Showing 1 – 50 of 56 results.
Curated
Census of Jail Facilities, 2006 (ICPSR 26602)
Released/updated on: 2010-01-26
Geographic coverage: United States
To reduce respondent burden and improve data quality and timeliness, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) split the jail census into two parts: The Census of Jail Inmates was conducted with a reference date of June 30, 2005. The following spring it was followed by this enumeration, the Census of Jail Facilities, which collected data as of March 31, 2006. Previous jail enumerations were conducted in 1970 (ICPSR 7641), 1972 (ICPSR 7638), 1978 (ICPSR 7737), 1983 (ICPSR 8203), 1988 (ICPSR 9256), 1993 (ICPSR 6648), and 1999 (ICPSR 3318). The United States Census Bureau collected the data for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The 2006 Census of Jail Facilities gathered data from all jail detention facilities holding inmates beyond arraignment, a period normally exceeding 72 hours. Jail facilities were operated by cities and counties, by private entities under contract to correctional authorities, and by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Excluded from the census were physically separate temporary holding facilities such as drunk tanks and police lockups that do not hold persons after being formally charged in court. Also excluded were state-operated facilities in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Alaska, which have combined jail-prison systems. Fifteen independently operated jails in Alaska were included in the Census. The census collected jurisdictional level information on the number of confined inmates; average daily population; number of separate jail facilities; renovation and building plans; court orders and consent decrees; staff by occupational category and race/ethnicity; jail programs; and costs of operation. The census also collected individual jail facility information on the purpose for which the jail held offenders; gender of the inmates authorized to house; functions, such as general adult population confinement, work release, and medical treatment; whether a separate temporary holding area or lockup was operated; rated capacity; number of confined inmates by gender and adult or juvenile status; year of original construction; and whether the facility ever had a major renovation.
Curated
Census of Jail Inmates: Individual-Level Data, 2005 (ICPSR 20367)
Released/updated on: 2007-07-27
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2004-07-01--2005-06-30
The Census of Jail Inmates is the eighth in a series of data collection efforts aimed at studying the nation's locally-administered jails. Beginning in 2005, the National Jail Census was broken out into two collections. The 2005 Census of Jail Inmates (CJI) collects data on the facilities' supervised populations, inmate counts and movements, and persons supervised in the community. The forthcoming 2006 Census of Jail Facilities collects information on staffing levels, programming, and facility policies. Previous censuses were conducted in 1970, 1972, 1978, 1983, 1988, 1993, and 1999. The 2005 CJI enumerated 2,960 locally administered confinement facilities that held inmates beyond arraignment and were staffed by municipal or county employees. Among these were 42 privately-operated jails under contract to local governments and 65 regional jails that were operated for two or more jail authorities. In addition, the census identified 12 facilities maintained by the Federal Bureau of Prisons that functioned as jails. These 12 facilities, together with the 2,960 nonfederal facilities, brought the number of jails in operation on June 30, 2005, to a nationwide total of 2,972. The CJI supplies data on characteristics of jails such as admissions and releases, growth in the number of jail facilities, changes in their rated capacities and level of occupancy, crowding issues, growth in the population supervised in the community, and changes in methods of community supervision. The CJI also provides information on changes in the demographics of the jail population, supervision status of persons held, and a count of non-United States citizens in custody. The data are intended for a variety of users, including federal and state agencies, local officials in conjunction with jail administrators, researchers, planners, and the public.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Census of Jails, 2013 (ICPSR 36128)
Released/updated on: 2018-04-25
Geographic coverage: United States
To reduce respondent burden for the 2013 collection, the Census of Jails was combined with the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP). The census provides the sampling frame for the nationwide Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (SILJ) and the Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ). Previous jail enumerations were conducted in 1970 (ICPSR 7641), 1972 (ICPSR 7638), 1978 (ICPSR 7737), 1983 (ICPSR 8203), 1988 (ICPSR 9256), 1993 (ICPSR 6648), 1999 (ICPSR 3318), 2005 (ICPSR 20367), and 2006 (ICPSR 26602). The RTI International collected the data for the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2013. The United States Census Bureau was the collection agent from 1970-2006.
The 2013 Census of Jails gathered data from all jail detention facilities holding inmates beyond arraignment, a period normally exceeding 72 hours. Jail facilities were operated by cities and counties, by private entities under contract to correctional authorities, and by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
Excluded from the census were physically separate temporary holding facilities such as drunk tanks and police lockups that do not hold persons after being formally charged in court. Also excluded were state-operated facilities in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Alaska, which have combined jail-prison systems. Fifteen independently operated jails in Alaska were included in the Census.
The 2013 census collected facility-level information on the number of confined and nonconfined inmates, number of inmates participating in weekend programs, number of confined non-U.S. citizens, number of confined inmates by sex and adult or juvenile status, number of juveniles held as adults, conviction and sentencing status, offense type, number of inmates held by race or Hispanic origin, number of inmates held for other jurisdictions or authorities, average daily population, rated capacity, number of admissions and releases, program participation for nonconfined inmates, operating expenditures, and staff by occupational category.
Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs
Census of Jails, 2019 (ICPSR 38323)
Released/updated on: 2022-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
To reduce respondent burden for the 2019 collection, the Census of Jails was combined with the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP). The census provides the sampling frame for the nationwide Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (SILJ) and the Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ). Previous jail enumerations were conducted in 1970 (ICPSR 7641), 1972 (ICPSR 7638), 1978 (ICPSR 7737), 1983 (ICPSR 8203), 1988 (ICPSR 9256), 1993 (ICPSR 6648), 1999 (ICPSR 3318), 2005 (ICPSR 20367), 2006 (ICPSR 26602), and 2013 (ICPSR 36128). The RTI International collected the data for the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2013 and 2019. The United States Census Bureau was the collection agent from 1970-2006.
The 2019 Census of Jails gathered data from all jail detention facilities holding inmates beyond arraignment, a period normally exceeding 72 hours. Jail facilities were operated by cities and counties, by private entities under contract to correctional authorities, and by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
Excluded from the census were physically separate temporary holding facilities such as drunk tanks and police lockups that do not hold persons after being formally charged in court. Also excluded were state-operated facilities in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Alaska, which have combined jail-prison systems. Fifteen independently operated jails in Alaska were included in the Census.
The 2019 census collected information on the number of confined inmates, number of persons supervised outside jail, number of inmates participating in weekend programs, number of confined non-U.S. citizens, number of inmates by sex and adult or juvenile status, number of juveniles held as adults, number of inmates who were parole or probation violators, number of inmates by conviction status, number of inmates by felony or misdemeanor status, number of inmates held by race or Hispanic origin, number of inmates held for other jurisdictions or authorities, average daily population, rated capacity, admissions and releases, number of staff employed by local jails, facility functions, and number of jails under court orders and consent decrees.
The 2019 census also included a module to collect data on the effects of the opioid epidemic on local jails and jail responses to the epidemic. Items included:
- Jail practices on opioid use disorder testing, screening, and treatment.
- Number of local jail admissions screened during June 2019.
- Number of positive screens.
- Number of admissions treated for opioid use disorder.
- Number of jail inmates treated for opioid withdrawal at midyear 2019.
Curated
Census of State Adult Correctional Facilities, 1979 (ICPSR 7852)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This census, designed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and conducted by the United States Census Bureau, includes all state correctional facilities known to the Census Bureau in 1979. Each facility is classified into one of ten categories such as community center, prison farm, road camp, or reception center. Data for 1979 include number of inmates by security classification and by sex, number of full- and part-time staff, number of paid and volunteer staff broken down by position, age, pay, and education, number and age of facilities, type of facilities provided in each cell by size of cell, hospital facilities available, programs provided for the inmates, job training, and inmate IQ scores.
Curated
Census of State Adult Correctional Facilities, 1984 (ICPSR 8444)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This study provides a descriptive analysis of confinement facilities and state-operated community-based correctional facilities nationwide. Decision-makers, practitioners, and researchers may use the census to analyze the current conditions and needs of state correctional facilities for adults. Variables of interest include physical security, age of facilities, functions of facilities, programs, inmate work assignments, staff employment, facilities under court order/consent decree for conditions of confinement, capital and operating expenditures, custody level of residents/inmates, one-day and average daily population counts, race/ethnicity of inmates, inmate work assignments, inmate deaths, special inmate counts, and assaults and incidents by inmates. The institution is the unit of analysis.
