Search results

Showing 1 – 9 of 9 results.
Curated

AI Enabled Community Supervision for Criminal Justice Services, 2020-2023 (ICPSR 38996)

Released/updated on: 2023-12-20

This project aimed to revolutionize the reentry process for justice-involved individuals (JII) by harnessing the power of artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced technologies. The centerpiece of the endeavor is the AI-based Support and Monitoring System, or AI-SMS, a cutting-edge platform designed to assist JII and their dedicated caseworkers in their journey to reintegrate seamlessly into the community. While the primary focus is on JII, the researchers recognize the critical role played by caseworkers-clinically trained individuals who facilitate the reentry process from a community perspective.

AI-SMS was conceived to be a multifaceted tool that provides case workers with early warning indicators of risky behavior and equips JII with the means and strategies to mitigate these risks, aligning with best practices in hybrid supervision. At its core, the system is committed to delivering personalized resources and opportunities to JII, complementing the support offered by caseworkers.

Curated

Community Supervision of Drug-Involved Probationers in San Diego County, California, 1991-1993 (ICPSR 2023)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, California
Time period: 1991-01-01--1993-01-01
The Probationers in Recovery (PIR) program, developed by the San Diego County Probation Department, targeted high-risk, drug-abusing offenders with the goal of controlling offender behavior without increasing risks to communities. This evaluation of PIR was based on a quasiexperimental design that compared program activities and outcomes for two matched groups of high-risk probationers receiving different levels of service and supervision. The assessment included both a process evaluation to discover if expected service levels were implemented as designed, and an impact evaluation to assess the effectiveness of drug treatment within an intensive community supervision program. The experimental group included 209 PIR participants who received intensive community supervision and drug treatment, and the control group consisted of 151 probationers who were assigned to regular high-risk probation caseloads and who met the PIR screening criteria. The samples were selected from probationers entering community supervision from February to December 1991. The length of the PIR program varied, but for purposes of analysis the minimum time in the program to represent the intervention period was set at eight months, including relapse prevention. A comparable period was used for the control group. The subsequent six-month period was used to measure the effects of PIR and regular high-risk probation after intervention. Intake interviews were conducted with a subsample of 96 probationers in PIR and 80 in the control group (Part 1). The interviews were conducted within the first two weeks after intake. Follow-up interviews were conducted with these probationers after they had completed eight months of PIR or regular high-risk probation to measure experiences on probation and changes in behavior and attitudes (Part 2). Follow-up interviews were completed with 47 probationers from the experimental group in the PIR program and 35 in the control group. The case tracking portion of the study involved the review of probation, treatment, and state and local criminal history files (Part 3). Data on technical violations and arrests for new crimes were compiled for the following time periods: (1) six months prior to the instant offense (the baseline), (2) the first eight months of community supervision (the in-program period), (3) the six months after intervention, and (4) the combined 14-month period. The initial interview (Part 1) included questions regarding sociodemographic characteristics, current offense, awareness of probation conditions ordered, perceived consequences for violations of probation, drug use and drug history, prior drug treatment and treatment needs, criminal history, expectations regarding the probation term, opinions regarding probation and treatment, daily activities prior to the current offense, current life satisfaction, and prospects for the future. Questions on the follow-up interview (Part 2) focused on changes in probationers' personal lives (e.g., employment, income, education, marital status, living situation, and relationships with family and friends), technical probation violations and new offenses committed during the eight-month period, sanctions imposed by probation staff, contacts with probation and treatment staff, changes in drug use and daily activities, expectations with regard to remaining crime- and drug-free in the future, attitudes regarding probation and treatment, treatment needs, and significant life changes over the eight-month period. Variables in the tracking data file (Part 3) include sociodemographic characteristics, current offense and sentence imposed, probation conditions ordered, drug use history, offense and probation violations occurring before, during, and after an eight-month probation period, custody time, changes in level of probation supervision, and program interventions such as drug tests, services delivered, and sanctions imposed.
Curated

