Search results

The 2012 Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities (CSFCF) was the eighth enumeration of state institutions and the fifth enumeration of federal institutions sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and its predecessors. Earlier censuses were conducted in 1974, 1979 (ICPSR 7852), 1984 (ICPSR 8444), 1990 (ICPSR 9908), 1995 (ICPSR 6953), 2000 (ICPSR 4021), and 2005 (ICPSR 24642). For each facility in the 2012 census, information was provided on security level, facility operator, sex of inmates housed, one-day counts by sex, percentage of inmates authorized to leave the facility, and anticipated changes to or closures of the facility.

The census counted prisoners held in the facilities, a custody count. Some inmates in custody in one jurisdiction may be held for a different jurisdiction. The custody count is distinct from a count of inmates under a correctional authority's jurisdiction, which includes all inmates over whom a correctional authority exercises control, regardless of where the inmate is housed. A jurisdictional count is more inclusive than a prison custody count and includes state and federal prisoners housed in local jails or other non-correctional facilities.

The 2019 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities (CCF) was the ninth enumeration of state institutions and the sixth enumeration of federal institutions sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and its predecessors. Earlier censuses were completed in 1979 (ICPSR 7852), 1984 (ICPSR 8444), 1990 (ICPSR 9908), 1995 (ICPSR 6953), 2000 (ICPSR 4021), 2005 (ICPSR 24642), and 2012 (ICPSR 37294). The 2019 CCF consisted of two data collection instruments - one for confinement facilities and one for community-based facilities. For each facility, information was provided on facility operator; sex of prisoners authorized to be housed by facility; facility functions; percentage of prisoners authorized to leave the facility; one-day counts of prisoners by sex, race/ethnicity, special populations, and holding authority; number of walkaways occurring over a one-year period; and educational and other special programs offered to prisoners. Additional information was collected from confinement facilities, including physical security level; housing for special populations; capacity; court orders for specific conditions; one-day count of correctional staff by payroll status and sex; one-day count of security staff by sex and race/ethnicity; assaults and incidents caused by prisoners; number of escapes occurring over a one-year period; and work assignments available to prisoners. Late in the data collection to avoid complete nonresponse from facilities, BJS offered the option of providing critical data elements from the two data collection instruments. These elements included facility operator; sex of prisoners authorized to be housed by facility; facility functions; percentage of prisoners authorized to leave the facility; one-day counts of prisoners by sex, and holding authority. Physical security level was an additional critical data element for confinement facilities.

The census counted prisoners held in the facilities, a custody count. Some prisoners who are held in the custody of one jurisdiction may be under the authority of a different jurisdiction. The custody count is distinct from a count of prisoners under a correctional authority's jurisdiction, which includes all prisoners over whom a correctional authority exercises control, regardless of where the prisoner is housed. A jurisdictional count is more inclusive than a prison custody count and includes state and federal prisoners housed in local jails or other non-correctional facilities.

Correctional officers (CO's) have high stress levels affecting their well-being and work performance. The longer-term adverse consequences of stress have been well documented. However, the immediate impacts of stress on CO's neurocognitive function have not been assessed (or among other law enforcement groups). Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) can measure ability to attend to relevant information when making decisions, especially when the context is emotionally charged. This study will use technology to understand the impact of CO's stress on their neurocognitive and physiological function.

The study builds on research from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-funded Oregon Healthy Workforce Center that established an index of chronic stress among more than 1330 Oregon CO's. Researchers will perform a prospective 18-month observational study among CO's from two facilities (n=400) to relate their stress levels to work characteristics, work performance and economic costs. Researchers will identify a sub-cohort of higher/lower stress CO's (total n=60) and compare their fMRI findings; researchers will measure their biomarkers to develop predictive indices of fMRI findings and chronic stress levels. The overarching goal is to understand and effectively reduce chronic stress among corrections officers (COs).

The study attempts to ask the following questions:

1. How did stress levels among COs relate to work contributors of stress and work performance?
2. What were the relationships between fMRI, biomarker tests and stress in higher and lower stress sub-cohorts?

The Urban Institute, in collaboration with the Correctional Leaders Association (CLA), the National Center on Victims of Crime (NCVC), and the Center for Effective Public Policy (CEPP), and with funding from the National Institute of Justice, conducted a two-tiered, 33-month, exploratory mixed methods study of the policies, programs, and practices used nationwide to address the needs of incarcerated women with prior trauma and victimization experiences and prevent in-custody victimization, aiming to generate actionable information for policymakers, practitioners, and program developers.

This is the first single, comprehensive study documenting the extent to which facilities implement trauma-informed and gender-responsive approaches to address women's victimization experiences, whether they offer victim services, the range of services offered, and the prevalence of trauma-informed practices in state-level women's correctional facilities. It establishes foundational knowledge for the field regarding the scope, structure, and composition of these approaches, including their trauma-informed components and use in women's correctional facilities.