Curated
Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities, 1990 (ICPSR 9908)
Released/updated on: 2001-12-21
Geographic coverage: United States
This census is the fourth enumeration of state adult correctional institutions and the first of federal institutions sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and conducted by the Bureau of the Census. Earlier censuses were completed in 1974 (ICPSR 7811), 1979 (ICPSR 7852), and 1984 (ICPSR 8444). Separate questionnaires were devised for confinement facilities and for community-based facilities. Variables describing the facilities include physical security, age, functions, capacity, confinement space, available medical facilities, programs, inmate/resident work assignments, staff employment, facilities under court order/consent decree for conditions of confinement, capital and operating expenditures, custody level of inmates/residents, one-day count and average daily population, race/ethnicity of inmates/residents, inmate/resident deaths, special inmate/resident counts, and assaults and incidents by inmates. An addendum on drug control activities in state and federal facilities was included for the first time in the 1990 census. Facilities were asked to provide information on the following: procedures used with inmates/residents, visitors, and staff to keep out illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia, inmate/resident drug-testing practices, including the criteria for testing inmates/residents, the number of inmates/residents tested in total and by specific drug, and the number that tested positive, staff drug testing, including groups and basis for testing, number tested, and procedures when tests were positive, and capacity and enrollment in various types of drug treatment and intervention programs.
Curated
Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities, 1995 (ICPSR 6953)
Released/updated on: 2003-03-21
Geographic coverage: United States
This census is the fifth enumeration of state adult correctional institutions and the second of federal institutions sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and conducted by the Bureau of the Census. Earlier censuses were completed in 1974 (ICPSR 7811), 1979 (ICPSR 7852), 1984 (ICPSR 8444), and 1990 (ICPSR 9908). Unlike the previous censuses, all respondents in 1995 were sent the same survey form. For each facility, information was provided on physical security, age, functions, capacity, court orders for specific conditions, one-day counts and average populations, race/ethnicity of inmates, inmate work assignments, inmate deaths, special inmate counts, assaults, and incidents caused by inmates.
Curated
Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities, 2000 (ICPSR 4021)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This census is the sixth enumeration of state adult correctional institutions and the third of federal institutions sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and conducted by the Bureau of the Census. Earlier censuses were completed in 1974 (ICPSR 7811), 1979 (ICPSR 7852), 1984 (ICPSR 8444), 1990 (ICPSR 9908), and 1995 (ICPSR 6953). For each facility, information was provided on physical security, age, functions, capacity, court orders for specific conditions, one-day counts and average populations, race/ethnicity of inmates, inmate work assignments, inmate deaths, special inmate counts, assaults, and incidents caused by inmates.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities, 2005 (ICPSR 24642)
Released/updated on: 2017-05-12
Geographic coverage: United States
This census is the seventh enumeration of state adult correctional institutions and the fourth of federal institutions sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and conducted by the Bureau of the Census. Earlier censuses were completed in 1979 (ICPSR 7852), 1984 (ICPSR 8444), 1990 (ICPSR 9908), 1995 (ICPSR 6953), and 2000 (ICPSR 4021). For each facility, information was provided on physical security, age, functions, capacity, court orders for specific conditions, one-day counts and average populations, race/ethnicity of inmates, inmate work assignments, inmate deaths, special inmate counts, assaults, and incidents caused by inmates.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities, 2012 (ICPSR 37294)
Released/updated on: 2020-09-15
Geographic coverage: United States
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.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities, 2019 (ICPSR 38325)
Released/updated on: 2022-08-18
Geographic coverage: United States
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.
Curated
Classifying Inmates for Strategic Programming in the New York Department of Corrections, 1997-1998 (ICPSR 3205)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 1997-07-01--1998-06-30
The main goal of this study was to construct and test a statistically based system of classifying inmates for one or more types of Substance Abuse Intervention Division (SAID) sponsored treatment programs within the New York Department of Corrections (DOC) system. The sample used for the prediction models was a sample of recent jail inmates identified as eligible for admission to SAID. DOC provided data from its Inmate Information System (IIS) database on each of the cases. Researchers collected two sets of data: one that employed only DOC data (Part 1) and another that included supplementary data from the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and the New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) (Part 2). The DOC data (Part 1) fall into four main categories: demographic characteristics, information on the current case, prior criminal record information, and SAID eligibility information. Part 2, DOC and Supplementary Data, includes all the DOC items from Part 1 along with other data collected from DCJS and the New York City CJA.
Curated
Cognitive Behavioral Interventions and Misconduct Behind Bars: A Randomized Control Trial of Cognitive Behavioral Interventions Core Curriculum (CBI-CC), Delaware, 2019-2023 (ICPSR 39035)
Released/updated on: 2025-04-29
Geographic coverage: United States, Delaware
Time period: 2019-08-01--2023-09-01
Institutional misconduct, especially violent misconduct, poses a problem for all prisons. To address the misconduct concern, this study tested whether an evidence-based, cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT) program would reduce misconduct, including incidents of violent misconduct, and post-release arrests compared to non or less intensive CBT programming. The Delaware Department of Correction (DOC) implemented CBT-based programs in their institutions, which included the Cognitive Behavioral Interventions - Core Curriculum (CBI-CC) developed at the University of Cincinnati. The three programs addressed in this study include Thinking Things Through (TTT), Road to Recovery (R2R), and Reflections. TTT consisted of the instruments and materials of the CBI-CC, whereas R2R and Reflections focused on CBT skills and techniques. The Center for Drug and Health Studies (CDHS) in collaboration with DOC evaluated the impact of the program using administrative records and surveys with program participants.
Results indicated that all treatment groups performed better than the control group in terms of rearrest and incarceration. The group who received the intensive CBT treatment performed significantly better than all other groups. Intensive CBT treatment was thus effective in reducing recidivism. In terms of CBI-CC programming, participants had the highest rates of misconduct but saw a significant decrease after completing programming. In addition, both R2R and TTT have the lowest rates of rearrest after completing treatment programming compared to all other groups. This can be credited to the length and intensity of programming, as well CBT implemented within the programs.
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
Evaluation of In-Prison Programming for Incarcerated Women: Addressing Trauma and Prior Victimization, United States, 2017-2020 (ICPSR 37891)
Released/updated on: 2021-10-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2017-01-01--2020-01-01
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.
Curated
Evaluation of Prison-Based Drug Treatment in Pennsylvania, 2000-2001 (ICPSR 3540)
Released/updated on: 2003-06-19
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania
The purpose of this study was to examine multiple treatment process measures and post-release outcomes for inmates who participated in Therapeutic Community (TC) drug treatment programs or comparison groups provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections at five state prisons. The project attempted to examine more closely the relationships among inmate characteristics, treatment process, and treatment outcomes than previous studies in order to explore critical issues in prison-based drug treatment programming and policies. Researchers examined in-treatment measures and multiple post-release outcomes for inmates who participated in TC drug treatment programs or comparison groups at five state prisons: Graterford, Houtzdale, Cresson, Waymart, and Huntingdon. Matched comparison groups were made up of TC-eligible inmates who participated in less intensive forms of treatment (e.g., short-term drug education and outpatient treatment groups) due to a shortage of intensive treatment slots at the five institutions. Included in the treatment sample were all current TC residents as of January 1, 2000. New subjects were added to the study as they were admitted to treatment programs. Between January 1 and November 30, 2000, data on all inmates admitted to or discharged from alcohol or drug treatment programs were collected on a monthly basis. Monthly tracking was continued throughout the study to determine treatment outcomes (e.g., successful vs. unsuccessful). TC clients were asked to complete additional self-report measures that tapped psychological constructs and inmate perceptions of the treatment experience, and TC counselors were asked to complete periodic reassessments of each inmate's participation in treatment. Self-reports of treatment process and psychological functioning were gathered within 30 days after admission, again after six months, again at the end of 12 months, and again at discharge if the inmate remained in TC longer than 12 months. Counselor ratings of inmate participation in treatment were similarly gathered one month, six months, and 12 months following admission to treatment. After release, both treatment and comparison groups were tracked over time to monitor rearrest, reincarceration, drug use, and employment. Measures can be broken down into the following four categories and their sources: (1) Inmate Background Factors were collected from the Pennsylvania Additive Classification System (PACT), the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Screening Instrument (PACSI), and the TCU (Texas Christian University) Drug Screen. (2) Institutional Indicators: Impacts Internal to the Prison Environment were collected from the Department of Corrections Misconduct Database, research and program records, and TCU Resident Evaluation of Self and Treatment (REST) forms. (3) Intermediate or "Proximal" Outcomes: Reductions in Risk for Drug Use and Criminal Behavior were collected from research and program records, TCU Counselor Rating of Client (CRC) forms, and TCU Resident Evaluation of Self and Treatment (REST) forms. (4) Post-Release Indicators: Inmate Behavior Upon Release from Prison were collected from the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Pennsylvania state police records provided by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD), and the Department of Corrections inmate records system.
