Act of 1998. Data were obtained from several DC criminal justice agencies, including DC Superior Court, the Pretrial Services Agency, the DC Department of Corrections, and the DC Parole Commission. The records of individual defendants were linked across these databases to the extent possible, and an integrated database on felony case processing in the District was created in order to use the unique information from each system to create defendant-level or person-level records that contained more information about cases than could be obtained from any one system. The process also involved linking records within an agency's data system for the purposes of obtaining the history of contacts with an agency or for the purpose of aggregating charge-level information into summary data for a docket or commitment. The final database consists of three files. Part 1 (Felony Docket Data) includes sentencing information on all felony dockets sentenced in DCSC between January 1993 and December 1998. Part 2 (Commitments Data) includes sentencing and time served information on all offenders who were committed to the DCDOC between January 1990 and December 1998. Part 3 (Decisions Data) includes all decisions made by the parole board on all types of considerations between January 1993 and December 1998. Part 1 variables provide defendant demographic characteristics (including age, race, and sex), offense type codes (for the defendant's most serious offense), type of sentence (prison only, probation only, split, or fine) and the sentence imposed (including whether the defendant was sentenced to life). During the period under study, the District of Columbia followed an indeterminate sentencing system, and so the data file includes minimum and maximum periods where applicable (for example, confinement). The data include information pertaining to the most serious offense at conviction as well as aggregated sentence information on all felony charges on a docket (in case there were multiple charges). Part 2 variables include dates (of disposition, charging, and release), type of release from the DCDOC within that time period (including transfer to the Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities, release on parole, release upon completion of imposed term, transfer to escape status, and whether the offender had not yet been released by December 1998), in-prison parole hearing/decision information (including number of initial hearings, number of decisions, number of grants, and whether a parole release decision was granted at the initial hearing while on this commitment), prior criminal history (including number of prior prison sentences and the number of prior drug, violent, weapon, and property convictions in the last 15 years), current commitment sentencing information (including number of felony, misdemeanor, or split charges, most serious charge of conviction, and the sentence imposed on the most serious charge as well as the aggregate sentencing imposed on all charges of conviction), and the time served by the offender prior to release (with and without the amount of credit given for jail time prior to conviction). This file also identifies several problem flags that need to be taken into account before analyzing the data in order to select out problem cases (with data entry or computation errors). Part 3 variables include the date (year, month) of the hearing, up to four considerations being decided on, up to six decisions that were made for these considerations, six flags indicating the types of considerations that were included in the hearing, and two flags indicating the types of decisions that were included in the current hearing.
Curated
Transitional Aid Research Project (TARP), 1976-1977 (ICPSR 7874)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas, Georgia
Time period: 1976-01-01--1977-01-01
The Transitional Aid Research Project (TARP) was a randomized field experiment conducted in Texas and Georgia in 1976-1977 that was designed to reduce recidivism among ex-prisoners by lowering incentives for re-engaging in property crime through provision of minimal levels of income support and extension of some unemployment insurance coverage to released prisoners. This study evolved out of an earlier LIFE (Living Insurance for Ex-Prisoners) study conducted in Baltimore, Maryland in the early 1970s. In the LIFE study, 500 prisoners with a high probability of re-arrest were randomly assigned at release from prison to experimental and control groups which varied by the amount of money received (contingent upon employment or unemployment and job placement services provided). The results showed that ex-prisoners receiving payments were less likely to be re-arrested for property theft-related crimes than those who received only job placement or no services or payments of any kind. The United States Department of Labor commissioned the TARP experiment, designed to replicate the LIFE experiment while providing a larger and more representative sample of prisoners, greater variation in treatment conditions, and administration of payments and job placement services through existing agencies rather than by a special purpose project staff. Texas and Georgia were the states chosen for the experiment, and stratified random samples of inmates were assigned, at the time of release from prison, to experimental and control groups. The groups varied in the amount of money and job placement services they received upon their release. Originally, the data were recorded in nine files for each state corresponding to each of the nine different sources of information for each TARP case. The ICPSR data collection combines these into one file for each state: Part 1 for Texas, and Part 2 for Georgia. Each file contains over 1,500 variables, clustered in nine topic areas for each inmate: (1) prison history (e.g., background information, psychological and aptitude test data, and prior criminal and present incarceration activity), (2-5) data from four personal interviews (conducted at the prerelease, three-month, six-month, and 12-month stages and that include living arrangements, employment history, and financial status), (6) state arrest data, (7) records of TARP payments received, (8) social security wages, and (9) parole records.