Search results

Showing 1 – 12 of 12 results.

Curated

Community Supervision of Drug-Involved Probationers in San Diego County, California, 1991-1993 (ICPSR 2023)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, California

Time period: 1991-01-01--1993-01-01

The Probationers in Recovery (PIR) program, developed by the San Diego County Probation Department, targeted high-risk, drug-abusing offenders with the goal of controlling offender behavior without increasing risks to communities. This evaluation of PIR was based on a quasiexperimental design that compared program activities and outcomes for two matched groups of high-risk probationers receiving different levels of service and supervision. The assessment included both a process evaluation to discover if expected service levels were implemented as designed, and an impact evaluation to assess the effectiveness of drug treatment within an intensive community supervision program. The experimental group included 209 PIR participants who received intensive community supervision and drug treatment, and the control group consisted of 151 probationers who were assigned to regular high-risk probation caseloads and who met the PIR screening criteria. The samples were selected from probationers entering community supervision from February to December 1991. The length of the PIR program varied, but for purposes of analysis the minimum time in the program to represent the intervention period was set at eight months, including relapse prevention. A comparable period was used for the control group. The subsequent six-month period was used to measure the effects of PIR and regular high-risk probation after intervention. Intake interviews were conducted with a subsample of 96 probationers in PIR and 80 in the control group (Part 1). The interviews were conducted within the first two weeks after intake. Follow-up interviews were conducted with these probationers after they had completed eight months of PIR or regular high-risk probation to measure experiences on probation and changes in behavior and attitudes (Part 2). Follow-up interviews were completed with 47 probationers from the experimental group in the PIR program and 35 in the control group. The case tracking portion of the study involved the review of probation, treatment, and state and local criminal history files (Part 3). Data on technical violations and arrests for new crimes were compiled for the following time periods: (1) six months prior to the instant offense (the baseline), (2) the first eight months of community supervision (the in-program period), (3) the six months after intervention, and (4) the combined 14-month period. The initial interview (Part 1) included questions regarding sociodemographic characteristics, current offense, awareness of probation conditions ordered, perceived consequences for violations of probation, drug use and drug history, prior drug treatment and treatment needs, criminal history, expectations regarding the probation term, opinions regarding probation and treatment, daily activities prior to the current offense, current life satisfaction, and prospects for the future. Questions on the follow-up interview (Part 2) focused on changes in probationers' personal lives (e.g., employment, income, education, marital status, living situation, and relationships with family and friends), technical probation violations and new offenses committed during the eight-month period, sanctions imposed by probation staff, contacts with probation and treatment staff, changes in drug use and daily activities, expectations with regard to remaining crime- and drug-free in the future, attitudes regarding probation and treatment, treatment needs, and significant life changes over the eight-month period. Variables in the tracking data file (Part 3) include sociodemographic characteristics, current offense and sentence imposed, probation conditions ordered, drug use history, offense and probation violations occurring before, during, and after an eight-month probation period, custody time, changes in level of probation supervision, and program interventions such as drug tests, services delivered, and sanctions imposed.

Curated

Partially restricted

Comparative Evaluation of Court-Based Responses to Offenders with Mental Illnesses, Cook County, Illinois, 1953-2014 (ICPSR 35650)

Released/updated on: 2018-05-09

Geographic coverage: United States, Illinois

Time period: 2012-01-01--2013-01-01, 1953-01-01--2014-01-01, 2010-01-01--2014-01-01

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

This study was designed to provide a mixed methods comparative evaluation of three established court-based programs that serve offenders with serious mental illness (SMI). These programs were selected in response to criticism of similar research for studying young programs that are still in development, employing short follow up periods that are unable to indicate sustained effectiveness, and utilizing less than ideal comparison conditions. The study was conducted in Cook County, Illinois, and data were collected from three distinct court-based programs: the Cook County Felony Mental Health Court (MHC) which serves individuals with SMI who have been arrested for nonviolent felonies, the Specialized Mental Health Probation Unit which involves specially trained probation officers who supervise a reduced caseload of probationers diagnosed with SMI, and the Cook County Adult Probation Department which has an active caseload of approximately 25,000 probationers, a portion of whom have SMI. Probation officer interviews were coded for themes regarding beliefs about the relationship between mental illness and crime, views on the purpose of their program, and approaches used with probationers with SMI. The coding of probationer interviews focused on experiences related to having SMI and being on probation, including: the extent to which probation was involved with mental health treatment; development of awareness of mental health issues; evaluations of the programs based on subjective experiences; and the relationship dynamics between probationers and staff.

The collection includes 3 Stata data files: DRI-R_data_for_NACJD_041315.dta with 98 cases and 61 variables, Epperson_NIJ_Quantitative_Data_for_NACJD_041315.dta with 25203 cases and 49 variables, and incarceration_data_061515.dta with 676 cases and 4 variables. The qualitative data are not available as part of this data collection at this time.