Curated
Evaluation of the Pine Lodge Pre-Release Residential Therapeutic Community for Women Offenders in Washington State, 1996-2001 (ICPSR 3537)
Released/updated on: 2003-02-28
Geographic coverage: United States, Washington
Time period: 1996-01-01--2001-01-01
In 1996, Washington State's Department of Corrections (DOC) implemented "New Horizons" (referred to as "First Chance" from its inception in late 1996 to early 2000), a residential therapeutic treatment community for drug-addicted women offenders housed within the Pine Lodge Pre-Release minimum security and co-ed facility in the northeastern part of the state. The target population for the program was women who had been screened and identified as having a serious substance abuse problem and who had 12 months or less to serve on their sentences. Maximum capacity for this program was established at 72 treatment slots with members of the therapeutic community residing together and separate from the rest of the general population. The program approaches addiction as a biopsychosocial disease and strives to restructure and develop pro-social cognitive, behavioral, and affective skills of addicted women offenders. This study investigated (1) factors that affected successful completion of the program, and (2) outcomes (i.e., recidivism) for Pine Lodge participants compared to outcomes for a control group. This project was funded by the National Institute Justice as part of its initiative for local evaluations of prison-based residential substance abuse treatment programs. Data represent an outcome evaluation for Pine Lodge residents compared to outcomes for a matched control group provided by the Washington State Department of Corrections. Through a case-by-case examination of the datasets from Pine Lodge and the Washington State DOC, the researchers created a data file that contained program completion/non-completion data and demographic variables for 322 Pine Lodge participants and a control group of 279 women. Variables include the month and year admitted to the Pine Lodge program, reason for leaving the program, race/ethnicity, crime committed, month and year started the program, sentence length, age, number of months in the program, education level, number of previous offenses, number of months at risk to reoffend, whether reconvicted after release, number of months between release and reconviction, and reconviction offense.
Curated
Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program at the Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility, 1997-1998 (ICPSR 2888)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, New Mexico
Time period: 1997-07-31--1998-07-31
The goal for this study was to conduct a process evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program, called the Genesis program, at the Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility (SNMCD) by examining the program's structure and assessing its intermediate impact upon participating inmates. The study focuses on answering three research questions: (1) Who were the program participants? (2) What were the characteristics of the program? (3) Was the program reaching the most appropriate offenders, or were its participants primarily offenders who were not likely to become recidivists? The study contains information on every inmate who entered the Genesis program from July 31, 1997, to July 31, 1998. For evaluation purposes, the researchers designed their own data collection form which they used to collect relevant information from each participant's treatment program file. Each participant's file was maintained by Genesis program staff and was kept for the duration each inmate was in the program. From each program participant at intake, using the data collection instrument, the researchers collected demographic information, substance abuse history, and criminal history. The data are provided in two parts. Both parts are from the same data collection instrument. Part 1 covers Questions 1 through 15 of the data collection instrument, while Part 2 covers Questions 16 through 34 of the data collection instrument. Part 1 includes demographic variables about the inmate such as birth date, age, ethnicity, citizenship, years of education, prior employment status, longest employment, and average weekly income. It also includes incarceration information such as confinement date, length of current sentence, RSAT admission date, and expected parole date, and criminal history information such as age at first adult arrest, number of juvenile arrests, number of adult arrests, date of first adult arrest, date of last adult arrest, and number of years served in prison. There are also variables to address the inmate's drug use history as a juvenile and as an adult. Part 2 continues with the drug use history of the inmate as an adult with information about drugs used by IV injection, number of alcohol withdrawals, number of drug overdoses, number of detoxes, inpatient treatment received, outpatient treatment received, average amount of money spent on drugs, percentage of income spent on drugs, number of family members who use alcohol or drugs, and how they were related to the inmate. In addition, the file contains demographic information, such as current marital status and number of children, and the inmate's psychological history including depression, anxiety, anger, trouble understanding, concentrating, or remembering, attempted suicide, prescribed medication, and hospitalization. Criminal career variables include length of criminal career, all past charges, weapons used during any crime, number of times a weapon was used, and total number of convictions.
Curated
Evaluation of Using Telehealth for Opioid Use Disorders in a Correctional Setting, Massachusetts, 2020-2022 (ICPSR 38877)
Released/updated on: 2024-12-10
Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts
Time period: 2020-01-01--2022-01-01
With the third highest rates of overdose fatalities in the state and complexities with providing treatment in a rural setting, Franklin County Sheriff's Office (FCSO) in Massachusetts made a strategic decision in 2011 to shift their jail facility away from simply operating as a place to contain people, to becoming a jail that played an important role in the treatment solution to the opioid use epidemic. After more than 10 years of this transformation, FCSO has been able to offer all three federally approved Medications for Opioid Use Disorders (MOUD) (i.e., buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone), provide high quality individual and group counseling, and facilitate a continuum of treatment care upon reentry. In 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, FCSO capitalized on its previously built infrastructure and system partners to continue to offer its services. FCSO also continued offering individual and group counseling via telehealth throughout the pandemic and shifted to a mix of telehealth and in-person services in 2022.
From 2020 to 2023, the research team partnered with FCSO to study how their jail approached MOUD treatment, particularly via telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. The mixed-methods study aimed to understand whether treatment and individual counseling as its critical component could be done remotely, what facilitated or hindered its successful application, and how clients (i.e., incarcerated people) and the professionals supporting them perceived the effects.
Curated
Implementation and Evaluation of an Emerging Adult Curriculum in Rockdale County, Georgia, 2023-2024 (ICPSR 39682)
Released/updated on: 2026-01-28
Geographic coverage: United States, Georgia
Time period: 2023-01-01--2024-12-31
Emerging adults (EAs) are the future of America, even with an increasing number of individuals confined by the criminal legal system on any given day. To address the needs of the justice-involved youthful adults population, this project aimed to implement and test the effectiveness of a developmentally appropriate jail-based program for improving youths' lives post-release. The Developmental Reentry for Emerging Adult Management (DREAM) program follows cognitive-behavioral approaches tailored to 17- to 24-year-olds using group-based learning sessions, individualized counseling sessions with clinical staff, and case management and comprehensive reentry services. The goals of the 90-day program are to reduce institutional misconducts within the jail and improve EAs' reentry success. This study tested the effectiveness of the DREAM program in one county jail among a developmentally unique population -- young adults (n = 132) -- to address their high rates of recidivism.
Curated
Learning Deficiencies Among Adult Inmates, 1982: Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Washington (ICPSR 8359)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States, Louisiana, Washington, Pennsylvania
The National Institute of Justice sponsored this study of 1,065 prison inmates in Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Respondents were administered an academic achievement test, the Tests of Adult Basic Education, and an individual intelligence test, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R). Other screening tests were also given to certain respondents, including the Mann-Suiter Disabilities Screening Test and the Adaptive Behavior Checklist. Data for each inmate includes offenses committed, prior institutionalization, juvenile adjudication, years of formal education, academic and vocational participation while incarcerated, previous diagnoses, childhood home situation, death of parents, number of siblings, and any childhood problems. Information on demographic characteristics, such as age, sex, race, employment history, and physical condition, is available for each respondent.
Curated
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
National Evaluation of Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Programs in the United States, 1995-1999 (ICPSR 2914)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1995-01-01--1999-01-01
The Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) for State Prisoners Formula Grant Program, created by Title III (Subtitle U of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994), was designed by Congress to implement residential substance abuse programs providing individual and group treatment for inmates in residential facilities operated by state and local correctional agencies. Under the Corrections Program Office of the Office of Justice Programs of the United States Department of Justice, state and local correctional agencies received funds to develop or enhance existing programs that: (1) lasted between six and 12 months, (2) provided residential treatment facilities set apart from the general correctional population, (3) were directed at the substance abuse problems of the inmate, (4) were intended to develop the inmate's cognitive, behavioral, social, vocational, and other skills in order to treat related problems as well as the substance abuse, and (5) continued to require urinalysis and/or other proven reliable forms of drug and alcohol testing of individuals assigned to treatment programs during and after release from residential custody. The National Development and Research Institutes, Inc. (NDRI) entered into a cooperative agreement with the National Institute of Justice wherein NDRI would evaluate the extent to which the goals of the RSAT program were being accomplished and the problems that were encountered by the participating states. The methods of this national evaluation were: (1) an initial state survey to ascertain the RSAT programs and program directors in each of the 50 states plus five territories and the District of Columbia and to collect basic information on the aggregate impact of the RSAT-funded programs in each state or territory (Part 1, State Data), (2) a follow-up state survey to collect more detailed information on the aggregate impact of the RSAT-funded programs in each state (Part 1, State Data), and (3) an initial program survey to describe the separate RSAT programs as they came on line and to assess whether a few of the programs might serve as model programs which could undergo subsequent intensive evaluation (Part 2, Program Data). The sampling method used was a census of all the existing RSAT-funded programs and all of the state RSAT officials. Part 1 variables include the amount of RSAT funds received by the state in fiscal years 1996 to 1998, amounts from other sources of funding, and amount spent on salaries, training, drug tests, other supplies, and facilities, as well as number of residents, number of staff, reasons why funding was delayed, RSAT award date, and RSAT end date. Part 2 variables include the number of clients in the program, number of beds available, number of staff by gender, race, age, education, profession, and years of experience, admission inclusion criteria, reporting procedures, treatment type and duration, type of drug testing and number of tests, annual budget, sources of funding, and cost per capita.
