Showing 1 – 5 of 5 results.
Curated
Consequences of a Criminal Record for Employment Opportunity in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2002 (ICPSR 3599)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin
This study examined employers' policies and practices for hiring entry-level workers in the Milwaukee metropolitan area. The study consisted of telephone interviews conducted in the spring of 2002 with 177 employers who had advertised entry-level openings in the prior six months. The survey included questions about the company, such as size, industry, employee turnover, and racial composition, questions about hiring procedures, questions about the last worker hired for a position not requiring a college degree, and questions about the employer's attitude toward various kinds of marginalized workers. An emphasis in the survey was placed on assessing employers' attitudes about and experience with applicants with criminal histories.
Curated
Evaluation of a Local Jail Training Program in Sacramento County, California, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 2582)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 1994-07-01--1995-07-01
This data collection represents a process and outcome evaluation of the Office Technology Training program at the Rio Consumnes Correctional Center (RCCC) in Sacramento County. RCCC is a county jail for prisoners sentenced up to one year in custody. The Office Technology Training program, one of several training programs for inmates at RCCC, was designed to familiarize students with the use of computers in an office or business setting and to provide specific instruction in several types of common office software, including word processing and desktop publishing. The purpose of the evaluation research was (1) to refine the process of determining what types of training should be funded and (2) to establish research-based evaluation protocols for local jail inmate training programs. Data were collected on participants in the Office Technology Training class, on a control group that matched the participants in terms of demographic characteristics, and on a smaller group of nonparticipants who had signed up for the training program but did not participate. Part 1, Treatment and Control Group Data, contains administrative and survey data on both the trainees and the control group, while Part 2, Nonparticipant Data, includes administrative and survey data on the inmates who registered for the training but did not participate in the program. The survey consisted of an evaluation form filled out by inmates who participated in the training at RCCC, indicating their prior experience with computers and software, evaluating the training they received, and assessing whether the new skills would be helpful in securing employment upon their release. Administrative records on all respondents (trainees, control, and nonparticipants) were collected from four sources: a supplemental form on inmates' employment, a probation report that provided personal and criminal histories, a risk assessment form, and a follow-up form completed by the probation officer within one week of the six-month anniversary of the inmate's release from RCCC. Variables from the supplemental form included employment type and wages. The probation report covered employment, education, military history, marital status, substance abuse, domestic violence, gang behavior, psychiatric history, child abuse history, and criminal histories as juveniles and adults. Data on attitude, alcohol and drug problems, number of felony convictions, probation periods and violations, types of offenses, and history of institutionalization were taken from the risk assessment form. The follow-up form gathered information on release, disciplinary actions at RCCC, opinions about the Office Technology Training program, substance abuse, new arrests and convictions, gang behavior, job training, employment type, hourly wage, job satisfaction, and use of computers on the job. Additional administrative records data on trainees and nonparticipants were gathered from the class registration form, including gender, education, birth date, ethnicity, language spoken, occupation, Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) scores, and class assignments. Other data on trainees came from an evaluation form filled out by the students' instructor upon their completion of the Office Technology class. It provided information on the behavior, attitude, and skills of the students.
Curated
Restricted
Expanded Assessment of the Consequences of Imprisonment for Employment in Maricopa County, Arizona from 2011-2012 (ICPSR 35613)
Released/updated on: 2017-08-25
Geographic coverage: Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona
Time period: 2012-07-01--2012-09-01, 2011-01-01--2012-01-01, 2011-01-01--2012-01-01
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 research completed a three-year study of the impact of a prison record on gaining employment. It included two separate experiments and an employer survey in the research. The first experiment involved the submission of more than 6,000 online applications for entry-level jobs. The second experiment sent individuals (auditors) to apply for 60 jobs in-person. The third research method was a survey conducted among 49 employers, all of whom were included in the second experiment.
The collection contains 3 SPSS data files:
- file1-male_and_female_inperson_data.sav (n=518; 17 variables)
- file2-employer_survey-ICPSR.sav (n=48; 79 variables)
- file3-male_and_female_online_data.sav (n=6,198; 19 variables)
Curated
Restricted
National Evaluation of Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP), 1996-2003 [United States] (ICPSR 20740)
Released/updated on: 2009-01-29
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1996-01-01--2003-06-01
The goal of this study was to conduct a national empirical assessment of post-release employment and recidivism effects based on legislative intent for inmates participating in Prison Industries Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP) as compared to participants in traditional industries (TI) and those involved in other than work (OTW) activities. The research design for this study was a quasi-experimental design using matched samples. The inmates were matched using six criteria. Exact matches were made on race, gender, crime type, and category matches on age, time served, and number of disciplinary reports. A cluster sampling strategy was used for site selection. This strategy resulted in a selection of five states which were not identified in the study. The researchers then collected data on 6,464 individuals by completing record reviews of outcomes for the 3 matched samples, each of approximately 2,200 inmates released from 46 prisons across 5 PIECP states between January 1, 1996, and June 30, 2001. Variables include demographic information, time incarcerated, number of disciplinary reports, crime type, number of major disciplinary reports reviewed, group type, number of quarters from release to employment, censored variables, number of quarters from employed to job loss, time from release variables, number of possible follow-up quarters, proportion of follow-up time worked, wage variables, number of quarters worked variables, no work ever, and cluster number of case.
Curated
Transitional Aid Research Project (TARP), 1976-1977 (ICPSR 7874)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas, Georgia
Time period: 1976-01-01--1977-01-01
The Transitional Aid Research Project (TARP) was a randomized field experiment conducted in Texas and Georgia in 1976-1977 that was designed to reduce recidivism among ex-prisoners by lowering incentives for re-engaging in property crime through provision of minimal levels of income support and extension of some unemployment insurance coverage to released prisoners. This study evolved out of an earlier LIFE (Living Insurance for Ex-Prisoners) study conducted in Baltimore, Maryland in the early 1970s. In the LIFE study, 500 prisoners with a high probability of re-arrest were randomly assigned at release from prison to experimental and control groups which varied by the amount of money received (contingent upon employment or unemployment and job placement services provided). The results showed that ex-prisoners receiving payments were less likely to be re-arrested for property theft-related crimes than those who received only job placement or no services or payments of any kind. The United States Department of Labor commissioned the TARP experiment, designed to replicate the LIFE experiment while providing a larger and more representative sample of prisoners, greater variation in treatment conditions, and administration of payments and job placement services through existing agencies rather than by a special purpose project staff. Texas and Georgia were the states chosen for the experiment, and stratified random samples of inmates were assigned, at the time of release from prison, to experimental and control groups. The groups varied in the amount of money and job placement services they received upon their release. Originally, the data were recorded in nine files for each state corresponding to each of the nine different sources of information for each TARP case. The ICPSR data collection combines these into one file for each state: Part 1 for Texas, and Part 2 for Georgia. Each file contains over 1,500 variables, clustered in nine topic areas for each inmate: (1) prison history (e.g., background information, psychological and aptitude test data, and prior criminal and present incarceration activity), (2-5) data from four personal interviews (conducted at the prerelease, three-month, six-month, and 12-month stages and that include living arrangements, employment history, and financial status), (6) state arrest data, (7) records of TARP payments received, (8) social security wages, and (9) parole records.