Cost Effectiveness of Misdemeanant Probation in Hamilton County, Ohio, 1981-1982 (ICPSR 8259)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio, Cincinnati
Time period: 1981-01-01--1982-01-01
This research was designed to determine whether the supervision of misdemeanant probationers was cost-effective for increasing the level of successful probation completions in Hamilton County, Ohio. The primary objective was to examine the relationships among these factors: supervision costs, the collection of court costs, fines, and restitution, types of supervision, risk assessment, and probationer conduct for the population of probationers. Probationers were initially classified according to risk assessment and then randomly assigned to a supervision category. The probationer's risk potential was a numerical score derived from demographic background variables, prior record, and history of substance use. The DSCP (Degree of Successful Completion of Probation) was developed specifically to measure probationer conduct and to compare trends and relationships. The variables examined in the study include: risk assessment at intake, supervision level assigned, number of times the probationer was assigned to probation, start and planned termination dates, date of last status change, status at termination, degree of successful completion of probation achieved, costs incurred in administering probation, and amounts collected from each probationer for court costs, restitution, and fines. Although data were collected on 7,072 misdemeanant probation experiences, there are only 2,756 probationers included in the study. The remaining 4,316 cases were excluded due to failure of the probationer to show up for screening or for other reasons that did not meet the research criteria.
Curated

Effects of Legal Supervision of Chronic Addict Offenders in Southern California, 1974-1981 (ICPSR 9974)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 1974-01-01--1981-01-01
This study examined the effects of timing and level of legal supervision in controlling antisocial behavior and promoting prosocial behavior in chronic addict offenders. The study sought to answer several questions: (1) What is the effect of legal supervision on the criminal behavior of addicts? (2) Does legal supervision have time-course effects? (3) What are the differential effects of varying types of legal supervision (e.g., probation, parole, urinalysis, higher or lower number of contacts per month)? Data were obtained by conducting retrospective interviews with four separate groups of subjects from four distinct research projects previously conducted in Southern California (McGlothlin, Anglin, and Wilson, 1977, Anglin, McGlothlin, and Speckart, 1981, Anglin, McGlothlin, Speckart, and Ryan, 1982, and McGlothlin and Anglin, 1981). The first group were male patients in the California Civil Addict Program, admitted in 1962-1964, who were interviewed for this survey in 1974-1975. The second group was a sample of addicts drawn from male first admissions between the years 1971-1973 from Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Orange County methadone maintenance programs. These respondents were interviewed during the years 1978-1979, an average of 6.6 years after admission. The third group consisted of male and female methadone maintenance patients selected from rosters of clients active on June 30, 1976, at clinics in Bakersfield and Tulare, California. These subjects were interviewed during 1978 and 1979, an average of 3.5 years after admission. The fourth group of subjects consisted of males and females who were active on September 30, 1978, at San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange County clinics and were interviewed during the years 1980-1981, an average of six years after their admission. Subjects included Anglo-American and Mexican-American males and females. The samples were generally representative of California methadone maintenance patients except for the second sample, which had been selected to study the impact of civil commitment parole status on the behavior of patients receiving methadone and was not necessarily representative of the overall population of admitted patients receiving methodone. Before the interview, a schematic time line on each offender was prepared, which included all known arrests and intervals of incarceration, legal supervision, and methadone treatment, based on criminal justice system and treatment program records. In discussion with the subject, the interviewer established the date of the first narcotics use on the time line, then proceeded chronologically through the time line, marking a change in narcotics use from less-than-daily use to daily use (or vice versa), or a change in the respondent's legal or treatment status, as a time interval. The interviewer repeated this process for successive intervals up through the date of the interview. Parts 1-8 consist of the interview data, with Forms 2 and 3 corresponding to the various intervals. There can be multiple intervals for each individual. Variables cover drug use, employment, criminal behavior, legal status, conditions of parole or probation, and drug treatment enrollment. Form 1 data contain background information on offenders, such as family and substance abuse history, and Form 4 data include other personal information as well as self-reported arrest and treatment histories. Parts 9 and 10, Master Data, were created from selected variables from the interview data. Parts 11 and 12, Arrest Data, were collected from official criminal justice records and describe each offender's arrests, such as month and year of arrest, charge, disposition, and arrest category. The datasets are split between the Southern California (Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange County, Bakersfield, Tulare, and Riverside) and San Diego clinic locations.
Curated