Curated
Partially restricted
National Jail Census, 1999 (ICPSR 3318)
Released/updated on: 2009-07-09
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1998-07-01--1999-06-30
The 1999 Census of Jails is the seventh in a series of data collection efforts aimed at studying the nation's locally administered jails. Previous censuses were conducted in 1970, 1972, 1978, 1983, 1988, and 1993. The 1999 census enumerated 3,365 locally administered confinement facilities that held inmates beyond arraignment and were staffed by municipal or county employees. Among these were 47 privately operated jails under contract for local governments and 42 regional jails that were operated for two or more jail authorities. In addition, the census identified 11 facilities maintained by the Federal Bureau of Prisons that functioned as jails. The nationwide total of the number of jails in operation on June 30, 1999, was 3,376. For purposes of this data collection, a local jail was defined as a locally operated adult detention facility that receives individuals pending arraignment and holds them awaiting trial, conviction, or sentencing, readmits probation, parole, and bail-bond violators and absconders, temporarily detains juveniles pending transfer to juvenile authorities, holds mentally ill persons pending their movement to appropriate health facilities, holds individuals for the military, for protective custody, for contempt, and for the courts as witnesses, releases convicted inmates to the community upon completion of sentence, transfers inmates to federal, state, or other authorities, houses inmates for federal, state, or other authorities because of crowding of their facilities, relinquishes custody of temporary detainees to juvenile and medical authorities, operates community-based programs with day-reporting, home detention, electronic monitoring, or other types of supervision, and holds inmates sentenced to short terms. Variables include information on jail population by legal status, age and sex of prisoners, maximum sentence, admissions and releases, available services and programs, structure and capacity, facility age and use of space, expenditure, employment, staff information, and health issues, which include statistics on drugs, AIDS, and tuberculosis.
Curated
National Study of Innovative and Promising Programs for Women Offenders, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 2788)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1994-01-01--1995-01-01
The purpose of this study was to conduct a national-scale evaluation of correctional facilities housing female offenders in order to assess the effectiveness of current programs, including alternative sanctions and treatment programs, and management practices. The goal was to gather information on "what works for which women" with respect to the program characteristics most related to positive outcomes. The first stage of the study consisted of gathering the opinions of administrators in state departments of corrections, including state-level administrators and administrators in institutions for women (Part 1). Administrators from jails that housed women were also interviewed (Part 2). Data collected for Parts 1 and 2 focused on attitudes toward the influx of women into jails and prisons, the needs of incarcerated women, and management and program approaches for meeting those needs. Respondents were asked to identify programs that in their view stood out as especially effective in meeting the needs of incarcerated women. From this list of nominated programs, researchers conducted 62 in-depth telephone interviews with administrators of programs located in jails, prisons, and the community (Part 3). A supplement to this study consisted of telephone interviews with 11 program directors who headed mental health programs that appeared to be "state of the art" for incarcerated women (Part 4). Variables in Parts 1-4 that concern the nominated programs include the underlying principles guiding the programs, whom the programs targeted, what types of staff were employed by the programs, the most positive effects of the programs, and whether program evaluations had been completed. Program effort variables found in Parts 1-4 cover whether the programs focused on trying to treat substance abuse, stop child abuse, provide women with nontraditional job skills, parenting skills, HIV/AIDS education, and life skills, change cognitive thinking, and/or promote self-esteem. Several variables common to Parts 1-3 include whether the programs provided women with follow-up/transitional help, helped to stimulate pre-release planning, allowed visits between women and children, or used ex-offenders, ex-substance users, volunteers, or outside community groups to work with the women. Variables focusing on the types of assessment tools used cover medical assessments, VD screening, reading/math ability screening, mental health screening, substance abuse screening, needs regarding children screening, and victim-spouse abuse screening. Variables pertaining to institution management include background knowledge needed to manage a facility, the types of management styles used for managing female offenders, security and other operational issues, problems with cross-sex supervision, and handling complaints. Similar variables across Parts 1, 2, and 4 deal with the impact of private or state funding, such as respondents' views on the positive and negative outcomes of privatization and of using state services. Both Parts 1 and 2 contain information on respondents' views regarding the unique needs of women offenders, which programs were especially for women, and which program needs were more serious than others. Planning variables in Parts 1 and 2 include whether there were plans to have institutions link with other state agencies, and which programs were most in need of expansion. Further common variables concerned the influx of women in prison, including how administrators were dealing with the increasing number of women offenders, whether the facilities were originally designed for women, how the facilities adapted for women, and the number of women currently in the facilities. In addition, Part 1 contains unique variables on alternative, intermediate sanction options for women, such as the percentage of women sent to day supervision/treatment and sent to work release centers, why it was possible to use intermediate sanctions, and how decisions were made to use intermediate sanctions. Variables dealing with funding and the provision of services to women include the type of private contractor or government agency that provided drug treatment, academic services, and vocational services to women, and the nature of the medical and food services provided to women. Variables unique to Part 2 pertain to the type of offender the jail housed, including whether the jurisdiction had a separate facility for pretrial or sentenced offenders, the total rated capacity of the jail, the average daily population of pretrial females, whether the jail was currently housing state inmates, and the impact on local inmates of being housed with state inmates. Variables concerning classification and assessment focused on the purpose of the classification process for female offenders, whether the classification process was different for male and female offenders, and a description of the process used. Variables specific to Part 3 deal with characteristics of the participants, such as whether program participants were involved in a case management system, the approximate number of women and men participating in the programs, whether offenders were tried and awaiting sentence or were on probation, and the number of hours a week that individuals participated in the program. Program structure variables include whether the program was culture- or gender-specific, restrictions on program participants, and who established the restrictions. Programming strategy variables cover identifying strategies used for meeting the needs of women offenders with short sentences, strategies for women with long sentences, and what stood in the way of greater use of intermediate sanctions. Part 4 contains variables on the size of the mental health program/unit, including the number of beds in the mental health unit, the number of beds set aside for different types of diagnoses, and the number of women served annually. Diagnosis variables provide information on who was responsible for screening women for mental health needs, whether women were re-evaluated at any time other than at intake, and the most common mental health problems of women in the unit. Variables on running the program include whether the program/unit worked with private or public hospitals, the factors that hindered coordination of services among local or state facilities, the types of services affected by budget constraints, and the strategies used to prevent women from harming themselves and others. Staffing variables cover the number of psychologists, social workers, nurses, and correctional officers that worked in the mental health unit. Demographic variables were similar for all four data files. These include the institution level, the type of respondent interviewed, respondents' gender and educational background, and the number of years they had been in their positions, were employed in corrections, and had worked in women's facilities.
Curated
Outcome Evaluation of a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program in Dallas County, Texas, 1998-2000 (ICPSR 3716)
Released/updated on: 2003-06-05
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas
Time period: 1998-01-01--2000-01-01
This study was an outcome evaluation of the Dallas County Judicial Treatment Center (DCJTC), a six-month residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) facility in Dallas County, Texas. The primary goal of this evaluation was to assess offender recidivism following treatment in this six-month community-based modified therapeutic community for probationers. Secondary goals were to examine change in social functioning over time among probationers mandated to this program, to determine which characteristics at intake and which during-treatment social functioning indicators were predictive of dropping out of treatment early, and to identify which indicators predicted being arrested one to two years after treatment. These goals were accomplished by a comparison of outcomes between treated probationers and an untreated comparison group and by an assessment of the relationships among treatment, social functioning, and recidivism. For both treatment and comparison groups, a criminal records search was performed on the Institutional Division database of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for all of the study participants for the two years following discharge for treatment or following commitment to probation. In addition to these records, treatment participants were asked to complete a set of data collection forms over their course of treatment. These forms collected information about mental status, background and psychosocial functioning, substance abuse, psychological status, offenders' perceptions of the program and their experiences in treatment, evaluations of counselors, self-evaluations, and counselors' evaluations of clients.
Curated
Outcome Evaluation of the Crossroad to Freedom House and Peer I Therapeutic Communities in Colorado, 2000-2002 (ICPSR 4212)
Released/updated on: 2005-10-11
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado
Time period: 1995-01-01--2003-01-01
This study aimed to further evaluate previous findings regarding drug use and criminal behaviors among the criminal population by investigating the effectiveness of two Colorado Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Therapeutic Communities (RSAT TC) for offenders. The first, the Crossroad to Freedom House Therapeutic Community at the Arrowhead Correctional Center (ACC TC) was a prison-based program. The second was the community-based Peer I Therapeutic Community (Peer I). Two methodologies were used to gather data. Part 1, RSAT Outcome Data, contains quantitative data collected from five separate study groups of differing sample sizes that received differing levels of treatment, with a total of 778 cases. The groups were compared on five separate outcome variables: technical violation, new misdemeanor arrest, new felony arrest, return to prison, and overall supervision failure. To gather baseline information from participants, a researcher administered the intake packet in group format to participants within three weeks of admission to ACC TC. After completing the treatment programs, outcome data were collected for a two-year follow-up period for each participant. Part 2, Case Studies, consists of case studies of ten participants, two from each of the above five listed groups. One from each group had successful outcomes, and one did not. Successful outcomes were defined as participants who were still living in the community after 12 to 18 months without any new charges. Unsuccessful outcomes were defined as those participants who were returned to prison for technical violations or new charges and were eligible for study only if they had been living in the community for six to twelve months before returning to prison. Information for the case studies were gathered through interviews with both former prisoners and one of their significant others. Variables for Part 1 include demographic information, length of stay in both the ACC TC and Peer I, types of programs parolees were released to, and time period between leaving the Department of Corrections and any subsequent returns. Information was also gathered on the presence of psychological concerns as an adult, as well as in childhood. Part 2 consists of information regarding ACC TC and Peer I participants' post-treatment such as their employment status, financial well-being, significant relationships, relapse information and whether or not the interviewee has returned to the Department of Corrections since receiving treatment and being released.
