Search results

Showing 1 – 4 of 4 results.

Curated

Effects of Determinant Sentencing on Institutional Climate and Prison Administration: Connecticut, Minnesota, Illinois, 1981-1983 (ICPSR 8278)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12

Geographic coverage: United States, Illinois, Connecticut, Minnesota

Time period: 1981-01-01--1983-01-01

This data collection examines the effects of determinant sentencing on prison climate and administration. Three data collection periods are covered in the dataset. Parts 1-3 contain data taken from a total random sample of offenders housed at five prisons over all three data collection periods. Part 4 is an additional sample from the state of Connecticut of inmates serving determinate sentences, collected during the third period of data collection. Parts 5 and 6 comprise indeterminate sample data from all three data collection periods, while Parts 7-9 contain determinate panel sample data from all three collection periods. There were six questionnaires used in collecting these data, covering inmates' feelings about their arrest, court case, and conviction, their feelings about the law, physical problems developed during their prison term, how their time was spent in prison, family contacts outside prison, relationships with other prisoners and guards, involvement in prison programs, and criminal history.

Curated

Evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE), 4 United States counties, 2012-2014 (ICPSR 36857)

Released/updated on: 2023-07-13

Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Texas, Massachusetts, Arkansas

Time period: 2012-01-01--2014-01-01

The evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE) was a four-site, randomized controlled trial replicating a Hawaii probation program widely touted as successful in reducing drug use, violations, and reincarceration. HOPE is based on "swift, certain, and fair" principles, beginning with a warning hearing from a judge and requiring strict adherence to supervision requirements, including random drug testing, with all violations followed by hearings and jail sanctions. Treatment is for those who repeatedly fail random tests. Grants and technical assistance were provided to the sites (Saline County, Arkansas; Essex County, Massachusetts; Clackamas County, Oregon; Tarrant County, Texas) by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to facilitate implementation. The evaluation documented implementation and fidelity, tested outcomes (primarily recidivism), and estimated costs.

1,504 individuals who met eligibility criteria for HOPE were randomly assigned to HOPE or to probation as usual (PAU) between August 2012 and September 2014. Phases of the study included a process evaluation with fidelity analysis, outcomes evaluation, and cost evaluation. Data collection activities included site visits, documentation review, stakeholder interviews, procuring administrative records, conducting interviews for probationers at three different timepoints (baseline, 6 months, 12 months), drug testing oral swabs, and a weekly telephone-based interview with a subset of probationers to assess attitudinal changes.

Curated

Restricted

Probationer Compliance With Conditions of Supervision, Virginia, 1994-1997 (ICPSR 34705)

Released/updated on: 2023-06-29

Geographic coverage: United States, Virginia

Time period: 1994-01-01--1997-01-01

The impact of probation on the criminal activities of offenders and the relationship between these activities and technical violations were studied using both self-report and official data regarding 126 offenders on probation in Northern Virginia. Results revealed that probation reduced the self-reported criminal activities of the offenders. Younger males self-reported more criminal activities than did other groups. Offenders were more likely to be involved in criminal activity during the months when they were in school, using illegal drugs, or drinking alcohol heavily. Probation was more effective in reducing the criminal activities of older offenders than of younger offenders. Individuals with mental health counseling as a condition of probation self-reported fewer criminal activities than others. Self-reported criminal activities were also less likely to occur in months when probationers had personal contact with their probation officer or were assigned to the day reporting center.

Curated

Shock Incarceration in Louisiana, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 9926)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States, Louisiana

Time period: 1987-01-01--1989-01-01

These data describe the results of one component of an evaluation of the "shock incarceration" program in the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (LDPSC). This program, formally called IMPACT (Intensive Motivational Program of Alternative Correctional Treatment), began in 1987 and consisted of two phases. In the first phase offenders spent 90 to 180 days in a medium security prison participating in a rigorous boot camp-type program. Offenders who successfully completed the program were released from prison and placed under intensive supervision in the community--the second phase of the program. Changes in offender behavior and attitudes during the prison and community supervision phases of the shock program were examined in a quasi-experimental design to determine the impact of the program on the individual offenders. Comparisons were made with similar offenders who were not in the shock program who had been sentenced to prison and parole/probation. Shock and nonshock incarcerated offenders were asked to complete self-report questionnaires. Information was also collected from LDPSC records and from monthly parole performance evaluations completed by parole and probation officers. Information collected from LDPSC records included demographics, sentence characteristics, release date, offense, criminal history, I.Q. (Beta II) and MMPI scores, and diagnostic personnel evaluations of mental health, substance abuse, general attitude, adjustment, and violence potential. Part 1 of the collection consists of inmate data collected from the incarcerated shock program participants (N = 208) and the incarcerated nonshock offenders (N = 98, with partial records for an additional 46). Information includes police record data, clinical diagnostic data, offender's self-reported demographic data, scales for self-reported attitudes and personality measures, and offender's self-reported criminal and substance abuse history. Part 2 contains demographic data collected for all samples, including police record data and clinical diagnostic data. Part 3 consists of parole and probation data for all inmates. Offenders were followed for 12 months after leaving prison or until they failed community supervision (by absconding, being jailed for a lengthy period of time, or having their parole/probation revoked). Consequently, there is monthly data for between 1 to 12 months for each offender. Information includes items relating to parolees' performance at work and school, personal adjustment, employment, substance abuse counseling, interpersonal relations, compliance with intensive supervision program requirements, and contacts with the criminal justice system.