Electronic Monitoring of Nonviolent Convicted Felons: An Experiment in Home Detention in Marion County, Indiana, 1986-1988 (ICPSR 9587)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States
Time period: 1986-11-01--1988-12-01
The purpose of the study was to provide information about home detention monitoring systems and to evaluate their effectiveness. The principal investigators sought to determine (1) whether electronic monitoring systems relieved some of the burdens associated with manual monitoring of home detention, such as making telephone calls and field visits, (2) how home detention affected the lifestyles of offenders, (3) whether the methods of monitoring influenced offender behavior during the program, (4) how electronic monitoring differed from manual monitoring in terms of supervision of the offenders, (5) how offenders reacted to electronic monitoring, (6) how offenders' families reacted to electronic monitoring, and (7) whether the method of monitoring influenced the probability of an arrest or subsequent contact with the criminal justice system after release from the program. Part 1 contains demographic information, such as age, race, marital status, number of children, living arrangements, employment, and education for each offender. Also included is information on the offense leading to the current case, including numbers and types of charges and convictions for both felonies and misdemeanors, recommendations and judicial disposition for the current case, and information on the criminal history of the offender. Part 2 contains data from the intake interview with the offender, such as information on the offender's family, living arrangements, education, employment, past alcohol and drug use, and expectations for the home detention program and monitoring procedures. Part 3 contains information collected in the exit interview and is similar in content to Part 2. Part 4 contains information on the program delivery (type of release from the program, violations of the program, results of tests for alcohol and drug use, errand time, payment, contacts with offenders, and the characteristics and results of the contacts with electronically monitored offenders). Part 5 is a check of criminal histories of offenders for at least one year after their release from the program.
Curated

Evaluation of Adult Community Supervision Strategies in Multnomah County, Oregon, 1995, 1998, and 2000 Cohorts (ICPSR 3584)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Oregon
This study was undertaken to determine whether a new form of community supervision in Multnomah County, Oregon, had been properly implemented and to determine its impact on public safety, as well as to assess recidivism rates in light of the revised supervision. A quasi-experimental design was employed using non- randomized comparison groups consisting of offenders admitted to community supervision in Multnomah County, Oregon, in 1995, 1998, and 2000. Administrative records data were collected from the Oregon Department of Corrections, Multnomah County Department of Community Justice, Portland Police Departments, Multnomah County Sheriff, the District Attorney's office, and court records.
Curated

Intensive Community Supervision in Minnesota, 1990-1992: A Dual Experiment in Prison Diversion and Enhanced Supervised Release (ICPSR 6849)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Minnesota
Time period: 1990-01-01--1992-01-01