Curated
Outcome Evaluation of the Iowa State Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program, 1997-2001 (ICPSR 3368)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Iowa, United States
Time period: 1997-10-01--2001-03-01
The Other Way (TOW) program is an intensive residential substance abuse treatment program housed at the Clarinda Correctional Facility in Clarinda, Iowa. TOW is a voluntary, six-month program that works with inmates to identify the causes of their addictive behaviors and encourage changes in unacceptable behaviors and criminal thinking. The Iowa Consortium for Substance Abuse Research and Evaluation conducted an evaluation of TOW from October 1997 through March 2001. The Iowa Consortium worked extensively with the Clarinda TWO treatment staff to identify valid and reliable instruments that measured substance use and abuse, mental health and personality characteristics, criminal behavior and attitudes, social support, and involvement in education, employment, and therapeutic activities. These instruments were used to collect data at intake and discharge. Additionally, the researchers conducted a six-month follow-up of inmates to determine their post-program experiences as well as recidivism. Part 1 (Clinical and Recidivism Data) consists of selected variables gathered during the clinical interviews administered to program participants at intake and discharge, as well as recidivism data from the Department of Corrections. Part 2 (Follow-Up Data) consists of variables from the Addiction Severity Index, which were collected during the six-month follow-up telephone interview.
Curated
Outcome Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program for State Prisoners in Massachusetts, 1999-2002 (ICPSR 3794)
Released/updated on: 2003-10-01
Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts
Time period: 1999-01-01--2002-03-01
This study was an outcome evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program at the Barnstable House of Corrections in Massachusetts. The study is based on the 188 inmates referred to the RSAT program at Barnstable between January 1, 1999, and June 6, 2001. Data on participants' criminal histories were gathered from the Criminal History Systems Board through March 2002. Data on offender age, entry, and discharge dates were supplied by the Barnstable County House of Corrections. Data from offender scores on psychological inventories and offender outcomes in the RSAT program were supplied by AdCare Criminal Justice Services.
Curated
Outcome Evaluation of the Wisconsin Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program: The Mental Illness Chemical Abuse (MICA) Program at Oshkosh Correctional Institution, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 3082)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Wisconsin
Time period: 1997-10-01--2000-05-01
This study evaluated the Mental Illness-Chemical Abuse (MICA) Program at Oshkosh Correctional Institution in Wisconsin. MICA is a residential substance abuse treatment program that consists of three stages: (1) an 8- to 12-month residential therapeutic community stage, (2) an institutional aftercare stage, and (3) a community aftercare stage. This outcome study documented important aspects of program implementation and effectiveness. It included all 141 inmates admitted to MICA between October 1997 and March 2000. A control group comprised of 66 inmates who were too close to their mandatory release dates to participate in the program but who were otherwise eligible was also included. Data were gathered from Department of Corrections administrative records regarding admissions information, assessment results, institutional behavior, institutional placement and services after program completion or exit, and recidivism. MICA staff provided information on treatment progress, behavior, and mental health status. MICA outreach specialists provided three-month post-release data on community outcomes for MICA graduates. Parole agents provided three-month post-release data on parole compliance and recidivism for all study participants. Variables include assessment results, institutional services received, history of incarceration, urinalysis testing, changes in mental health status and program behavior throughout treatment, clinical test results, conduct reports, institutional placement and services after MICA, whether the individual had appropriate resources upon release to the community, parole status, recidivism, mental health and chemical use status after release, support services provided by MICA staff after release, and other support services received after release.
Curated
Problem Solving Approaches to Issues of Inmate Reentry in Indianapolis, Indiana, 2000-2003 (ICPSR 30281)
Released/updated on: 2012-10-08
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States, Indianapolis
Time period: 2000-01-01--2003-01-01
This study involved an evaluation of the reentry component of the Indianapolis Violence Reduction Partnership (IVRP). The IVRP included a problem solving approach to the issue of inmate reentry. On the basis of a problem analysis, the IVRP officials decided to implement a pilot project that involved having recently released inmates attend a neighborhood-based group meeting convened by criminal justice officials and including community representatives and service providers. The meetings were based on the notion of combining deterrence and social support (linkage to services). The pilot project was evaluated using a quasi-experimental design. The treatment group consisted of 82 former inmates who attended one of five meetings. The comparison group consisted of 103 former inmates released at the same time period as the treatment group but in a different neighborhood. Reentry lever-pulling meeting participants and comparison group members were tracked for a period of up to 24 months to determine whether they had been re-arrested during the study period.
Curated
Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program at the Ozark Correctional Center, Missouri, 1994-1997 (ICPSR 3001)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Missouri
Time period: 1994-01-01--1997-01-01
This data collection consists of a process and outcome evaluation of the Ozark Correctional Center Drug Treatment Program (OCCDTP), located in an all-male, 650-bed minimum security prison. For the process evaluation, the principal investigators evaluated changes in OCCDTP treatment activities, characteristics of OCCDTP participants, utilization of aftercare, and participant ratings of the program and aftercare. For the outcome evaluation the researchers compared how well program graduates fared after program completion with respect to relapse and recidivism compared to program dropouts, as well as to a comparison group of inmates who did not participate in the OCCDTP. Data were collected from the Missouri Department of Corrections, the Missouri State Highway Patrol, a psychosocial assessment of clients entering the OCCDPT program, and three-month and 12-month follow-up surveys. Variables include background and demographic information, such as race, marital status, religious preference, and education level, as well as information on mental health, substance abuse, criminal history, nature of offenses, recidivism, clients' perceptions of the program, participation in aftercare, and social and clinical data.
Curated
Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program in Kyle, Texas, 1993-1995 (ICPSR 2765)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas
Time period: 1993-01-01--1995-01-01
This study was undertaken to evaluate the treatment process and outcomes associated with a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) In-Prison Therapeutic Community (ITC) component of the 1991 Texas Criminal Justice Chemical Dependency Treatment Initiative, as well as to assess the effectiveness of prison-based drug treatment. Specifically, this study evaluated the RSAT ITC treatment process and outcomes in Kyle, Texas, using the prison-based treatment assessment (PTA) data systems. The study design included process and outcome evaluations using a sample of graduates from the first ITC treatment facility (Kyle cohort) and a matched comparison group of prison inmates who were eligible, but not selected, for assignment to an ITC. Data collection occurred at three points in time -- at the end of treatment in the Kyle ITC, and at six months and one year following an offender's release from the ITC program. Variables in the 19 files for this study include: Part 1 (Educational Demographic Data, Kyle Cohort): Highest grade level achieved by respondent, Texas Department of Criminal Justice education achievement and IQ scores, and the number of days at the Kyle ITC program. Parts 2-4 (Treatment Background Data, Kyle Cohort, Aftercare Treatment Data, Kyle Cohort, Treatment Condition Data, Kyle Cohort): Treatment condition, discharge codes, and whether there were three months of residential aftercare. Part 5 (Session One Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Gender, ethnicity, age, marital status, whether the respondent was given medication, followed directions, made friends, or got into trouble while in elementary school, whether he held a job prior to prison, if either of his parents spent time with, yelled at, or sexually abused him, whether he used drugs, if so, specific drugs used (e.g., alcohol, inhalants, marijuana, or crack), and whether he did jail time. Part 6 (Session Two Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Whether drugs kept the respondent from working, caused emotional problems, or caused medical problems, if people were important to the respondent, if he had trouble staying focused, felt sad or depressed, satisfied with life, lonely, nervous, or got mad easily, whether he felt the staff was caring and helpful, whether he showed concern for the group and accepted confrontation by the group, whether the respondent felt the counselor was easy to talk to, respected him, or taught him problem-solving, and whether the respondent viewed himself as thinking clearly, clearly expressing thoughts, and was interested in treatment. Part 7 (Session Three Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): How the respondent saw himself as a child, whether he was easily distracted, anxious, nervous, inattentive, short-tempered, stubborn, depressed, rebellious, irritable, moody, angry, or impulsive, whether the respondent had trouble with school, was considered normal by friends, ever lost a job or friends due to drinking or drug abuse, or was ever arrested or hospitalized for drug or alcohol abuse, and in the last week whether the respondent's mood was one of sadness, satisfaction, disappointment, irritation, or suicide. Parts 8 and 9 (Six-Month Follow-Up Interview Data, Kyle Cohort, and One-Year Follow-Up Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Organization of meetings and activities in the program, rules and regulations, work assignments, privileges, individual counseling, the care and helpfulness of the treatment staff and custody staff, the respondent's behavior, mood, living situation, drug use, and arrests within the last six months, whether the counselor was easy to talk to, helped in motivating or building confidence, or assisted in making a treatment plan, whether the respondent felt a sense of family or closeness, if his family got along, enjoyed being together, got drunk together, used drugs together, or had arguments or fights, if the respondent had a job in the last six months to a year and if he enjoyed working, whether he was on time for his job, whether he had new friends or associated with old friends, and which specific drugs he had used in the last six months (e.g., hallucinogens, heroin, methadone, or other opiates). Part 10 (Treatment Background Data, Comparison Group): Treatment condition of the comparison group. Part 11 (Educational Demographic Data, Comparison Group): Whether respondents completed a GED and their highest grade completed. Parts 12 and 13 (Six-Month Follow-Up Interview Data, Comparison Group, and One-Year Follow-Up Interview Data, Comparison Group): How important church was to the respondent, whether the respondent had any educational or vocational training, if he had friends that had used drugs, got drunk, dealt drugs, or had been arrested, if within the last six months to a year the respondent had been arrested for drug use, drug sales, forgery, fencing, gambling, burglary, robbery, sexual offense, arson, or vandalism, whether drugs or alcohol affected the respondent's health, relations, attitude, attention, or ability to work, whether the respondent experienced symptoms of withdrawal, the number of drug treatment programs and AA or CA meetings the respondent attended, whether the respondent received help from parents, siblings, or other relatives, if treatment was considered helpful, and risky behavior engaged in (e.g., sharing needles, using dirty needles, and unprotected sex). Parts 14 and 16 (Probation Officer Data, Six-Month Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group, and Probation Officer Data, One-Year Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Date of departure from prison, supervision level, number of treatment team meetings, whether there was evidence of job hunting, problems with transportation, child care, or finding work, number of drug tests in the last six months, times tested positive for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, opiates, crack, or other drugs, and number of arrests, charges, convictions, and technicals. Parts 15 and 17 (Hair Specimen Data, Six-Month Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group, and Hair Specimen Data, One-Year Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Hair collection and its source at the six-month follow-up (Part 15) and one-year follow-up (Part 17) and whether parolee was positive or negative for cocaine or opiates. Part 18 (Texas Department of Public Safety Data, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Dates of first, second, and third offenses, if parolee was arrested, and first, second, and third offenses from the National Crime Information Center. Part 19 (Texas Department of Criminal Justice Data, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Treatment condition, date of release, race, and a Texas Department of Criminal Justice Salient Factor Risk Score.
