Showing 1 – 19 of 19 results.
Curated
Alternative Probation Strategies in Baltimore, Maryland (ICPSR 8355)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Baltimore, United States, Maryland
The purpose of this study was to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of supervised probation, unsupervised probation, and community service. Data were collected from several sources: input-intake forms used by the State of Maryland, probation officers' case record files, Maryland state police rap sheets, FBI sources, and interviews with Maryland probationers. Non-violent, less serious offenders who normally received probation sentences of 12 months or less were offered randomly selected assignments to one of three treatment methods over a five-month period. Baseline data for probationers in each of the three samples were drawn from an intake form that was routinely completed for cases. An interim assessment of recidivism was made at the midpoint of the intervention for each probationer using information drawn from police records. Probationers were interviewed six and twelve months after probation ended. Demographic information on the probationers includes sex, race, age, birthplace, marital status, employment status, and education.
Curated
Annual Survey of Jails: Jurisdiction-Level and Jail-Level Data, 1992 (ICPSR 6395)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This collection provides annual data on jail populations across the nation and examines the "spillover" effect on local jails resulting from the dramatic growth in federal and state prison populations. These data permit an assessment of the demands placed on correctional resources and provide a comprehensive picture of the adult correctional system and changes that occur within the system. Information is available on the number of inmates by sex, race, adult or juvenile status, reason being held, and cause of death. Also added in the 1992 survey were variables on citizenship, population movement, and total number of inmate deaths for inmates originally confined to the facility in question who died either at that facility or elsewhere. Also, the 1992 version included a more complete survey of jail programs and a supplemental questionnaire (CJ-5S), which dealt with AIDS-related questions. In addition, information was collected for the first time on drug testing, programs that treated or educated inmates, boot camps, work release, and alternatives to incarceration such as electronic monitoring, house arrest, community service, and weekend or day reporting.
Curated
Attitudes Toward Crime and Punishment in Vermont: Public Opinion About an Experiment With Restorative Justice, 1999 (ICPSR 3016)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: Vermont, United States
By the summer of 1998, the Vermont Department of Corrections (DOC) had completed three years of operational experience with "restorative justice," a concept that involves compensating victims and establishing community-based reparative boards that determine how offenders can make amends for their crimes. The purpose of this project was to update the benchmark findings from an earlier survey of Vermont residents in 1994, to assess public attitudes about the reforms and changes that had been instituted by the Vermont DOC, and to explore the possibility of expansion of responsibilities of the reparative community boards. This project involved a telephone survey of a new sample of 601 adult residents of Vermont. The interviewing was conducted on March 15-21, 1999. Respondents were asked a series of trend questions to update the 1994 findings. Respondents were also asked questions about two other programs: the diversion program, in which selected first offenders who fulfilled the terms of a community-based sanction could have their records expunged, and the furlough program, in which offenders making the transition from prison to the community were supervised for an interim period. The survey also explored whether Vermonters would like to see the responsibilities of the reparative boards expanded to include community notification and other types of cases. Residents assessed whether crime in general, violent crime, and illegal drug use had increased compared to five years prior, whether more prisons should be built, whether Vermont's jails and prisons were overcrowded, and whether violent offenders were being released before completing their sentences because of overcrowding. They commented on how often offenders in four scenarios should go to prison and how often they believed that these offenders in fact did go to prison. Respondents rated the performance of various segments of the Vermont criminal justice system and, given 15 offense scenarios, were asked whether the offender should spend time in jail or in community service and rehabilitation. In addition, respondents were asked whether anyone in their household had been a victim of a crime within the last three years and, if so, whether it was a violent crime. Demographic data include sex, employment, education, race/ethnicity, and age category of the respondent, and the county and region where the resident lived.