For this program evaluation, which utilized a randomized field experiment, two separate substudies were conducted: one investigated the "front door" Intensive Community Supervision (ICS) program that diverted prisoners into the community at the beginning of their prison terms, and the other studied the "back door" Intensive Supervised Release (ISR) program that provided enhanced supervision services for offenders who were just finishing their terms of confinement and had a residential mandate upon release from prison. The random assignment procedure began in October 1990 and continued until June 1992. Prison caseworkers in the Office of Adult Release (OAR) within the Minnesota Department of Corrections screened offenders for participation in the prison diversion program (ICS) according to established criteria. The RAND coordinator assigned offenders to the experimental program or to the control program (prison) by consulting a predetermined random list of assignments. For the ISR program, institutional caseworkers reviewed the treatment plans for offenders who were scheduled to be released from prison within the next six months. The same procedure for random assignment was used as in the ICS study. The final sample sizes were 124 in the ICS program and 176 in the ISR program. Parts 1 and 9, Background Data, include demographic information such as sex, race, education, marital status, number of dependents, and living arrangement at time of most recent arrest. Also included is information on the offender's prior employment history, drug use prior to drug treatment, status after random assignment, various probation/parole/release conditions ordered, and criminal record information for prior arrests, for the governing offense and for the offense immediately prior to the current prison admission. Each offender was also rated on various items relating to risk of recidivism and need for treatment. The 6-month, 12-month, and 13-month review data (Parts 2-4 and 10-12) record the same information for each month. Variables provide information on the current status of the offender, days under regular supervision, intensive community supervision, special services, electronic surveillance, detention or incarceration (jail or prison), and days on other status. Information was also recorded for each month during the review regarding number and type of face-to-face contacts, number and type of phone contacts, number of drug tests taken, number and type of monitoring checks performed, number and type of sessions in counseling, number of days job hunting or in training, hours of community service, number of days employed and amount of earnings, amount of fines and court costs paid, amount of victim restitution paid, and amount of probation fees paid. Because a large percentage of the ICS control offenders were expected to remain in prison during a 12-month follow-up (resulting in premature recidivism outcomes), recidivism data for all ICS offenders were collected for a period of 24 months after assignment to the study (Part 5). Part 5 contains up to three status codes and number of days at each status for months 1-25 for the ICS cases only. Also included is information on work release, violations of supervision, absconding, returns to jail, returns to prison, and other releases. Parts 6 and 13 provide drug violation data, including first and second type of drug, action taken, and number of days since random assignment. Parts 7 and 14 provide technical violation data, including technical violation, first, second, and third action taken, days from assignment to each action, and most serious action taken. Finally, Parts 8 and 15 provide arrest data, including arrest code, age at arrest, if convicted, conviction code, type of sentence, and age at disposition. Dates were converted by RAND to time-lapse variables for the public release files for purposes of time-at-risk analysis.

Curated

Survey of Adults on Probation, 1995: [United States] (ICPSR 2039)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
The 1995 Survey of Adults on Probation (SAP) was the first national survey to gather information on the individual characteristics of adult probationers. The SAP was a two-part nationally representative survey consisting of a records check based on probation office administrative records and personal interviews with probationers. The records check provided detailed information for 5,867 probationers on current offenses and sentences, criminal histories, levels of supervision and contacts, disciplinary hearings and outcomes, and demographic characteristics. Only adults with a formal sentence to probation who were not considered absconders were included in the records check. Excluded were persons supervised by a federal probation agency, those only on parole, persons on presentence or pretrial diversion, juveniles, and absconders. The records check forms were completed by a probation officer or by another person knowledgeable about probation office records. A subset of the population selected for the records check was selected for a personal interview, resulting in a total of 2,030 completed interviews. The personal interview sample excluded from the records check sample probationers not on active probation (defined as being required to make office visits at any interval), those incarcerated, and those in residential treatment. Respondents were asked about current offense(s) and supervision, criminal history, alcohol and drug use and treatment, mental health treatment, demographic characteristics, and a variety of socioeconomic characteristics such as employment, income, receipt of welfare, housing, number of children and child support, and living conditions while growing up.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

The Survey of Criminal Justice Experience (SCJE), 2013 (ICPSR 35080)

Released/updated on: 2014-08-07
Geographic coverage: United States
The Survey of Criminal Justice Experience (SCJE) is a household survey of the criminal justice experiences of United States adults ages 18-64. Measures capture supervision (e.g. probation, jail, and prison) and broader experiences such as arrests and convictions. Researchers are able to estimate 12-month and life-time prevalence rates of respondents' criminal justice experiences. Data were collected between May 8, 2013 and May 20, 2013 via a web-based survey conducted by GfK, a leading market research organization. GfK maintains the KnowledgePanel -- a probability-based research panel representative of households in the United States. A random sample of 5,278 individuals aged 18-64 were selected from the KnowledgePanel and 3,260 participated in the survey. Along with the main survey variables, standard demographic variables, a series of data processing variables created by GfK, and a final sample weight are also included in the dataset. Demographic variables cover: age, race, sex, income, regions, education, marital status, employment status, and housing type.
Back to top