Curated

Cost Effectiveness of Misdemeanant Probation in Hamilton County, Ohio, 1981-1982 (ICPSR 8259)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio, Cincinnati

Time period: 1981-01-01--1982-01-01

This research was designed to determine whether the supervision of misdemeanant probationers was cost-effective for increasing the level of successful probation completions in Hamilton County, Ohio. The primary objective was to examine the relationships among these factors: supervision costs, the collection of court costs, fines, and restitution, types of supervision, risk assessment, and probationer conduct for the population of probationers. Probationers were initially classified according to risk assessment and then randomly assigned to a supervision category. The probationer's risk potential was a numerical score derived from demographic background variables, prior record, and history of substance use. The DSCP (Degree of Successful Completion of Probation) was developed specifically to measure probationer conduct and to compare trends and relationships. The variables examined in the study include: risk assessment at intake, supervision level assigned, number of times the probationer was assigned to probation, start and planned termination dates, date of last status change, status at termination, degree of successful completion of probation achieved, costs incurred in administering probation, and amounts collected from each probationer for court costs, restitution, and fines. Although data were collected on 7,072 misdemeanant probation experiences, there are only 2,756 probationers included in the study. The remaining 4,316 cases were excluded due to failure of the probationer to show up for screening or for other reasons that did not meet the research criteria.

Curated

Partially restricted

Evaluating a Presumptive Drug Testing Technology in Community Corrections Settings, 2011, Alabama, Florida and Wyoming (ICPSR 34494)

Released/updated on: 2016-04-12

Geographic coverage: United States, Wyoming, Alabama, Florida

Time period: 2011-02-01--2011-12-01

This study was a multi-site evaluation of a presumptive drug detection technology (PDDT) developed by Mistral Security Incorporated (MSI). The evaluation was conducted by Justice and Security Strategies, Inc. (JSS) in work release programs, probation and parole offices, and drug courts in three states: Alabama, Florida, and Wyoming. Also, interviews with the offenders, corrections staff, and program administrators were conducted.

Curated

Partially restricted

Evaluating the Impact of Probation and Parole Home Visits, United States, 2016 and 2018 (ICPSR 37172)

Released/updated on: 2020-09-29

Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio, Minnesota

In 2014, the researchers began work on a grant from the National Institute of Justice to evaluate the effectiveness of home and field contacts in community supervision. The study was designed to describe the varying practices of home and other field contacts in community supervision, to document their use nationwide, and to evaluate their effectiveness in maintaining public safety and promoting compliance with supervision requirements. The research is designed to address the gap in the understanding of home and field contacts as part of community supervision.

While home and field contacts with clients are common practice within many probation and parole agencies, little is known about how they are conducted, the goals of their use, and whether they impact client outcomes. Researchers conducted a mixed methods study of home and field contact practices within multiple agencies. A nationwide survey of community supervision agencies at the federal, state, and local levels was conducted to understand common policies and practices for home and field contacts. To analyze the effectiveness of home and field contacts, quasi-experimental designs were employed using administrative data. To understand the activities that make up home and field contacts and the goals behind them within each agency, officers were asked to complete a qualitative home and field contact checklist and participate in focus groups.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

An Evaluation of 24/7 Sobriety Program Implementation, North Dakota, 2001-2015 (ICPSR 37369)

Released/updated on: 2024-01-30

Geographic coverage: United States, North Dakota

Time period: 2001-01-01--2015-01-01

The 24/7 Sobriety Program was created in South Dakota in 2005 to reduce repeat driving under the influence (DUI) offenses and jail populations, with the idea being to compel DUI defendants to abstain from alcohol and/or drug use for a period of time (Jackley and Long, 2017). The evidence-based program works as a continuous monitoring program where DUI defendants submit to scheduled and/or random testing for controlled substances. If a participant does not appear for testing or tests positive, they are subject to swift, certain, proportional, and consistent sanctions (e.g., immediate short-term incarceration). Compliant participants receive immediate positive feedback. As of March 2017, 24/7 Sobriety programs were authorized in 9 states: South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Utah, and Alaska.

In this study, the research team examined the implementation of the 24/7 Sobriety program in South Dakota, Montana, North Dakota, Jacksonville (Duval County), Florida, and Yavapai County, Arizona. The researchers sought to answer questions about the program's mechanics and effectiveness across several states, and to illuminate what aspects of program delivery are central to achieving outcomes that are relevant to criminal justice researchers and practitioners, such as recidivism, public safety, and alternatives to incarceration. This multi-site, mixed-methods evaluation consisted of secondary analysis of administrative program data and arrest records from North Dakota, case studies of pilot programs in Jacksonville and Yavapai County involving stakeholder interviews and on-site observations, and secondary analysis of breathalyzer test results from South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana.

The North Dakota 24/7 Sobriety implementation and outcomes data are a county-by-month panel of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) arrest events compiled from state Department of Transportation reports and a set of variables based on restricted 24/7 Sobriety program data describing program implementation by county in North Dakota from 2008 to 2015, with pre-program arrest data dating back to 2001.