Curated
Deterring Drug Use With Intensive Probation in New Jersey, 1989-1990 (ICPSR 9919)
Released/updated on: 2002-06-27
Geographic coverage: United States, New Jersey
Time period: 1989-01-01--1990-01-01
These data were collected to measure the degree to which subjective deterrence and rational choice are effective in reducing drug-use recidivism rates. Baseline interviews were conducted with participants upon entering a drug rehabilitation program in New Jersey. Under the terms of this program, which was an alternative to prison, any incident of drug use occurring during the rehabilitation period would result in the participant's returning to prison. Follow-up interviews were conducted when the participant either had a drug/alcohol use relapse or successfully completed a year in the program without a drug-use incident. Baseline interviews included questions about criminal and drug-use history, as well as initial reactions to the drug rehabilitation program. Follow-up interviews probed for participants' feelings about the drug rehabilitation program experience. Further questions concerned participants' failure or success at staying away from drugs or alcohol.
Curated
Effectiveness of Client Specific Planning as an Alternative Sentence, 1981-1982: Washington, DC, and Fairfax, Montgomery, and Prince George Counties (ICPSR 8943)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
Time period: 1981-10-01--1982-09-30
This data collection was designed to evaluate the Client Specific Planning (CSP) program of the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives (NCIA). The CSP program offers non-incarcerative sentencing options and alternatives prepared for judges and presented by an NCIA caseworker. The study measures the impact of the program on sentence length, sentence severity, the effectiveness of the program at diverting serious felony offenders from incarceration, and the rate, type, seriousness, and timing of recidivism in a 24-month post-sentence risk period. Variables are provided for each defendant on demographic characteristics, criminal history, prior counseling experiences, prior incarceration, charges and dispositions of the recidivist arrests, and types of sentencing alternatives recommended in CSP.
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
Evaluating the Impact of Alternative Placement Programs for Juveniles in a Southwestern State, 1983-1995: [United States] (ICPSR 2991)
Released/updated on: 2002-02-15
Time period: 1983-01-01--1995-09-01
This study addressed the question of whether alternative correctional programs were more effective than traditional training schools in reducing recidivism among juvenile offenders. Alternative programs were defined as halfway homes, group homes, foster homes, ranches, camping programs, and specialized vocational programs, while training schools were defined as secure, restrictive custody programs in institutional settings. The goal of this study was to assess the impact of alternative program placements versus training school for a 12-year period on 266 juvenile delinquents remanded to youth facilities in a southwestern state in 1983. Subjects chosen for the study were 298 youth who had been committed by a county court to a statewide juvenile corrections program between January 1, 1983, and July 1, 1983. The sample was representative of the youth commission's population of juvenile offenders in terms of age, race, and sex. All were first time commitments, and the original commitment offense for a majority of the youth was a nonviolent property crime, such as burglary or theft. From this original sample, 32 juveniles were eliminated from the study because they were not adequately exposed to either an institutional or alternative program. The final sample consisted of 266 juvenile offenders, of which 164 were placed in institutions and 102 were placed in alternative programs. Youth were not randomly assigned to programs. Juveniles with particular characteristics were automatically assigned to certain types of programs. All violent offenders were placed in institutions. The study was designed to include a lengthy follow-up period, a focus on subject by program interaction effects, and the use of survival analysis to examine the timing of recidivism as well as its incidence. Recidivism was defined as the first arrest or parole revocation that took place within the follow-up period. The follow-up period was approximately 12 years, from the parole assignment until September 1, 1995. Data were collected primarily from the administrative records of the state youth commission. The commission also obtained additional follow-up data from the state Department of Public Safety and the state Department of Corrections. Additionally, family background data were collected from each youth's parole officer in response to a survey conducted specifically for this study in September 1994. Demographic variables include commitment age, race, and sex. Psychosocial variables include family environment and IQ. Other independent variables include program placement status, delinquency risk scales, and program adjustment measures. The dependent variable is recidivism, measured as both a discrete variable indicating whether an arrest occurred and time until first arrest offense after parole.
