Showing 1 – 5 of 5 results.
Curated
Annual Survey of Jails: Jurisdiction-Level and Jail-Level Data, 1992 (ICPSR 6395)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This collection provides annual data on jail populations across the nation and examines the "spillover" effect on local jails resulting from the dramatic growth in federal and state prison populations. These data permit an assessment of the demands placed on correctional resources and provide a comprehensive picture of the adult correctional system and changes that occur within the system. Information is available on the number of inmates by sex, race, adult or juvenile status, reason being held, and cause of death. Also added in the 1992 survey were variables on citizenship, population movement, and total number of inmate deaths for inmates originally confined to the facility in question who died either at that facility or elsewhere. Also, the 1992 version included a more complete survey of jail programs and a supplemental questionnaire (CJ-5S), which dealt with AIDS-related questions. In addition, information was collected for the first time on drug testing, programs that treated or educated inmates, boot camps, work release, and alternatives to incarceration such as electronic monitoring, house arrest, community service, and weekend or day reporting.
Curated
Restricted
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
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
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
Work Release in the State of Washington, 1990-1993 (ICPSR 2021)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-29
Geographic coverage: United States, Washington
Time period: 1990-01-01--1993-01-01
Work release programs allow selected prisoners nearing the end of their terms to work in the community, returning to correctional facilities or community residential facilities in nonworking hours. This project was designed as both a randomized and quasi-experimental field study to assess the effectiveness of work release in the Seattle area. It evaluated the impact of work release sentencing on recidivism and on corrections costs by comparing a sample of inmates who participated in work release with a comparable sample of inmates who completed their sentences in prison. The study was designed to answer the following questions: (1) What are the background and offense characteristics of offenders assigned to work release in the Seattle area? (2) What types of services are received by offenders in work release? and (3) How does the community experience of work release participants compare to that of similar offenders discharged directly into the Seattle community without having gone through work release? For each offender, detailed information was collected on measures relating to work release participation and recidivism outcomes. Information was gathered from Department of Corrections institutional files, work release program records, computerized payment information for legal and financial obligations, and statewide criminal history records. For each offender, background and six- and twelve-month reviews were completed. Part 1, Background Data, supplies variables that cover inmate demographics, employment history, drug use, current offense, prior criminal history, and risk/needs items. Part 2, Drug Testing Data, lists the types of drugs tested for, types of drugs for which there were positive results, and sanctions for drug use. Part 3, Offender Status Data, provides information on inmates' supervision status and the types of programs they participated in. Part 4, Prison Data, includes the number of days spent at different institutions and prerelease centers, work assignment, and prison infractions. Part 5, Work Release Data, contains information on the number of days spent at different work release facilities and any time spent in jail or on escape status while in work release. Data in this file also cover contacts and services received during work release, including personal and phone contacts between the work release participant and community corrections officer at the job and other sites, monitoring checks (employment verification, criminal records checks), sessions in outpatient counseling (drug, alcohol, family, other), employment (number of attempted and completed job interviews, primary job classification, length of employment, wages, and reason left), drug testing (date and type of test, type of positives, sanction imposed), infractions during work release and their sanctions, and arrests and their sanctions. Part 6, Community Placement Data, provides variables on the number of days each month that the offender was on the street, in work release, in pretrial detention, or in other custody, while Part 7, Post-Release Data, focuses on the number of days each month that the offender was on the street, in pretrial detention, or in prison or jail after being released from the work release program. Variables in Part 8, Infractions Data, pertain to the number and types of infractions and associated sanctions. Part 9, Recidivism Data, provides information on each offense after discharge from the program, including the date of the offense, nature of arrest, disposition, and sentence.