Showing 1 – 10 of 10 results.
Curated
Effects of Prison Versus Probation in California, 1980-1982 (ICPSR 8700)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 1980-01-01--1982-01-01
This study was divided into two phases. The first assessed the effects of different sanctions on separate criminal populations, focusing on probation as a sentencing alternative for felons. The second phase used a quasi-experimental design to address how imprisonment affects criminal behavior when criminals are released. Specific issues included: (a) the effect that imprisonment (vs. probation) and length of time served have on recidivism, (b) the amount of crime prevented by imprisoning offenders rather than placing them on probation, and (c) costs to the system for achieving that reduction in crime.
Curated
Evaluation of Day Fines in Maricopa County, Arizona, 1991-1993 (ICPSR 2024)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Arizona
Time period: 1991-01-01--1993-01-01
This study sought to evaluate how well day fines work as an intermediate sanction. Day fines are a structured approach to imposing fines that considers both the offender's ability to pay and the severity of the offense. The program involves two steps: (1) a determination of the number of fine units for an offense, based on the severity of the offense, and (2) a valuation of fine units, based on the offender's net daily income, hence the name "day fines". While four jurisdictions participated in the day fines evaluation, only the site in Maricopa County, Arizona, was structured in such a way to allow for a quasi-experimental research design. Therefore, this collection only contains data from the Financial Assessment Related to Employability (FARE) day fines program in Maricopa County. The FARE program was started in 1991 and targeted felony offenders with little need for supervision or treatment -- in other words, the low risk-low need defendant. The intent of the program was to draw clients from the population of offenders who would traditionally receive routine probation, thus serving as an intermediate sanction between routine and summary probation. The major research strategy was to consider the FARE-sentenced offenders as the experimental group and to construct a similar comparison group out of the offenders sentenced by non-day fines judges. The design involved three major steps: (1) identification of 1991 and 1992 defendants who received a FARE sentence, (2) screening of sentenced defendants in non-FARE courts using FARE eligibility criteria to match the FARE participants, and (3) coding background and 12-month follow-up information for both FARE and comparison group offenders from probation and clerk files to record background information, monetary payments, and any technical violations and arrests occurring during the 12-month follow-up period. Variables in Part 1, Fines Paid Data, include the total amount of the fine and how much of the fine was applied to probation fees, reimbursement, restitution, and victim compensation. Part 2, Official Records Data, contains background information such as arrest history, marital status, education, drug use, and drug treatment. Additional information includes current arrest, recommended sentence, disposition, sentence imposed, employment and income, and risk/needs assessment. Six- and 12-month reviews collected data on supervisory status, technical violations, new arrests, payment enforcement, and payment term revisions.
Curated
Experimental Evaluation of Drug Testing and Treatment Interventions for Probationers in Maricopa County, Arizona, 1992-1994 (ICPSR 2025)
Released/updated on: 2013-05-15
Geographic coverage: United States, Arizona
Time period: 1992-03-01--1994-04-01
This data collection represents a combined experimental evaluation of a drug court program, implemented in 1992 in cooperation with the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department, in comparison to standard probation with different levels of drug testing. The experiment's objective was to compare the drug use and criminal behavior of probationers assigned to four alternative regimes or tracks: (1) standard probation, but no drug testing, (2) standard probation with random monthly drug tests, (3) standard probation with testing scheduled twice a week, and (4) drug court, an integrated program of drug testing, treatment, and sanctions that utilized a carefully structured set of rewards and punishments. The experiment was limited to first-time felony offenders convicted of drug possession or use (not sales) and sentenced to a term of three years' probation. A total of 630 probationers from Maricopa County were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental regimes and tracked for a 12-month period. Data collection efforts included: (1) background information on each participant, (2) process information on the characteristics of supervision and services provided under each experimental condition, and (3) follow-up data on subsequent drug use, crime, and pro-social activities for 12 full months. Background Data (Part 1) include demographic variables such as race, sex, education, marital status, living arrangements, and employment history. In addition, there are variables on prior drug use and abuse, drug treatment, criminal histories as both a juvenile and an adult, and risk and need assessment scores. Other variables include the results of drug testing and any sanctions taken for a positive result (Part 2), new arrests while on probation and corresponding disposition and conviction (Part 3), and technical violations and any actions taken for these violations (Part 4). For probationers assigned to drug court (Part 5) there are variables measuring probationers' status, probation recommendations, and judges' decisions at 11 different progress assessments. The follow-up information (Parts 6-8) includes monthly data on the status of the probationer, the number of face-to-face office contacts, phone contacts, work/school contacts, and community contacts, collateral checks, employment/school verification, counseling sessions, alcohol tests, drug tests, substance abuse treatment, the number of hours the probationer spent job hunting, in educational training, in vocational training, and in community service, the number of days employed full- and part-time, and the amount of earnings, fines paid, restitution paid, and fees paid.
