Search results

Showing 1 – 7 of 7 results.

Curated

Restricted

Optimizing Video Surveillance in Correctional Settings, Minnesota, 2015-2019 (ICPSR 37984)

Released/updated on: 2024-04-11

Geographic coverage: United States, Minnesota

Time period: 2015-01-01--2019-12-31

The Urban Institute and the Minnesota Department of Corrections (MnDOC) attempted to improve the surveillance system in two state correctional facilities: Stillwater (STW) and Moose Lake (ML). The goal of this study was to conduct a rigorous process and impact evaluation of the steps that STW and ML took to optimize their surveillance systems, which included repositioning existing cameras, installing new cameras, and making other infrastructural upgrades. In addition, ML integrated an audio analytic technology in their system that would alert on-unit security staff through a visual and audio alert when it detected sounds associated with anger, fear, or verbal aggression.

The evaluation used a mixed-methods research design. Qualitative data collection included stakeholder interviews and in-depth observations of the camera operations at ML and STW before, during, and after the upgrades. The research team interviewed wardens, supervisors and officers working in the intervention units, and numerous other individuals who oversaw operations, investigations, information technology, and camera installation and configuration in ML and STW.

Quantitative administrative data were collected from ML and comparison facilities and comparative interrupted time-series (CITS) analyses were employed to examine changes in two outcomes (total misconduct incidents and guilty dispositions) following the intervention. To support the CITS, another unit in ML was identified that did not upgrade its surveillance system but was similar to the intervention housing unit in terms of population, architecture, and misconduct levels (internal comparison unit), and used the synthetic control method to create another comparison unit derived from the three other medium-security prisons operated by MnDOC (external comparison unit).

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities, 2019 (ICPSR 38325)

Released/updated on: 2022-08-18

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2019-01-01--2019-12-31

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.

Curated

CBS News/New York Times National Poll, May #1, 2011 (ICPSR 33963)

Released/updated on: 2012-06-13

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2011-05-01--2011-05-31

This survey, fielded May 2-3, 2011, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicits public opinion on a range of political and social issues. Respondents were asked for their opinions of political figures President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Oprah Winfrey, and members of the British royal family: Prince Charles and Lady Camilla. Respondents were also asked their opinions about the following issues: United States troops in Afghanistan, gas prices, abortion, the American Civil War, Guantanamo Bay detention camp, Islam, and the Tea Party movement. Additional topics included personal happiness, home furnishings and decor, the effects of positive thinking, being a mother, the economic gap, plans for Memorial Day weekend, movies, Donald Trump's wealth, celebrities, prosecuting athletes for cheating, air travel, the Internet, new electronics, lying about one's age, and graffiti. Respondents were asked further background questions about whether they approved of the way President Obama was handling the presidency, including foreign policy, the economy, and the war in Afghanistan. Opinions were sought on how Osama bin Laden's death affected terrorism and respondents' personal security, the war on terror, and the mission in Afghanistan. Respondents were also asked if they were proud to be an American, whether they had a close family member or friend or knew anyone who died in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, or had a family member in the armed forces. Demographic information includes sex, age, race, education level, household income, marital status, religious preference, employment status, type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural), state of residence, type of phone(s), number of phones, political party affiliation, political philosophy, voting behavior, and whether the respondent is an evangelical or a born-again Christian.

Curated

Partially restricted

Ethno-Methodological Study of the Subculture of Prison Inmate Sexuality in the United States, 2004-2005 (ICPSR 4556)

Released/updated on: 2006-12-21

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2004-01-01--2005-12-31

This study of prison rapes used an ethnographic, culturally relativistic methodology and was conducted between April 2004 and September 2005. The study was conducted in 30 correctional institutions, 23 men's and 7 women's, in 10 states. All 23 men's institutions were the highest-security level men's prison available in each state. When women's institutions were multi-security level and housed minimum, medium, and high-security inmates, they were selected from the highest-security level housing units within the institution. A total of 564 (409 male and 155 female) inmates were interviewed. The inmates to be interviewed were selected from the general prison population using a probability sample design. Average interview length was just under an hour. The sole mode of data collection was an open-ended, semistructured inmate interview. To ensure comparability of answers, surveys were designed with each query resting on a particular concept or variable. The same interview instrument was used for both male and female inmates. Questions were asked about inmate prison history, mental health, rape, social process, domestic violence and relationships, staff, institutional factors, and perception of social roles, and demographic information. Also included are lexical responses and free list questions such as "Why do inmates have sex with other inmates?"