Curated
Process Evaluation of Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Programs in Maine, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3281)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Maine
Time period: 1999-01-01--2000-01-01
The State of Maine Department of Corrections (MDOC) and the Office of Substance Abuse (OSA) at the Maine Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services opened the Key Maine Therapeutic Community (TC) in March 1999, and its Transitional Treatment Program (TTP) for adult male inmates in January 2000. Spectrum Behavioral Services, Inc. (SBC) was subcontracted to implement the program, which was located at the Maine Correctional Facility in South Windham and the Pre-Release Center in Hallowell. The United States Department of Justice Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) funded the initiative. This study was undertaken as a process evaluation of the program. To accomplish the aims of the process evaluation, research staff examined both program and client-level data that were collected throughout the first 15 months of the Key Maine TC's operation, a period that included the initial start-up period for the TTP. Part 1, Baseline Data, contains information on inmates, including age, ethnic group, education level, timing of all diplomas or degrees they had received, reasons for stopping school, marital and/or relationship status and history, and number and ages of children. The file also includes information on the last six months before being incarcerated, such as attendance at religious services, kind of housing and time spent there, as well as whom they lived with and the behavior of the inmate and their living companions in terms of alcohol and drug use. Also, there is information about how respondents supported themselves financially, including employment status and job information, such as number of days worked, number of jobs, part-time or full-time status, income, supplemental income, drug and alcohol use effects on employment, and whether they had dependants to support. In addition to information on the six months before incarceration, the file provides information on the inmate's substance abuse behaviors over his lifetime, including specific drugs used, the frequency used, and the age at which use of particular substances began. Information on substance abuse behaviors, such as specific substances used and frequency used in the last 30 days, is also recorded. Other variables in Part 1 focus on whether inmates' substance abuse had caused problems in major areas of their lives, such as family, employment, school, physical and mental health, relationships, and other substance abuse treatment received, including the type of treatment, duration of treatment, main substance abused, and reasons for entering treatment. Self-report data are available on each inmate's lifetime history of illegal activities, including, but not limited to, arrest history. This includes the offense(s) for which the inmate was currently serving time, as well as past offenses, jail time served, number of times incarcerated, illegal activities in which the inmate engaged during the last six months before incarceration, and time spent in probation during the last six months before incarceration. Information on visitors received during time in jail and contact (phone calls and letters) with others while in jail are included, as well as personal history information concerning the inmate's relationship with family and the activities they engaged in together. There is information on the friends the inmate had during the six months before incarceration, such as their education level, employment status, and relationship with family. Additional variables include whether the inmate reported having a history of child abuse, with details such as age at time of abuse, relationship with the abuser, frequency of abuse, perceived association of child abuse history to the inmate's substance abuse, the inmate's history as both victim of and perpetrator of violent crimes and weapon use, the inmate's sexual activity during the six months before incarceration, and his opinions about the chances of contracting HIV/AIDS. Other items pertain to behaviors that increase the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS and the inmates' feelings about HIV/AIDS, such as whether they worried about contracting the virus, whether they would want to know if they had the virus, whether they knew how to protect themselves, whether they had altered their behavior to reduce their chances of infection, and their perceptions regarding the likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS. Part 1 data also provide information on inmates' physical and mental health, along with medications taken and diagnosed mental disorders. Interviewers' ratings concerning the inmates' behavior during the interview and whether the interviewer believed the inmates would complete the program are assessed across 16 areas. Part 2, Retention Data, indicates how long inmates spent in the program and the reason for their discharge. Part 3, Score Data, provides the inmates' psychological and motivational scores for the short self-esteem index, the short depression index, motivation and readiness and treatment engagement, and when they were tested. Also included are scores for counselor rapport and counselor competence. Part 4, Services Data, records the number of times an inmate had used particular services, such as clinical groups, clinical supervision, educational sessions, encounter groups, group counseling sessions, individual counseling sessions, seminars, and 12-step sessions.
Curated
Process Evaluation of the Gender Appropriateness of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program at Baylor Women's Correctional Institute, 1999-2001 (ICPSR 3474)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, Delaware
Time period: 1999-01-01--2001-01-01
The overall goals of the process evaluation were to assess the participants' views on the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT), a Therapeutic Community program at Baylor Women's Correctional Institute, and to determine whether the women thought the program met their needs specifically based on gender. The specific goals of the study were: (1) to determine drop-out points along the continuum of the treatment model and to review the case files to discover any patterns in client participation and review demographic data in the program, and (2) to assess what current participants thought about the program and treatment model. For Part 1, Recent Graduate Data, data were secured from case files of women who had been discharged from the Therapeutic Community (Key Village) program in Baylor Women's Correctional Institute in 1999. This analysis was used to prepare the survey instrument used for the interviews given to the women currently participating in the program. For Part 2, Client Assessment Satisfaction Data, the current residents of the program were interviewed. During fall of 2000 and spring of 2001, a survey was developed to assess how the current participants viewed the Key Program. The questions were intended to gather information to assess the gender appropriateness of the program. A database was constructed to search for any consistencies or variables that would address the issue of gender appropriateness or lack of such in the operation of the program from the participants' point of view. During the interview period there were a total of 88 women in the Key Program. Of the 88 women, 76 agreed to participate in the study. For Part 1, the variables cover demographic data, criminal history information, medical information, prior drug treatment histories, and program success or failure. Part 2 variables cover demographic information, and questions dealing with prior drug use, the first four weeks of the program, the confrontation aspects of the program, sanctions and program rules, staff/participant interaction, program activities and responsibilities as opposed to the general population, readiness for change, support systems, children's visits and children as motivation, physical aspects of the program, mental health, the need for additional vocational and educational services, significant aspects and experiences from the program, and desired changes to the program.