The National Inmate Survey, 2008-2009 (NIS-2) was conducted in 167 state and federal prisons between October 13, 2008, and March 11, 2009; 286 jails between January 20, 2009, and August 13, 2009; and 10 special (military, Indian country, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)) facilities between May 11, 2009, and December 17, 2009. The data were collected by RTI International under a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NIS-2 comprised two questionnaires -- a survey of sexual victimization and a survey of past drug and alcohol use and treatment. Inmates were randomly assigned to receive one of the questionnaires so that at the time of the interview the content of the survey remained unknown to facility staff and the interviewers. A total of 81,566 inmates participated in the survey, including 32,029 inmates in state and federal prisons, 48,066 inmates in jails, 399 inmates in military facilities, 115 inmates in Indian country jails, and 957 inmates in facilities operated by ICE.

The respondents were asked about the type of sexual contact, the frequency, when it occurred, and where it occurred. The survey also sought information on any injuries received and the treatment obtained for those injuries. Other questions pertained to the reporting of sexual contact -- if it was reported, to whom it was reported, and any results from reporting sexual contact. Respondents were also asked for reasons why they had not reported the sexual contact if no report was made. Background and demographic information collected includes reasons for incarceration, sexual history, sexual orientation, marital status, gender, ethnicity, and physical characteristics such as height and weight.

The National Inmate Survey, 2011-2012 (NIS-3) was conducted in 233 state and federal prisons between February 2011 and May 2012; 358 jails between February 2011 and May 2012; and 15 special (military, Indian country, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)) facilities between February 2011 and May 2012. The data were collected by RTI International under a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NIS-3 comprised two questionnaires -- a survey of sexual victimization and a survey of mental and physical health, past drug and alcohol use, and treatment for substance abuse. Inmates were randomly assigned to receive one of the questionnaires so that at the time of the interview the content of the survey remained unknown to facility staff and the interviewers. A total of 81,566 inmates participated in the survey, including 32,029 inmates in state and federal prisons, 48,066 inmates in jails, 399 inmates in military facilities, 115 inmates in Indian country jails, and 957 inmates in facilities operated by ICE.

The NIS-3 was specially designed to provide estimates of sexual victimization for inmates ages 16 to 17 held in adult facilities. Previous NIS collections excluded inmates age 17 or younger due to special human subject issues (related to consent and assent, as well as risk of trauma in the survey process) and statistical issues (related to clustering of youth and the need to oversample to ensure a representative sample). To address issues of consent and risk, the NIS-3 juvenile sample was restricted to inmates ages 16 to 17 (who represented an estimated 95 percent of the 1,790 juveniles held in prisons at year end 2011 and 97 percent of the 5,870 juveniles held in local jails at midyear 2011).

The respondents were asked about the type of sexual contact, the frequency, when it occurred, and where it occurred. The survey also sought information on any injuries received and the treatment obtained for those injuries. Other questions pertained to the reporting of sexual contact -- if it was reported, to whom it was reported, and any results from reporting sexual contact. Respondents were also asked for reasons why they had not reported the sexual contact if no report was made. Background and demographic information collected includes reasons for incarceration, sexual history, sexual orientation, marital status, gender, ethnicity, and physical characteristics such as height and weight. The NIS-3 collected data on the mental health problems of inmates for the first time in 2011-12. Inmates were asked whether they had been told by a mental health professional that they had a mental disorder or if because of a mental health problem they had stayed overnight in a hospital or other facility, used prescription medicine, or they had received counseling or treatment from a trained professional.

The Urban Institute and the Minnesota Department of Corrections (MnDOC) attempted to improve the surveillance system in two state correctional facilities: Stillwater (STW) and Moose Lake (ML). The goal of this study was to conduct a rigorous process and impact evaluation of the steps that STW and ML took to optimize their surveillance systems, which included repositioning existing cameras, installing new cameras, and making other infrastructural upgrades. In addition, ML integrated an audio analytic technology in their system that would alert on-unit security staff through a visual and audio alert when it detected sounds associated with anger, fear, or verbal aggression.

The evaluation used a mixed-methods research design. Qualitative data collection included stakeholder interviews and in-depth observations of the camera operations at ML and STW before, during, and after the upgrades. The research team interviewed wardens, supervisors and officers working in the intervention units, and numerous other individuals who oversaw operations, investigations, information technology, and camera installation and configuration in ML and STW.

Quantitative administrative data were collected from ML and comparison facilities and comparative interrupted time-series (CITS) analyses were employed to examine changes in two outcomes (total misconduct incidents and guilty dispositions) following the intervention. To support the CITS, another unit in ML was identified that did not upgrade its surveillance system but was similar to the intervention housing unit in terms of population, architecture, and misconduct levels (internal comparison unit), and used the synthetic control method to create another comparison unit derived from the three other medium-security prisons operated by MnDOC (external comparison unit).

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This study involved an examination of the relative effects of measures of inmate characteristics, features of facility environments, and managerial practices, including the perceived legitimacy of the correctional staff, on both the prevalence and incidence of violent, drug, and other nonviolent misconduct.Inmate, officer, and facility data were collected from each of the 33 facilities for adults in Ohio and each of the 13 state operated facilities for adults in Kentucky. The inmate data (Inmate Level Data, n=5,640) includes information on inmates collected through on-site surveys, and then supplemented with information from administrative records. The officer data (Correctional Officer Data, n=1,841) includes information on correctional officers collected through a mail survey, and then supplemented with information retrieved from administrative records. Facility data (Facility Level Data, n=46) were derived from aggregating responses to the inmate survey, from administrative records and from semi-structured interviews conducted with the wardens of each facility.