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
Intensive Supervision for High-Risk Offenders in 14 Sites in the United States, 1987-1990 (ICPSR 6358)
Released/updated on: 2013-05-15
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1987-01-01--1990-01-01
In 1986, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) funded a demonstration project of intensive supervision programs (ISPs), alternatives to control sanctions that involve community sanctions and emphasize stringent conditions and close monitoring of convicted offenders. The primary intent of the demonstration project was to determine the effects of participation in an ISP program on the subsequent behavior of offenders and to test the feasibility of the ISP's stated objectives: (1) to reduce recidivism by providing a seemingly cost-effective alternative to imprisonment, and (2) to provide an intermediate punishment between incarceration and regular probation that allows the punishment to fit the crime. Fourteen sites in nine states participated in the project and each of the selected sites was funded for 18 to 24 months. Individual agencies in each site tailored their ISP programs to their local needs, resources, and contexts, developed their own eligibility criteria, and determined whether probationers met those criteria. While the individual ISP projects differed, each site was required to follow identical procedures regarding random assignment, data collection, and overall program evaluation. Data collection instruments that differed in the amount of drug-related questions asked were used for the six- and twelve-month reviews. The "non-drug" data collection instrument, used in Contra Costa, Ventura, and Los Angeles counties, CA, Marion County, OR, and Milwaukee, WI, gathered drug data only on the number of monthly drug and alcohol tests given to offenders. The "drug" data collection instrument was distributed in Atlanta, Macon, and Waycross, GA, Seattle, WA, Santa Fe, NM, Des Moines, IA, and Winchester, VA. Variables regarding drug use included the number of drug tests ordered, the number of drug tests taken, and the number of positives for alcohol, cocaine, heroin, uppers, downers, quaaludes, LSD/hallucinogens, PCP, marijuana/hashish, and "other". The drug questions on the instrument used in Dallas and Houston, TX, were the same as those asked at the drug sites. Once a site determined that an offender was eligible for inclusion, RAND staff randomly assigned the offender to either the experimental ISP program (prison diversion, enhanced probation, or enhanced parole) or to a control sanction (prison, routine probation, or parole). Assignment periods began in January 1987 and some sites continued to accept cases through January 1990. Each offender was followed for a period of one year, beginning on the day of assignment to the experimental or control program. The six-month and twelve-month review data contain identical variables: the current status of the offender (prison, ISP, or terminated), record of each arrest and/or technical violation, its disposition, and sentence or sanction. Information was also recorded for each month during the follow-up regarding face-to-face contacts, phone and collateral contacts, monitoring and record checks, community service hours, days on electronic surveillance (if applicable), contacts between client and community sponsor, number and type of counseling sessions and training, days in paid employment and earnings, number of drug and alcohol tests taken, and amount of restitution, fines, court costs, and probation fees paid. Background variables include sex, race, age at assignment, prior criminal history, drug use and treatment history, type of current offense, sentence characteristics, conditions imposed, and various items relating to risk of recidivism and need for treatment. For the two Texas sites, information on each arrest and/or technical violation, its disposition, and sentence or sanction was recorded in separate recidivism files (Parts 10 and 17). Dates were converted by RAND to time-lapse variables for the public release files that comprise this data collection.
Curated
Measure 11 Sentencing Reform in Oregon: Implementation and System Impact, 1990-1999 (ICPSR 4087)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 1990-01-01--1999-01-01
This study explored the implementation and impact of Measure 11 (passed by Oregon voters in 1994), which imposed long mandatory prison terms for 16 designated violent and sex-related offenses, prohibited "earned time," and provided for mandatory waiver of youthful offenders to adult court. Measure 11 penalties were longer than those imposed under sentencing guidelines. Juveniles aged 15 years or older were also subject to the measure. The researchers addressed the implementation and impact of the measure on prosecution, sentencing, and convictions, both statewide and in three separate counties based on the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission (OCJC) data and the Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) data. Variables include offender characteristics, plea trial information, number of convictions, prison term for convictions, severity of offense, M11-eligible and alternate offense, and description of most severe offense.