Curated
Process Evaluation of the Michigan Department of Corrections Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program, 1999 (ICPSR 2975)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Michigan
This study was a process evaluation of the Michigan Department of Corrections' (MDOC) residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) program at the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan. The 272-bed program was designed to treat male, minimum-custody inmates with a history of serious chemical dependency. The phase of treatment at the Jackson Cooper Street facility lasted six months, and was followed by a 12-month aftercare component. The main theory of change behind the program was that education about drugs and their physical, familial, and social effects, coupled with opportunities to learn about recovery and identify triggers for substance use, would help substance-abusing offenders to avoid both substance abuse and criminal behaviors once released into the community. This study used multiple data sources. Part 1, Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Data, was acquired from the MDOC's Correctional Management Information System, which included demographic, criminal history, programming, and institutional misconduct information for a snapshot of the entire inmate population. These data provided information on all 44,061 inmates in the custody of MDOC on July 1, 1999. Part 2, RSAT Applications data, contains data for the 834 applications received by August 30, 1999. These data were received from University of Michigan (UM) researchers studying the long-term impact of the RSAT program on offender substance abuse and recidivism. The data were collected using a screening form for each application, and were initially generated and entered into an electronic format by RSAT program staff. Part 3, Service Tracking Data, contains RSAT admission and parole data, which were manually collected.
Curated
Process Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, 1999 (ICPSR 3579)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Minnesota
The objective of this process evaluation was to evaluate the integrity of the Minnesota Correctional Facility (MCF)-Red Wing Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program service delivery system in order to (1) provide feedback designed to enhance the existing strengths of the RSAT program and improve any existing or potential weaknesses, and (2) prepare for a subsequent outcome evaluation. The process evaluation data consist of two administrations of the Correctional Institution Environment Scale (CIES) (Parts 1 and 2) and three rounds of Rating of Facilitation of RSAT Groups (Parts 3-5). Resident-participants in this study were male juvenile offenders incarcerated at the MCF-Red Wing who had been determined to have significant substance abuse problems as an aspect of their delinquency. A total of 69 residents participated in the RSAT program during the course of the evaluation. All RSAT program residents were required to participate in all aspects of the program. Four caseworkers, one chemical dependency counselor, and two teachers participated in all aspects of the process evaluation. Ten corrections officers and three administrators participated in the CIES administration. There are four forms of the Correctional Institution Environment Scale (CIES): (1) The Real Form (Form R), (2) the Short Form (Form S), (3) the Ideal Form (Form I), and (4) the Expectations Form (Form E). Form R and Form I were employed in this study. Form R measures resident and staff perceptions of the current or "actual" climate of the program. Form I is worded to allow residents and staff to answer questions in terms of an ideal program. Both forms are comprised of 90 true-false statements. The CIES was administered twice for this study, with the first administration in September 1999. Participants in this administration of the CIES were 28 residents of the Princeton Cottage (the cottage that housed the RSAT participants) and 12 staff (administrators, caseworkers, and corrections officers). The second administration was in December 1999. Participants in this administration were 25 residents of the Princeton Cottage and 10 staff (administrators, caseworkers, and corrections officers). The surveys were collected and sent to Marquette University investigators for scoring and interpretation. An extensive evaluation of group facilitation was undertaken, with all groups videotaped between May 1999 and September 1999. These videotapes were shipped to Marquette University for review. In total, 122 videotapes were reviewed and rated. Two randomly selected raters evaluated each tape on the 22-item Red Wing Global Scale developed for this evaluation. The primary components of the sessions evaluated by the rating scale involved (1) the adherence of the facilitators to the treatment model, (2) the skill level of the facilitators, and (3) the contribution of the residents to the group processes. Following training, the raters began rating the videotapes in a progression of three rounds (each round consisting of a month) conducted in June, August, and October of 1999.
Curated
Process Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program at the Illinois Youth Center, St. Charles, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3102)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, St. Charles, Illinois
Time period: 1999-01-01--2000-01-01
As part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Congress provided funding for the development of substance abuse treatment programs in state and local correctional facilities with the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) for State Prisoners Formula Grant Program. To be eligible for this funding, programs were required to last between six and 12 months, be provided in residential treatment facilities set apart from the general correctional population, be directed at the inmate's substance abuse problems, and be intended to develop the inmate's cognitive, behavioral, social, vocational, and other skills to address substance abuse and related problems. The Illinois Youth Center (IYC) in St. Charles started an RSAT program on September 30, 1999. The primary emphasis of this process evaluation was to describe why and how the St. Charles RSAT program was designed, implemented, and operated. To a lesser degree, attention was also directed toward examining the effects of program participation on offender pre-release behavior. This was considered to be a primary indicator of program impact. This project sought to answer the following research questions: (1) Did the program fit within the institutional environment? (2) Was the program operating as a therapeutic community? (3) Were the appropriate offenders selected for program participation? and (4) Were any short-term impacts evident within the youth? This study followed a process evaluation design with a focus on determining how a product or outcome was produced, rather than on assessing the product or outcome itself. Information in this data collection was collected from youth participants and youth files. Subjects consisted of the 44 youths who began the RSAT program in 1999 (the treatment group), as well as a matched sample of non-program participants (the comparison group). The comparison group was used to contrast institutional behavior of youths not in the treatment program and to establish a non-treatment cohort for an expected follow-up impact study. Part 1 contains data from two surveys of program youth only, and Parts 2-4 contained data on both program youth and the comparison group. Part 2 data were gathered from a review of the youths' master files at the correctional facility. Part 3 data were obtained from behavior action tickets (BATs), which were an institution-wide semi-formal mechanism to recognize positive and negative youth behavior. Part 4 data were collected from institutional disciplinary reports (IDRs). Part 1 surveyed youth about what they hoped to achieve in the RSAT program, whether they thought the program would help them, how well they understood the program, how they assessed their own substance abuse problems, what they liked and disliked about the program, their opinions about program staff, and their recommendations for changing the program. Demographic variables in Part 2 include age, race, and education level. Other variables record reading test scores, math test scores, IQ scores, location of parents, number of siblings, drug use and frequency, criminal history, types of prior substance abuse treatments, family history of drug use, suicidal ideations, and personality test scores. Part 3 contains monthly counts of positive and negative behavior action tickets. Part 4 contains information about the number and types of guilty institutional disciplinary reports, the severity of the offenses, and the number and types of punishments received.
Curated
Process Evaluation of Three Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Programs in Ohio, 1998-1999 (ICPSR 3206)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio
Time period: 1998-01-01--1999-08-30
This study was a process evaluation of the three residential substance abuse treatment programs in the state of Ohio. These programs include MonDay Community Correctional Institution (MonDay), Mohican Youth Center, and Noble Choices. MonDay is a locally operated, community-based correctional facility for felony offenders to which male and female offenders are sentenced in lieu of prison for a period not to exceed six months. MonDay's RSAT program began in October 1997, and a Therapeutic Community (TC) was fully implemented by January 1, 1998. Offenders identified as needing long-term residential treatment were assigned to MonDay's RSAT for six months. Mohican Youth Center (MYC) is an institutional-based TC and is operated by the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Youth convicted of felonies and assessed as needing long-term residential substance abuse treatment are sent to MYC for the last six months of their sentence. Noble Choices is a TC for adult males within the Noble Correctional Institution, a medium security prison operated by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. The specific research questions addressed in this study were: (1) What is the profile of offenders being served by the Ohio RSAT programs? (2) What is the nature of the services being delivered by the Ohio RSAT programs? (3) What are the intermediate outcomes of Ohio RSAT programs? (4) How are offenders performing under post-release supervision in terms of relapse and recidivism? and (5) What factors are associated with successful program completion and post-release recidivism and relapse? A one-group post-test design was used to conduct this process evaluation. Each program was studied as a separate entity. The study period for each program began at the date of first admission, which was January 1, 1998, for MonDay, March 3, 1998, for MYC, and October 18, 1998, for Noble Choices. The study period ended on March 31, 1999, for MYC and Noble Choices and on April 30, 1999, for MonDay. The sample consists of 466 individuals, including 90 from MonDay, 343 from MYC, and 33 from Noble Choices. Staff at each of the three sites collected intake, treatment, and termination data on their respective program clients using standardized forms developed by the University of Cincinnati. The intake form was used to collect basic demographic information on each offender along with information on past substance abuse, prior treatment experiences, and criminal history. The termination form collected data on type of termination (successful or unsuccessful) and criminal justice placement and residency upon termination. Each site also provided agency-specific assessment information on each offender. Offenders at MonDay were given the Level of Services Inventory (LSI), which measures the risk of recidivism, and the Adult Substance Use Survey (ASUS), which measures the severity of substance abuse problems. Offenders at MYC were administered the Juvenile Automated Substance Abuse Evaluation (JASAE), which measures the severity of substance abuse problems, and the Youthful Offender Level of Services Inventory (YO-LSI). Offenders at Noble Choices were given the Prison Inmate Inventory (PII), which measures several risk factors. In addition, offenders at MonDay and MYC were given the Personal Drug Use Questionnaire (PDUQ), which measures motivation for treatment at intake and 90 days after intake, and offenders at MonDay also completed the PDUQ upon termination. Offenders at MonDay were also administered a Client Self-Rating Form, which measures levels of social and psychological functioning, at intake, 90 days after