Showing 1 – 6 of 6 results.
Curated
Classification of Rapists in Massachusetts, 1980-1990 (ICPSR 9976)
Released/updated on: 1995-03-27
Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts
Time period: 1980-01-01--1990-12-31
The purpose of this study was to apply the latest version of a typological system for rapists (MTC:R3) developed at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons (MTC) to a large sample of offenders currently or previously incarcerated at MTC and to examine the system's reliability and concurrent and predictive validity. Data are available from two of the project's components. In the first component, 201 rapists who were committed to MTC between 1958 and 1981 were classified. This sample was used to revise the previous classification system (R2), upon which the development of the current system rests. Of these 201 men, 94 were in residence at the time of the study and 107 had been released. The second component classified a sample of 54 rapists who were committed after 1981. This sample was not used to develop the criteria for the typology. As an overview, this project had two missions: (1) to subtype about 250 rapists using MTC:R3 criteria, and (2) to utilize an archivally-derived database to examine the concurrent and predictive validity of the system. In addition to the subtype assignments, the primary source of data was the detailed institutional files that were used to code a 1,500-variable questionnaire.
Curated
Restricted
Criminal Protective Orders as a Critical Strategy to Reduce Domestic Violence, Connecticut, 2012-2016 (ICPSR 36605)
Released/updated on: 2018-07-24
Geographic coverage: United States, Connecticut
Time period: 2012-01-01--2016-12-31
These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
Criminal protection orders are a critical tool to enhance the safety and protection of victims of domestic violence (DV). However, limited research exists to elucidate the process and outcomes of these orders. The purposes of the study were to (a) elucidate the process of criminal orders as a critical strategy to reduce domestic violence, (b) increase knowledge about how criminal orders influence the daily lives of women, and children, and how they are associated with offender behavior, (c) disseminate findings to practitioners, policy makers, and academics to inform practice, policy, and future research; and (d) document in detail the relevant accounts of the collaboration to inform best practices for collaborations that lead to better policy, practice, and research. The sample is comprised of 298 female victims of DV by a male, intimate partner. Participants were recruited from two geographical area courthouses in an urban and a suburban New England community.
Information was collected in personal interviews and augmented with information from court records. Separate data files contain information about housing events as well as substance use. Qualitative data collected as part of this study are not included in this fast track release.
The collection contains 3 SPSS data files, NIJ-PO-Full-Dataset.sav (n=298; 1299 variables), NIJ-PO-Housing-TLFB-Dataset.sav (n=577; 29 variables) and NIJ-PO-Substance-Use-Dataset.sav (n=8940; 24 variables) and 1 Excel data file Living-Together-Data.xlsx (n=298; 3 variables). The collection also contains transcripts of qualitative interviews with 294 of the 298 respondents, which are not included in this release.
Curated
Restricted
Examination of Actuarial Offender-Based Prediction Assessments in Texas, 1993-1996 (ICPSR 20403)
Released/updated on: 2008-06-23
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas
Time period: 1993-01-01--1996-12-31
The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive assessment of the usefulness and effectiveness of prediction and classification of offenders under community supervision. A felony cohort data collection instrument was developed to test the validity of the Wisconsin Risk and Need Instrument in use in Texas, as well as to develop "better" predictor variables for a variety of dependent variables. Using the felony cohort data instrument, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Community Justice Assistance Division (TDCJ-CJAD) collected detailed statewide information on 3,405 felony offenders placed on probation in Texas during October 1993. Specifically, the form was completed by a probation officer on all felony probation intakes at the time the initial case classification risk/needs assessment was conducted. Additionally, follow-up forms were developed and administered to track the offenders' progress at one year, two years, and three years. Variables include probationer information, current offense, criminal history, social history, substance abuse, probation sanctions, case classification risk items, and case classification need items. Additional variables include felony cohort one-year follow-up data form questions, felony cohort second-year follow-up data form questions, and felony cohort third-year follow-up data form questions.
Curated
Longitudinal Study of Violent Criminal Behavior in the United States, 1970-1984 (ICPSR 6103)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1970-01-01--1984-12-31
The primary objective of this project was to explore the familial, physical, psychological, social, and cultural antecedents and correlates of violent criminal offending. This research used an extensive longitudinal database collected on 1,345 young adult male offenders admitted to the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Tallahassee, Florida, from November 3, 1970, to November 2, 1972. Using FBI arrest records ("rap sheets"), each inmate was classified on the basis of the National Crime Information Center Uniform Offense Codes into one of four distinct categories: (1) "angry violent," in which the apparent goal was to injure the victim, (2) "instrumentally violent," in which the aggressive behavior was a means to an end (as in a robbery), (3) "potentially violent," as evidenced by making threats or carrying weapons but in which the offender was not accused of any violent offenses, and (4) "nonviolent," in which the offender had not been charged with violent criminal behavior. Violent offenders were also subdivided into those who had been repetitively violent and those who had been charged with just one violent offense. As part of the classification process, each inmate was administered an extensive battery of tests by the research project staff. The two primary personality assessment instruments utilized were the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the California Psychological Inventory (CPI). Each inmate's caseworker filled out a series of of standard Bureau of Prisons forms recording the results of the medical, educational, and psychological evaluations, as well as salient aspects of the case and criminal history. The researchers also obtained copies of each offender's Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) that had been prepared by the federal probation officer, and then devised a series of scales to quantify the PSI data. In addition, an hour-long structured intake interview was administered to each inmate by his team psychologist. Global scales were constructed from these intake interviews. After each interview, the psychologists performed an evaluative Q-sort. Nine scales were later constructed based on these Q-sorts. Also, every dormitory officer and every work supervisor completed scales assessing each subject's interpersonal adjustment and work performance at 90-day intervals. Immediately prior to release, as many inmates as possible were reinterviewed and retested on the MMPI and the CPI. Follow-ups using FBI rap sheets were conducted in 1976 and 1984. Variables obtained from the Bureau of Prisons forms include age upon entry, race, marital status, age at first arrest, number of prior adult convictions, commitment offense(s), highest school grade completed, drug dependency, and alcoholism. Scales developed from the PSIs provide data on father, mother, and siblings, family incohesiveness, adequacy of childhood dwelling, social deviance of family, school problems, employment problems, achievement motivation, problems with interpersonal relations, authority conflicts, childhood and adolescent or adult maladjustment and deviance, poor physical health, juvenile conviction record, adult arrest and conviction record, violence of offense, group influence on illegal behavior, and prior prison adjustment. The intake interview inquired about the developmental family history and the child's development, the inmate's marriage, educational, and work history and attitudes, attitudes toward sex, military service and attitudes, self-reported use of alcohol and other substances, religious preferences and practices, and problems during any previous confinements. Scales based on the psychologists' Q-sorts evaluated aggression, hostility avoidance, authority conflict, sociability, social withdrawal, social/emotional constriction, passivity, dominance, and adaptation to the environment. Data are also provided on global dorm adjustment and the number of shots, cell house days, sick calls, and infractions for the offenders' first and second 90-day periods at the FCI.