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
Evaluation of Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders in Cleveland, Denver, and Mobile, 1992-1993 (ICPSR 6922)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Ohio, Denver, Alabama, Cleveland, Mobile
Time period: 1992-01-01--1993-01-01
Boot camps, a popular alternative to standard correctional facilities, are characterized by a strong emphasis on military structure, drill, and discipline and by an abbreviated period of incarceration. In 1990, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) launched a demonstration program to develop boot camp models for juveniles and to test the feasibility and appropriateness of their implementation. In September 1991, three groups received awards to develop and implement boot camps as intermediate sanctions: the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in Cleveland, Ohio, the Colorado Division of Youth Services in Denver, Colorado, and the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Mobile, Alabama. Simultaneously, the National Institute of Justice sponsored an evaluation of the implementation of the demonstration programs, focusing on the experiences of youths who entered the program during the first year of operation, from 1992 to 1993. This collection contains data from the program evaluation conducted on these three boot camps during the first year. The core of the assessment was a management information system that captured administrative data as the offenders progressed through the demonstration program. At intake, researchers collected demographic, criminal, and family and social information. Demographic information collected at intake includes age, race, education, and employment. Criminal data covers criminal history, current offense, and case information, while family and social history variables include whether the youths' parents had a criminal record, whether their family received public assistance, and whether they had delinquent friends, delinquent siblings, discipline problems at home or school, or a history of psychological problems. At the beginning and end of the boot camp term, staff rated the youths' performance on educational and behavioral measures. The youths were also surveyed about the rules of boot camp, their opinions of instructors, and their self-esteem, drug and alcohol use, and criminal behavior. At the end of the first 90 days (the residential period), data were collected on the date of graduation, infractions during boot camp, honors or awards, and special services received. Five months after graduation, youths were evaluated on their aftercare experiences. Some sites supplemented the basic management information with data collected on educational performance, employment history and expectations, physical fitness, and youth attitudes.
Curated
Evaluation of the Maricopa County [Arizona] Demand Reduction Program, 1989-1991 (ICPSR 9977)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Arizona
Time period: 1989-03-01--1991-05-01
These data were collected to evaluate the Demand Reduction Program, a program initiated in Maricopa County, Arizona, in 1989 to combat drug abuse. A consortium of municipal, county, state, and federal law enforcement agencies developed the program, which stressed user accountability. The Demand Reduction Program had two objectives: (1) to create community-wide awareness of the severity of the drug problem and to alert drug users to the increased risk of legal sanctions, and (2) to adopt a zero-tolerance position of user accountability through an emphasis on increased and coordinated law enforcement activities directed against individual offenders and special treatment programs in lieu of prosecution. Part 1 of the collection, Demand Reduction Program Data, provides information on prosecutor's disposition, arrest date, submitted charges, filed charges, prior charges, disposition of charges, drugs offender used in last three months, information on prior drug treatment, type of attorney, and arrestee's age at arrest, sex, marital status, income, and living arrangement. Part 2 is a Citizen Survey conducted in January 1990, ten months after the implementation of the Demand Reduction Program. Adult residents of Maricopa County were asked in telephone interviews about their attitudes toward drug use, tax support for drug treatment, education, and punishment, their knowledge of the Demand Reduction Program, and demographic information. Parts 3 and 4 supply data from surveys of Maricopa County police officers, conducted in March 1990 and April 1991, to measure attitudes regarding the Demand Reduction Program with respect to (1) police effort, (2) inter-agency cooperation, (3) the harm involved in drug use, and (4) support for diversion to treatment. The two police surveys contained identically-worded questions, with only a small number of different questions asked the second year. Variables include officer's rank, years at rank, years in department, shift worked, age, sex, ethnicity, education, marital status, if officer was the primary or secondary wage earner, officer's perception of and training for the Demand Reduction Program, and personal attitudes toward drug use. Part 5 provides arrest data from the Maricopa County Task Force, which arrested drug users through two methods: (1) sweeps of public and semi-public places, and (2) "reversals," where drug sellers were arrested and replaced by police officers posing as drug sellers, who then arrested the drug buyers. Task Force data include arrest date, operation number, operation beginning and ending date, operation type, region where operation was conducted, charge resulting from arrest, Demand Reduction Program identification number, and arrestee's sex, race, and date of birth.
