Search results

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.

Before the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003, it was not clear the extent to which state departments of corrections (DOCs) were addressing sexual violence in systematic ways. In fact, little information existed about what strategies were being put into practice in prison systems across the country. PREA changed the way DOCs addressed prison sexual violence (PSV). Mandatory recordkeeping and a push for eliminating such incidents moved many DOCs to develop specific responses to PSV or to further refine approaches already in place. The purpose of this project was to provide a national snapshot of DOC initiatives to address PSV, as well as to identify specific practices that seemed to be, in the absence of formal evaluations, particularly promising or innovative in nature.

Researchers conducted three tasks: (1) The Survey of State Correctional Administrators (SSCA) involving written surveys and follow-up phone interviews with leaders of state DOCs. During the survey, state administrators described the state's overall approach to PSV and nominated specific strategies as particularly promising; (2) The Survey of Promising Practices (SPP) involving phone interviews with DOC representatives who spoke about promising practices nominated during the SSCA. Interviews were conducted with facility directors, service providers, or other state personnel affiliated with nominated approaches; and (3) Case studies involving site visits to states that researchers determined could provide the most informative lessons on addressing sexual violence in prison to the largest audience of practitioners, researchers, and policymakers.

The collection includes 2 Access databases, one each for the SSCA (ASCA_4_6_2006.directors.mdb) and the SSP (ASCA_FAC_4_6_2006.prompractices.mdb). The data related to the Case Studies are not available at this time.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

The California correctional system underwent a dramatic transformation under California's Public Safety Realignment Act (AB 109) in 2011, a law that shifted from the state to the counties the responsibility for monitoring, tracking, and incarcerating lower level offenders previously bound for state prison. Realignment, therefore, presents the opportunity to witness 58 natural experiments in the downsizing of prisons. Counties faced different types of offenders, implemented different programs in different community and jail environments, and adopted differing sanctioning policies. This study examines the California's Public Safety Realignment Act's effect on counties' criminal justice institutions, including the disparities that result in charging, sentencing, and resource decisions.

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

This study addresses changes to state correctional systems and policies in response to correctional spending limits brought on by the worsening economic climate beginning in late 2007. These changes include institutional changes, such as closing prisons and reducing staffing, "back-end" strategies, such as reductions in sentence lengths and reduced parolee supervision, and "front-end" measures, such as funding trade-offs between other governmental and social services.

A survey of the 50 state correctional administrators addressed fiscal stress, including size and characteristics of the prison population, prison crowding, prison expenditures, institutional safety, staff morale, public safety and other justice spending. Additionally, six states were selected for in depth case studies, which included interviews with facility personnel and site visits by research staff in order to thoroughly understand the challenges faced and the resulting decisions made.

Additionally, each state's demographic, correctional spending, and overall financial information was collected from census and other publicly available reports. Information on the overall health and safety of the inmates was examined through an econometric comparison of funding levels and statistics as to prisoner mortality, crime and incarceration rates.