Showing 1 – 3 of 3 results.
Curated
Evaluation of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation Cognitive Skills Development Program Implemented in Juvenile Intensive Supervision Probation in Colorado, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 2028)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado
Time period: 1994-01-01--1995-12-31
This study was a program evaluation of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation Cognitive Skills Development Program, an educational program that taught cognitive skills to offenders, as implemented in juvenile intensive supervision probation in Colorado. Using an experimental design, researchers sought to measure the extent of change in attitudes and behaviors due to the cognitive skills program by administering pre- and post-test interviews. Researchers also measured recidivism by conducting interviews with probation officers who supervised the offenders in the sample six months after termination from intensive supervision. These interviews were supplemented with administrative records data that provided background information about the sample. In addition, administrative data were collected on all juveniles sentenced to intensive supervision during fiscal years 1994 and 1995 to compare juveniles in the sample with all juveniles in the intensive program. Variables in this collection include cognitive measures, such as impulsivity, problem-solving ability, egocentricity, and cognitive style. Other variables measure emotional responses to various situations, attitudes toward the law, values, drug abuse, program participation, and recidivism. Administrative data include age, gender, ethnicity, offense of conviction, and basic assessment data.
Curated
Management of Sex Offenders by Probation and Parole Agencies in the United States, 1994 (ICPSR 6627)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1994-01-01--1994-12-31
This study examined various ways states approach and sanction sex crimes (i.e., child sexual abuse, incest, and sexual assault) and sex offenders. The aim of the study was to obtain basic information about policies and procedures of probation and parole agencies with respect to adult sex offender case management. State corrections administrators in 49 states and the District of Columbia were contacted to supply information on their states' probation and parole offices and the corresponding jurisdictions. From these offices, probation and parole supervisors at the office-management level were selected as survey respondents because of their familiarity with the day-to-day office operations. Respondents were asked about the usage of various supervision methods, such as electronic monitoring, requiring offenders on probation or parole to register with law enforcement agencies, and polygraph testing. Sanctions such as requiring the offenders to seek treatment and forbidding contact with the victim were discussed, as were various queries about the handling of the victim in the case (whether a written statement by the victim was routinely included in the offender's file, whether officers usually had contact with the victim, and whether there was a system for advising victims of status changes for the offender). Other questions focused on whether the office used specialized assessments, caseloads, programs, and policies for sex offenders that differed from those used for other offenders. Various issues regarding treatment for offenders were also examined: who chooses and pays the treatment provider, whether the agency or the court approves treatment providers, what criteria are involved in approval, and whether the office had an in-house sex offender treatment program.
Curated
Measuring Crime Rates of Prisoners in Colorado, 1988-1989 (ICPSR 9989)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado
Time period: 1988-07-01--1989-12-31
In the late 1970s, the Rand Corporation pioneered a method of collecting crime rate statistics. They obtained reports of offending behavior--types and frequencies of crimes committed--directly from offenders serving prison sentences. The current study extends this research by exploring the extent to which variation in the methodological approach affects prisoners' self-reports of criminal activity. If the crime rates reported in this survey remained constant across methods, perhaps one of the new techniques developed would be easier and/or less expensive to administer. Also, the self-reported offending rate data for female offenders in this collection represents the first time such data has been collected for females. Male and female prisoners recently admitted to the Diagnostic Unit of the Colorado Department of Corrections were selected for participation in the study. Prisoners were given one of two different survey instruments, referred to as the long form and short form. Both questionnaires dealt with the number of times respondents committed each of eight types of crimes during a 12-month measurement period. The crimes of interest were burglary, robbery, assault, theft, auto theft, forgery/credit card and check-writing crimes, fraud, and drug dealing. The long form of the instrument focused on juvenile and adult criminal activity and covered the offender's childhood and family. It also contained questions about the offender's rap sheet as one of the bases for validating the self-reported data. The crime count sections of the long form contained questions about motivation, initiative, whether the offender usually acted alone or with others, and if the crimes recorded included crimes against people he or she knew. Long-form data are given in Part 1. The short form of the survey had fewer or no questions compared with the long form on areas such as the respondent's rap sheet, the number of crimes committed as a juvenile, the number of times the respondent was on probation or parole, the respondent's childhood experiences, and the respondent's perception of his criminal career. These data are contained in Part 2. In addition, the surveys were administered under different conditions of confidentiality. Prisoners given what were called "confidential" interviews had their names identified with the survey. Those interviewed under conditions of anonymity did not have their names associated with the survey. The short forms were all administered anonymously, while the long forms were either anonymous or confidential. In addition to the surveys, data were collected from official records, which are presented in Part 3. The official record data collection form was designed to collect detailed criminal history information, particularly during the measurement period identified in the questionnaires, plus a number of demographic and drug-use items. This information, when compared with the self-reported offense data from the measurement period in both the short and long forms, allows a validity analysis to be performed.