Curated
Examination of Actuarial Offender-Based Prediction Assessments in Texas, 1993-1996 (ICPSR 20403)
Released/updated on: 2008-06-23
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas
Time period: 1993-01-01--1996-01-01
The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive assessment of the usefulness and effectiveness of prediction and classification of offenders under community supervision. A felony cohort data collection instrument was developed to test the validity of the Wisconsin Risk and Need Instrument in use in Texas, as well as to develop "better" predictor variables for a variety of dependent variables. Using the felony cohort data instrument, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Community Justice Assistance Division (TDCJ-CJAD) collected detailed statewide information on 3,405 felony offenders placed on probation in Texas during October 1993. Specifically, the form was completed by a probation officer on all felony probation intakes at the time the initial case classification risk/needs assessment was conducted. Additionally, follow-up forms were developed and administered to track the offenders' progress at one year, two years, and three years. Variables include probationer information, current offense, criminal history, social history, substance abuse, probation sanctions, case classification risk items, and case classification need items. Additional variables include felony cohort one-year follow-up data form questions, felony cohort second-year follow-up data form questions, and felony cohort third-year follow-up data form questions.
Curated
Incapacitation Effects of Incarcerating Drug Offenders: Longitudinal Arrest Histories of Adults Arrested in Washington, DC, 1985-1986 (ICPSR 2741)
Released/updated on: 2000-07-27
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
Time period: 1985-07-01--1986-06-01
This study examined differences in criminal career parameters that determine the potential incapacitative effects of alternative sentencing policies directed at drug-involved offenders. In particular, the researchers explored three key aspects of offenders' criminal careers: participation, frequency of offending, and termination rates from active offending. The study focused on differences in levels of serious offending by drug-using and nonusing drug offenders compared to drug-using and nonusing predatory offenders. Longitudinal arrest data for a sample of arrestees were collected to characterize the offending patterns of drug-using and nonusing drug offenders and predatory offenders. The sample was drawn from adults arrested in Washington, DC, on any charge from July 1, 1985, to June 30, 1986. Data were collected from case files maintained by the Washington, DC, Pretrial Services Agency for 883 arrestees and 5,387 arrests. Previous and subsequent arrests of the same individual were linked to form an arrest history. Within the sample of arrestees, three main types of offenders were distinguished based on offense charge at target arrest: (1) drug offenders, (2) predatory offenders (persons charged with robbery or burglary), and (3) all others. This study focused on the first two groups and distinguished drug users from non-users based on the results of a urine drug screen administered following the target arrest. Variables regarding arrests include date of arrest, drug test result, charges filed, disposition date, disposition type, and sentence length imposed. Demographic variables include race, sex, and place of birth.
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
Intensive Supervision Program in New Jersey, 1983-1986 (ICPSR 9291)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, New Jersey
Time period: 1983-01-01--1986-01-01
These data evaluate the New Jersey Intensive Supervision Program (ISP), a program implemented by the New Jersey Department of Corrections in 1983-1986. The central premise of ISP is that certain felony offenders sentenced to prison can be resentenced to a program of intensive supervision in which they are successfully supervised in the community. The data collection evaluates the impact of ISP on recidivism rates, prison space availability, and cost effectiveness and also assesses the opinions of criminal justice professionals toward the program. In the first file data collected on four types of sentenced felons include education, psychological condition, financial status, substance abuse, prior and follow-up criminal records, earning and payment records, sentence and correctional histories, and case characteristics including sentences, offenses, and other dispositions. The second file presents data on type of criminal justice professional interviewed, opinion scale scores on aspects of ISP, and suggestions for ISP.