intake, and termination. Follow-up forms were sent to probation and parole officers to collect information on MYC and MonDay offenders' treatment and supervision activities during the period of supervision after release from the program. Follow-up data were collected on terminated cases from the date of release until August 30, 1999. Part 1, MonDay Data, consists of data from the LSI, ASUS, and intake, termination, and follow-up forms for offenders at MonDay. The LSI scores provided are: criminal history, employment, financial, family, accommodation, leisure and recreation, companion, alcohol and drug, emotions, attitude/orientation, and total. The ASUS variable measures severity of substance abuse problems and distinguishes between scores of 74 or less and 75 or higher. The intake form provides demographic variables, employment status prior to arrest, variables related to the current offense, date screened for RSAT, date placed in RSAT, criminal history, and substance use history. The discharge form provides variables on date of discharge, type of discharge, living arrangements upon discharge, whether continued drug/alcohol treatment was arranged for client, and criminal justice placement. The follow-up form provides variables on substance abuse treatment after release, other services received after release, employment status, reporting status, drug and alcohol tests after release, whether the offender was arrested after release and for what offense, whether a conviction resulted, and the offender's probation status. Several derived variables are also supplied in Part 1. Part 2, MonDay Client Self Rating Scales Data, includes the offender's date of placement, date of birth, the three dates on which the questionnaire was administered, whether inconsistencies appeared in answers to the questionnaires, and several scales derived from offenders' answers. These scales, which are provided for each of the three occasions the questionnaire was administered, include measures of anxiety, depression, self-esteem, decision-making, risk-taking, hostility, self-efficacy, and antisocial attitudes. Several derived variables are also included. Part 3, MonDay Personal Drug Use Data, consists of variables from MonDay's PDUQ. Scales and answers to the 20 items on the PDUQ questionnaire are provided for all three administrations of the questionnaire. In Part 4, Mohican Data, variables from the MYC intake, termination, and follow-up forms are identical to those from the MonDay forms except for additional intake variables on whether the youth was in school prior to arrest, whether the youth experienced certain school problems, where the youth was living prior to arrest, and whether the youth had a record of running away from home. Variables provide the JASAE summary score, date of YO-LSI administration, and YO-LSI scores in the categories of criminal history, family, education, peer, substance abuse, leisure and recreation, personality and behavior, attitudes/orientation, and total. For each YO-LSI score category an additional variable is provided that indicates whether the score was low, moderate, or high. Several derived variables are also provided. Part 5, Mohican Personal Drug Use Data, consists of scale variables calculated from responses to the MYC PDUQ for both administrations of the questionnaire. These scales are precontemplation, contemplation, determination, action, and maintenance. Part 6, Noble Data, consists of variables from Noble Choices intake, termination, and PII questionnaires. Variables from the intake and termination forms are identical to those taken from the MonDay intake and termination forms. Variables from the PII include scale variables that measure truthfulness, adjustment, judgment, alcohol, drug, antisocial attitudes, violence, distress, self-esteem, and stress. For each of these scales an additional variable is provided that indicates whether scores were low, medium, high, or maximum. Several derived variables are also provided.
Curated
Survey of American Prisons and Jails, 1979 (ICPSR 7899)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This data collection contains information gathered in a two-part survey that was designed to assess institutional conditions in state and federal prisons and in halfway houses. It was one of a series of data-gathering efforts undertaken during the 1970s to assist policymakers in assessing and overcoming deficiencies in the nation's correctional institutions. This particular survey was conducted in response to a mandate set forth in the Crime Control Act of 1976. Data were gathered via self-enumerated questionnaires that were mailed to the administrators of all 558 federal and state prisons and all 405 community-based prerelease facilities in existence in the United States in 1979. Part 1 contains the results of the survey of state and federal adult correctional systems, and Part 2 contains the results of the survey of community-based prerelease facilities. The two files contain similar variables designed to tap certain key aspects of confinement: (1) inmate (or resident) counts by sex and by security class, (2) age of facility and rated capacity, (3) spatial density, occupancy, and hours confined for each inmate's (or resident's) confinement quarters, (4) composition of inmate (or resident) population according to race, age, and offense type, (5) inmate (or resident) labor and earnings, (6) race, age, and sex characteristics of prison (or half-way house) staff, and (7) court orders by type of order and pending litigation. Other data (contained in both files) include case ID number, state ID number, name of facility, and operator of facility (e.g., federal, state, local, or private).
Curated
Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, 1983: [United States] (ICPSR 8274)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This survey provides data on inmates' socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, previous military service, prior criminal history, jail activities, drug and alcohol use, health care, and current offenses.
Curated
Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, 1989: [United States] (ICPSR 9419)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This collection provides nationally representative data on persons held prior to trial and on convicted offenders serving sentences in local jails or awaiting transfer to state prisons. Data cover demographic characteristics of jail inmates (sex, race, ethnicity, Hispanic origin, employment), current offenses and sentences, characteristics of victims, criminal histories, jail activities and programs, prior drug and alcohol use and treatment, and health care services provided while in jail.
Curated
Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, 1996: [United States] (ICPSR 6858)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
This collection provides nationally representative data on persons held prior to trial and on convicted offenders serving sentences in local jails or awaiting transfer to state prisons. Data cover demographic characteristics of jail inmates (sex, race, ethnicity, Hispanic origin, employment), current offenses and sentences, detention status, trial, bail, characteristics of victims, criminal histories, incident characteristics, socioeconomic circumstances, jail conditions and activities, and prior drug and alcohol use and treatment. Part 1, Numeric Data, contains numeric data for all questions in the survey, while Part 2, Alphanumeric Data, consists of nonnumeric answers to the "Other, Specify" selection available for some of the questions.
Curated
Partially restricted
Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, 2002 [United States] (ICPSR 4359)
Released/updated on: 2012-08-22
Geographic coverage: United States
This collection provides nationally representative data on persons held prior to trial and on convicted offenders serving sentences in local jails or awaiting transfer to state prisons. Data cover individual characteristics of jail inmates, current offenses, sentences and time served, criminal histories, jail activities, conditions and programs, prior drug and alcohol use and treatment, and health care services provided while in jail. Part 1, Numeric Data, contains numeric data for all questions in the survey, while Part 2, Alphanumeric Data, consists of non-numeric answers to the "Other, Specify" selection available for some of the questions.
Curated
Partially restricted
Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1997 (ICPSR 2598)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Conducted by the Bureau of the Census, this survey provides nationally representative data on state prison inmates and sentenced federal inmates held in federally owned and operated facilities. Through personal interviews from June-October 1997, inmates in both state and federal prisons provided information about their current offense and sentence, criminal history, family background and personal characteristics, prior drug and alcohol use and treatment programs, gun possession and use, gang membership, and prison activities, programs, and services. Prior surveys of state prison inmates, called SURVEY OF INMATES OF STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, were conducted in 1974, 1979, 1986, and 1991 (see ICPSR 7811, 7856, 8711, and 6086). Sentenced federal prison inmates were first interviewed in 1991 (see SURVEY OF INMATES OF FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, 1991 [ICPSR 6037]). The federal data are combined with the state data in this collection. Part 1, Numeric Data, consists of numerically-coded responses, while Part 2, Alphanumeric Data, contains free-field responses to "Specify, Other" questions in ASCII text form.
Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs
Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, [United States], 2004 (ICPSR 4572)
Released/updated on: 2019-12-12
Geographic coverage: United States
This survey provides nationally representative data on inmates held in state prisons and federally-owned and operated prisons. Through personal interviews conducted from October 2003 through May 2004, inmates in both state and federal prisons provided information about their current offense and sentence, criminal history, family background and personal characteristics, prior drug and alcohol use and treatment programs, gun possession and use, and prison activities, programs, and services. Prior surveys of State prison inmates were conducted in 1974, 1979, 1986, 1991, and 1997. Sentenced federal prison inmates were interviewed in the 1991 and 1997 surveys.
Curated
Survey of Inmates of Federal Correctional Facilities, 1991 (ICPSR 6037)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States
This survey provides nationally representative data on persons held in federal prisons. The survey was designed to supply information on individual characteristics of prison inmates, such as their current offenses and sentences, criminal histories, prior drug and alcohol use and treatment, gun possession and use, gang membership, and family background. Data on characteristics of victims and on prison activities, programs, and services are provided as well.
Curated
Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities, 1979 (ICPSR 7856)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
The purpose of this survey was to obtain information on the characteristics of persons confined to prison and the circumstances and conditions of their confinement. The survey focuses on topics and issues that are of current and continuing concern to the correctional community and researchers. Information in the survey includes prison conditions such as staffing, space, and overcrowding, inmate rights and privileges, and rules and regulations concerning prison operation and inmate behavior. Additional data are provided on the presence of educational and vocational programs, drug and alcohol programs, medical treatment, and health care.
Curated
Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities, 1986: [United States] (ICPSR 8711)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This data collection provides information about topics and issues of concern in research and policy within the field of corrections. Chief among these are the characteristics of persons confined to state prisons, their current and past offenses, and the circumstances or conditions of their confinement. Also included is extensive information on inmates' drug and alcohol use, program participation, and the victims of the inmates' most recent offenses. This information, which is not available on a national basis from any other source, is intended to assist the criminal justice community and other researchers in analysis and evaluation of correctional issues.