Curated

Conditions of Confinement in Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities: [United States], 1991 (ICPSR 6216)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1991-01-01--1991-12-31

This study was conducted for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to (1) collect and analyze data on conditions of confinement in public and private juvenile facilities, (2) determine the extent to which conditions were consistent with those required by nationally recognized standards for juvenile confinement facilities, (3) suggest explanations for variations in conformance to standards among facilities, and (4) assist OJJDP in formulating recommendations for improving conditions of confinement. In challenging the premise that high levels of conformance to nationally recognized standards result in improved conditions of confinement, this study examined client outcomes. Areas of concern for juvenile facilities usually center on living space, health care, security, and control of suicidal behavior. Key incident measures provided in this data collection include injuries, escapes, acts of suicidal behavior, incidents requiring emergency health care, and isolation incidents. Part 1, Mail Survey Data, collected information from facility administrators. Part 2, Site Visit Data, consists of questions answered by the juvenile inmates as well as by the independent observers who administered the on-site surveys. Additional variables in Part 2 that are not present in Part 1 include subjective measures such as the quality of the food, medical care, and recreation facilities, and whether various facility programs were effective. The study covered all 984 public and private juvenile detention centers, reception centers, training schools, and ranches, camps, and farms in the United States. Three types of facilities were excluded: (1) youth halfway houses, shelters, and group homes, (2) police lockups, adult jails, and prisons that held juveniles tried and convicted as adults, and (3) psychiatric and drug treatment programs.

Curated

Validating Prison Security Classification Instruments in Hawaii, 1984-1985 (ICPSR 9921)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States, Hawaii

Time period: 1984-01-01--1985-12-31

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a reliable and accurate method for measuring the effectiveness of offender classification systems to improve the management of correctional facilities. In the early 1980s, the state of Hawaii began classifying its prisoners with a newly developed Federal Bureau of Prisons classification instrument. This study was designed to develop a method to evaluate this form. Two prediction models were used. The first, initial classification, used the sum of four variables to arrive at a security score, which was taken to be predictive of violence. The second, reclassification, used the sum of seven different variables to obtain a custody total, which was then used as a major determinant of reclassification. Two groups of inmates were used: inmates who had committed infractions and inmates with no reported infractions. Research variables include (a) initial classification: offense (severity), expected length of incarceration (sentence), type of prior commitments, and history of violence, and (b) reclassification: percentage of time served, involvement with drugs/alcohol, mental/psychological stability, most serious disciplinary report, frequency of disciplinary reports, responsibility that the inmate demonstrated, and family/community ties. In addition, the collection supplies information on race and sex of inmates, sentence limitation, history of escapes or attempts, previous infractions, entry, reclassification, and termination dates (month and year), and custody level. There are demographic variables for sex and race. The unit of observation is the inmate.

Curated

Census of State Adult Correctional Facilities, 1984 (ICPSR 8444)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1984-01-01--1984-12-31

This study provides a descriptive analysis of confinement facilities and state-operated community-based correctional facilities nationwide. Decision-makers, practitioners, and researchers may use the census to analyze the current conditions and needs of state correctional facilities for adults. Variables of interest include physical security, age of facilities, functions of facilities, programs, inmate work assignments, staff employment, facilities under court order/consent decree for conditions of confinement, capital and operating expenditures, custody level of residents/inmates, one-day and average daily population counts, race/ethnicity of inmates, inmate work assignments, inmate deaths, special inmate counts, and assaults and incidents by inmates. The institution is the unit of analysis.