Curated
National Evaluation of the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grant Program, 1996-1999 (ICPSR 3336)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1996-01-01--1999-01-01
This study evaluated the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) incentive grant program enacted in 1994. The program provided grants to states to be used to increase the capacity of state correctional systems to confine serious and violent offenders. This national evaluation addressed four broad areas: (1) How had the federal government implemented the law? How much money had been made available and what were the criteria for disbursement? (2) How had the states reacted legislatively to the law? Did states adopt truth-in-sentencing or statutes having equivalent effect? (3) How had the state VOI/TIS money been spent and for what? How much did it increased prison capacities? (4) Did the law increase the number of admissions, length of sentences, and terms served for violent offenders? In addition to these four major areas, the study looked at related areas of interest, such as the impact of VOI/TIS and other "get tough" legislation on prosecutorial and judicial attitudes, policies, and practices. It also examined state spending on corrections, particularly for construction. The researchers collaborated with the American Correctional Association (ACA), the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI), and the Justice Management Institute (JMI) to conduct special surveys among state correctional officials, prosecutors, and judges. The ACA surveyed state departments of correction in the summer of 1998. States were asked to indicate the extent of changes in a number of prison operations and activities since 1996, when VOI/TIS funds became available. In the summer of 1999 the APRI surveyed prosecutors nationwide to ascertain their perceptions of the effects of "get tough" legislation (including TIS) on a number of dimensions. In the fall of 1999, the JMI surveyed judges nationwide on their impressions of the effectiveness of several "get tough" measures in their states, including VOI/TIS. In Part 1, American Correctional Association Survey Data, state correction departments were questioned on the amount of VOI/TIS funds spent by their state since 1996, number of beds added using VOI/TIS funds and in what types of facilities, how VOI/TIS funds were used to increase number of beds, average prison sentences in 1993 and 1998 for different types of offenses, average time actually served in 1993 and 1998 for those offenses, the effects of VOI/TIS on prison and jail admissions for different types of offenders, and its effects on the composition of the prison population, prison inmate activities and programs, prison staffing, and prison operations. In Part 2, American Prosecutors Research Institute Survey Data, prosecutors were questioned about what "get tough" policies their states had enacted, the efficacy of "get tough" policies in achieving their goals, whether these policies had unanticipated or negative consequences, expected results of these policies, the percentage of cases to which these policies applied, the extent to which these policies had helped accomplish their office's goals, the effects of "get tough" policies on budget and resources, sentences and time actually served, and the criminal justice process, the size of their jurisdiction, and the number of staff in their office. In Part 3, Justice Management Institute Survey Data, judges were questioned about whether their state had enacted "get tough" policies in the past ten years, what kinds of policies were adopted, their effect on the efficiency of case processing, the formal positions of the Judicial Council and Judges Association on the policies, whether the respondent or other judges had input into the policies, how likely "get tough" policies were to achieve certain goals, what results the respondent expected from the policies, the impact of the policies on the criminal justice process, years experience on the bench, the percentage of their caseload that involved criminal cases, whether they handled civil, family law/domestic relations, or juvenile cases, and the population of their jurisdiction.
Curated
Profiling Inmates in the Los Angeles County Jail, 1996-1998 (ICPSR 3271)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 1996-01-15--1998-01-15
By 1996 it became apparent that the Los Angeles county jails faced a serious overcrowding problem. Two possible solutions to the problem were to build more jail capacity or to divert a greater number of incoming inmates to community-based, intermediate sanctions. The research team for this study was asked to review a 1996 profile of inmates in the Los Angeles jail system and to determine how many of them might have been good candidates for intermediate sanctions such as electronic monitoring, work release, house arrest, and intensive supervision. The researchers selected a sample of 1,000 pre-adjudicated (or unconvicted) inmates from the total census of inmates in jail custody on January 15, 1996, to study in more detail. Of the 1,000 offenders, the researchers were able to obtain jail and recidivism data for two years for 931 inmates. For each of these offenders, information on their prior criminal history, current offense, and subsequent recidivism behavior was obtained from official records maintained by several county agencies, including pretrial services, sheriff's department, probation, and courts. Demographic variables include date of birth, race, and gender. Prior criminal history variables for each prior adult arrest include type of filing charge, case disposition, type of sentence and sentence length imposed, and total number of prior juvenile petitions sustained. Current offense variables include arrest date, crime type for current arrest, crime charge, type and date of final case disposition, and sentence type and length, if convicted. Strike information collected includes number of strikes and the offense that qualified as a strike. Jail custody variables include the jail entry and exit data for the current offense and the reason for release, if released. Lastly, two-year follow-up variables include the date, type, and disposition of each subsequent arrest between January 15, 1996, and January 15, 1998.