Curated
Psychological Classification of Adult Male Inmates in Federal Prison in Indiana, 1986-1988 (ICPSR 2370)
Released/updated on: 2008-04-04
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States
Time period: 1986-01-01--1988-12-31
This data collection, conducted in a federal penitentiary and prison camp in Terre Haute, Indiana, between September 1986 and July 1988, was undertaken to examine the reliability and validity of psychological classification systems for adult male inmates. The classification systems tested were Warren's Interpersonal Maturity Level (I-level), Quay Adult Internal Management Systems (AIMS), Jesness Inventory, Megargee's MMPI-Based Prison Typology, and Hunt's Conceptual Level. The study sought to answer the following questions: (a) Which psychological classification systems or combination of systems could be used most effectively with adult populations? (b) What procedures (e.g., interview, paper-and-pencil test, staff assessment, or combination) would assure maximum efficiency without compromising psychometric precision? (c) What could the commonalities and differences among the systems reveal about the specific systems and about general classification issues pertinent to this population? and (d) How could the systems better portray the prison experience? The penitentiary was a low-maximum-security facility and the prison camp was a minimum-security one. A total of 179 penitentiary inmates and 190 camp inmates participated. The study employed both a pre-post and a correlational design. At intake, project staff members interviewed inmates, obtained social, demographic, and criminal history background data from administrative records and test scores, and then classified the inmates by means of an I-level diagnosis. Social and demographic data collected at intake included date of entry into the prison, age, race, marital status, number of dependents, education, recorded psychological diagnoses, occupation and social economic status, military service, evidence of problems in the military, ability to hold a job, and residential stability. Criminal history data provided include age at first nontraffic arrest, arrests and convictions, prison or jail sentences, alcohol or drug use, total number and kinds of charges for current offense, types of weapon and victims involved, co-offender involvement, victim-offender relationship, if the criminal activity required complex skills, type of conviction, and sentence length. T-scores for social maladjustment, immaturity, autism, alienation, manifest aggression, withdrawal, social anxiety, repression, and denial were also gathered via the Jesness Inventory and the MMPI. Interview data cover the inmates' interactions within the prison, their concerns about prison life, their primary difficulties and strategies for coping with them, evidence of guilt or empathy, orientation to the criminal label, relationships with family and friends, handling problems and affectivity, use of alcohol and drugs, and experiences with work and school. For the follow-up, the various types of assessment activities were periodically conducted for six months or until the inmate's release date, if the inmate was required to serve less than six months. Data collected at follow-up came from surveys of inmates, official reports of disciplinary infractions or victimizations, and prison staff assessments of inmates' prison adjustment and work performance. The follow-up surveys collected information on inmates' participation in treatment and educational programs, work absenteeism, health, victimization experiences and threats, awards, participation in aggressive, threatening, or other illegal activities, contact with family and friends, communication strategies, stress, sources of stress, and attitudes and beliefs about crime and imprisonment. Follow-up ratings by prison staff characterized the inmates on several clinical scales, according to each rater's global assessment of the interviewee. These characteristics included concern for others, role-taking abilities, assertiveness, inmate's relations with other inmates, authorities, and staff, verbal and physical aggressiveness, emotional control under stress, cooperativeness, need for supervision, response to supervision, maturity, behavior toward other inmates, and behavior toward staff.
Curated
Selecting Career Criminals for Priority Prosecution, 1984-1986: Los Angeles County, California and Middlesex County, Massachusetts (ICPSR 8980)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts, California
Time period: 1984-01-01--1986-12-31
Collection of these data was undertaken in order to develop offender classification criteria that could be used to identify career criminals for priority prosecution. In addition to the crime records obtained from official sources and defendants' self- reports, information about prosecutors' discretionary judgments on sampled cases was obtained from interviews of prosecutors and case review forms completed by attorneys. Respondent and nonrespondent files, taken from official court records, contain information on current and past records of offenses committed, arrests, dispositions, sentences, parole and probation histories, substance abuse records, juvenile court appearances, criminal justice practitioners' assessments, and demographic characteristics. The prosecutor interview files contain variables relating to prosecutors' opinions on the seriousness of the defendant's case, subjective criteria used to decide suitability for prosecution, and case status at intake stage. Information obtained from prosecutors' case review forms include defendants' prior records and situational variables related to the charged offenses. The self-report files contain data on the defendants' employment histories, substance abuse and criminal records, sentence and confinement histories, and basic socioeconomic characteristics.