Curated
New York City Court Employment Project Evaluation Study, 1976-1979 (ICPSR 7832)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 1976-01-01--1979-01-01
This study served as a controlled research evaluation of the New York City Court Employment Project (CEP) as it stood in 1976-1979. At the time of the study, CEP was an independent corporation under contract to New York City's Human Resources Administration. The ultimate aim of CEP was to change the income-generating behavior of its participants to reduce their subsequent criminal activity. CEP did this by diverting accused offenders from routine court procedures (criminal prosecution, sentencing, and possible incarceration) and instead placing them into jobs, training, or vocationally-oriented counseling services. Eligible defendants agreed to attend mandatory counseling sessions, to devise and execute individual plans for securing training and employment, and to avoid arrest and conviction during their participation. Charges were dismissed by the court if, at the end of six months, CEP counselors determined that the defendant had participated successfully. Research goals for this study were to accumulate data in order to: (1) assess the impact of diversion on recidivism and personal stability, (2) ascertain the outcome of court cases without diversion, and (3) assess the relationship of these outcomes to the social services aspect of diversion programs. The study compared a control group of non-CEP offenders with an experimental group of CEP participants to assess the program's effectiveness in helping offenders find and maintain employment or training and avoid criminal activity. Data were collected on 666 subjects, 410 in the experimental group and 256 in the control group. Three interviews were conducted at six-month intervals with each subject, initially to record self-reports about education, training, employment history, reliance on public assistance, criminal history, illegal activities, lifestyle, and utilization of social services, and then to maintain current information about their school, employment, income, and court processing status. In addition to the three personal interviews, official records data were obtained from a variety of agencies to gather information including criminal history, disposition of the case on which the defendant entered the research, information related to subsequent arrests, and (for members of the experimental group) information about participation in CEP. Other variables include attendance at counseling sessions, type of employment found, job attendance, self-evaluation of important life events and life satisfaction, social services programs utilized, and drug and alcohol use, as well as defendant's and defendant's parents' age, sex, and race.
Curated
Pennsylvania Task Force on Prison Overcrowding, 2004-2005 (ICPSR 25301)
Released/updated on: 2010-06-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2004-09-01--2005-05-01
The current jail population control study is the second phase of a two-part inquiry by the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania that began in 2003. Phase II builds upon the findings of the initial survey by using a number of information sources to obtain data with which to examine in greater detail the reasons and remedies for jail overcrowding. The Phase II study was implemented in September 2004 and was designed to examine jail population control data from four sources: Pennsylvania Statewide Jail Survey (Part 1), Intensive Site Visits to selected Pennsylvania Counties (Part 2), National Association of Counties (NACo) Best Practices Survey, and National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Technical Assistance reports. The Pennsylvania Statewide Survey (Part 1, Pennsylvania Statewide Survey Quantitative Data) was sent to all counties operating their own jails in September 2004. Surveys were mailed to 63 of the state's 67 counties. Counties were selected for intensive site visits (Part 2, Intensive Site Visit Qualitative Data) based largely on the results of the Phase I survey and focused on counties with the most extreme crowding problems and/or expressing interest in tackling population control issues. Visits were made to 14 of the state's 67 counties between September 2004 and May 2005. Part 1 includes variables on jail capacity and population, construction, population control measures, potential change targets, and transportation issues. Part 2 includes background to the site visit, site visit agenda and aims, and an exploration of population control options.
Curated
Process Evaluation of the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice's Regional Service Coordination Model, 2017-2023 (ICPSR 39347)
Released/updated on: 2025-09-10
Geographic coverage: United States, Virginia
Time period: 2017-01-01--2022-01-01
In 2017, the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) began implementation of the Regional Service Coordination (RSC) model. The goal of this initiative was to implement and maintain statewide comprehensive community-based services and alternative placements for youth in Virginia's juvenile justice system. The DJJ partnered with Child Trends to conduct a process evaluation of this RSC model. Child Trends used data from DJJ's administrative data system, and collected qualitative data from groups involved in implementation, such as probation/parole officers, judges, service coordinators, and direct service providers.