Curated
Validation of the Los Angeles County [California] Probation Department's Risk and Needs Assessment Instruments, 1997-1999 (ICPSR 3715)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Los Angeles, California
Time period: 1997-04-01--1999-06-01
In 1996, the Los Angeles County Probation Department developed a set of six instruments to better assess offender risks and needs. Each instrument was intended to serve a specific purpose, with separate instruments used for adult and juvenile populations and release and placement decisions. The instruments were to be completed by probation staff. These instruments were tested in a pilot project by probation field staff in 1997. The probation department then asked RAND to re-examine the six instruments for instrument integrity, use of overrides, and relationship to long-term recidivism outcomes. The probation department's research staff had completed the instruments between April and December 1997 using available reports and case file information. RAND's involvement in the study began after all samples had been selected and instruments completed. The probation department gave RAND the data on instrument scores. Recidivism data were gathered at 6, 12, and 18 months after the instruments' administration. For juveniles data on the nature and date of arrest were available from the Juvenile Automated Information files. Data on adult re-arrests were unavailable, but the Adult Probation System provided the date, nature, and disposition of offenses referred to probation.
Curated
Work Release in the State of Washington, 1990-1993 (ICPSR 2021)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-29
Geographic coverage: United States, Washington
Time period: 1990-01-01--1993-01-01
Work release programs allow selected prisoners nearing the end of their terms to work in the community, returning to correctional facilities or community residential facilities in nonworking hours. This project was designed as both a randomized and quasi-experimental field study to assess the effectiveness of work release in the Seattle area. It evaluated the impact of work release sentencing on recidivism and on corrections costs by comparing a sample of inmates who participated in work release with a comparable sample of inmates who completed their sentences in prison. The study was designed to answer the following questions: (1) What are the background and offense characteristics of offenders assigned to work release in the Seattle area? (2) What types of services are received by offenders in work release? and (3) How does the community experience of work release participants compare to that of similar offenders discharged directly into the Seattle community without having gone through work release? For each offender, detailed information was collected on measures relating to work release participation and recidivism outcomes. Information was gathered from Department of Corrections institutional files, work release program records, computerized payment information for legal and financial obligations, and statewide criminal history records. For each offender, background and six- and twelve-month reviews were completed. Part 1, Background Data, supplies variables that cover inmate demographics, employment history, drug use, current offense, prior criminal history, and risk/needs items. Part 2, Drug Testing Data, lists the types of drugs tested for, types of drugs for which there were positive results, and sanctions for drug use. Part 3, Offender Status Data, provides information on inmates' supervision status and the types of programs they participated in. Part 4, Prison Data, includes the number of days spent at different institutions and prerelease centers, work assignment, and prison infractions. Part 5, Work Release Data, contains information on the number of days spent at different work release facilities and any time spent in jail or on escape status while in work release. Data in this file also cover contacts and services received during work release, including personal and phone contacts between the work release participant and community corrections officer at the job and other sites, monitoring checks (employment verification, criminal records checks), sessions in outpatient counseling (drug, alcohol, family, other), employment (number of attempted and completed job interviews, primary job classification, length of employment, wages, and reason left), drug testing (date and type of test, type of positives, sanction imposed), infractions during work release and their sanctions, and arrests and their sanctions. Part 6, Community Placement Data, provides variables on the number of days each month that the offender was on the street, in work release, in pretrial detention, or in other custody, while Part 7, Post-Release Data, focuses on the number of days each month that the offender was on the street, in pretrial detention, or in prison or jail after being released from the work release program. Variables in Part 8, Infractions Data, pertain to the number and types of infractions and associated sanctions. Part 9, Recidivism Data, provides information on each offense after discharge from the program, including the date of the offense, nature of arrest, disposition, and sentence.