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
Strategies for Retaining Offenders in Mandatory Drug Treatment Programs in Kings County, New York, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 2749)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state)
Time period: 1994-01-01--1995-01-01
This study examined the relationship between legal pressure and drug treatment retention by assessing perceptions of legal pressure held by two groups of legally-mandated treatment clients: (1) participants of the Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program operated by the Kings County (Brooklyn) District Attorney in New York City, and (2) a matched group of probationers, parolees, Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) participants, and other court-mandated offenders attending the same community-based treatment programs used by DTAP. The Brooklyn DTAP was selected for study because of the program's uniquely coercive program components, including the threat of a mandatory prison term for noncompliance. The goals of this project were (1) to test whether DTAP participants would show significantly higher retention rates when compared to a matched sample of other legally-mandated treatment clients, and (2) to assess the role of perceived legal pressure in predicting retention for both of these groups. Data were collected from program participants through interviews conducted at admission to treatment and follow-up interviews conducted about eight weeks later. Intake interviews were conducted, on average, one week after the client's admission to treatment. The one-to-one interviews, which lasted up to two hours, were administered by trained researchers in a private location at the treatment site. The intake interview battery included a mixture of standardized measures and those developed by the Vera Institute of Justice. Data in Part 1 were collected with the Addiction Severity Index and include age, sex, race, religion, and education. Additional variables cover medical problems, employment history, detailed substance abuse and treatment history, number of times arrested for various crimes, history of incarceration, family's substance abuse and criminal histories, relationships with family and friends, psychological problems such as depression, anxiety, and suicide, current living arrangements, and sources of income. Part 2, Supplemental Background and Retention Data, contains treatment entry date, number of days in treatment, age at treatment entry, termination date, treatment condition, arrest date, detention at arrest, date released on probation/parole, violation of probation/parole arrest date and location, problem drug, prior drug treatment, as well as age, gender, race, education, and marital status. Part 3, Division of Criminal Justice Services Data, includes data on the number of arrests before and after program entry, and number of total misdemeanor and felony arrests, convictions, and sentences. Part 4, Chemical Use, Abuse, and Dependence Data, contains information on type of substance abuse, intoxication or withdrawal at work, school, or home, effects of abuse on social, occupational, or recreational activities, and effects of abuse on relationships, health, emotions, and employment. Parts 5 and 6 contain psychiatric data gathered from the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised and Beck's Depression Inventory, respectively. Part 7 variables from the Circumstances, Motivation, Readiness, and Suitability scale include family's attitude toward treatment, subject's need for treatment, subject's desire to change life, and legal consequences if subject did not participate in treatment. Part 8, Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness scale, contains data on how the subject viewed the drug problem, desire to change, and history of dealing with substance abuse. Part 9, Motivational/Program Supplement Data, includes variables on the subject's need for treatment, attitudes toward treatment sessions, the family's reaction to treatment, and a likelihood of completion rating. Part 10, Perceived Legal Coercion Data, gathered information on who referred the subject to the treatment program, who was keeping track of attendance, whether someone explained the rules of participation in the program and the consequences if the subject failed the program, whether the rules and consequences were put in writing, who monitored program participants, the likelihood of using drugs while in treatment, the likelihood of leaving the program before completion, whether the subject understood the legal consequences of failing the program, the type and frequency of reports and contacts with the criminal justice system, and the subject's reaction to various penalties for not completing the program. Part 11 contains data from the Community Oriented Programs Environment Scale (COPES). Part 12, Treatment Services Review Data, includes data on the number of times the subject received medical attention, days in school, days employed, days intoxicated, days in substance abuse treatment, days tested for drugs, number of contacts with the criminal justice system, days treated for psychological problems, and time spent at recreational activities. Additional variables include the number of individual and group treatment sessions spent discussing medical problems, education and employment, substance abuse, legal problems, and psychological and emotional problems.