Curated

Evaluation of Intensive Probation in Milwaukee, 1980-1981 (ICPSR 8276)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results and impact of a two-year experiment in innovative probation practices in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. After being classified according to the Wisconsin risk and needs assessment scale, individuals who had been sentenced to probation between January 2, 1980 and June 30, 1981 and had reported to the probation department for intake were randomly assigned to one of eight experimental and control groups. The experiment was limited to adult residents of Milwaukee County who were not already on probation, were not judged to be severe psychotic or severe sex-deviant cases, and were not assigned to jail work-release sentences of more than ten days followed by probation (Huber cases). There are three files in this data collection: the Reassessment file, the Admissions/Terminations file, and the Chronological file. Each case in the Reassessment and Admissions/Terminations files represents data on an individual probationer. There are 84 variables for 1343 cases in the Reassessment file and 218 variables for 1922 cases in the Admissions/Terminations file, both files have logical record lengths of 100 characters. Of the 1922 cases for which admissions data were collected (about 133 variables), 397 cases also have termination data available (an additional 85 variables). Cases in the Chronological file are records of probation agent contacts with probationers over the course of the study. There are 17 variables for 47,169 cases (contacts) in this file which includes information on 1781 probationers. As many as 270 contacts with a single probationer are recorded. This file has a logical record length of 80.

Curated

Partially restricted

Evaluation of the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Community Supervision Strategy, 2007-2009 (ICPSR 27921)

Released/updated on: 2011-07-06

Geographic coverage: United States, Honolulu, Hawaii

Time period: 2007-01-01--2009-01-01

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) community supervision strategy for substance-abusing probationers. The study involved the administration of key stakeholder surveys as part of a process evaluation of the HOPE program and the comparison of HOPE probationers with control-group probationers on two primary outcome measures: no-shows for probation appointments and positive urine tests for illicit-substance use. For Part 1 and Part 2, data were collected from administrative data sources. Missed Appointments Data (Part 1) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on a total of 1,174 probationers including 1,078 HOPE probationers, 78 comparison probationers, and 18 probationers for which study group information was not available. Specifically, for Part 1, the research team compiled data on the proportion of missed appointments in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Drug Test Results Data (Part 2) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on the same 1,174 probationers. Specifically, for Part 2, the research team compiled data on the proportion of positive urine tests in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Stakeholder survey data were collected from September 2008 through March 2009 on 50 Integrated Community Sanctions or "Specialized Unit" probationers (Part 3), 28 probationers in treatment (Part 4), 16 probationers in jail (Part 5), 20 probation officers in the Integrated Community Sanctions Unit (Part 6), 11 public defenders (Part 7), 12 prosecutors (Part 8), 7 judges (Part 9), and 11 court staff (Part 10). Part 1 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean missed appointments scores for three periods. Part 2 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean positive urine tests for illicit-substance use scores for three periods. The Integrated Community Sanctions Probationers Survey Data (Part 3), the Probationers in Treatment Survey Data (Part 4), and the Probationers in Jail Survey Data (Part 5) each include variables about the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 3 contains 24 variables, Part 4 contains 30 variables, and Part 5 contains 30 variables. The Probation Officers Survey Data (Part 6), Public Defenders Survey Data (Part 7), Prosecutors Survey Data (Part 8), Judges Survey Data (Part 9), and Court Staff Survey Data (Part 10) include variables about workload issues and the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 6 contains 65 variables, Part 7 contains 45 variables, Part 8 contains 55 variables, Part 9 contains 36 variables, and Part 10 contains 36 variables.

Curated

Partially restricted

Evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE), 4 United States counties, 2012-2014 (ICPSR 36857)

Released/updated on: 2023-07-13

Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Texas, Massachusetts, Arkansas

Time period: 2012-01-01--2014-01-01

The evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE) was a four-site, randomized controlled trial replicating a Hawaii probation program widely touted as successful in reducing drug use, violations, and reincarceration. HOPE is based on "swift, certain, and fair" principles, beginning with a warning hearing from a judge and requiring strict adherence to supervision requirements, including random drug testing, with all violations followed by hearings and jail sanctions. Treatment is for those who repeatedly fail random tests. Grants and technical assistance were provided to the sites (Saline County, Arkansas; Essex County, Massachusetts; Clackamas County, Oregon; Tarrant County, Texas) by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to facilitate implementation. The evaluation documented implementation and fidelity, tested outcomes (primarily recidivism), and estimated costs.

1,504 individuals who met eligibility criteria for HOPE were randomly assigned to HOPE or to probation as usual (PAU) between August 2012 and September 2014. Phases of the study included a process evaluation with fidelity analysis, outcomes evaluation, and cost evaluation. Data collection activities included site visits, documentation review, stakeholder interviews, procuring administrative records, conducting interviews for probationers at three different timepoints (baseline, 6 months, 12 months), drug testing oral swabs, and a weekly telephone-based interview with a subset of probationers to assess attitudinal changes.

Curated

Evaluation of the Impact of System-Wide Drug Testing in Multnomah County, Oregon, 1991-1992 (ICPSR 2589)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States

Time period: 1991-01-01--1992-10-01

The Multnomah County Drug Testing and Evaluation (DTE) program was established to help clients rid themselves of drug abusing behavior. To that end, the DTE program provided random, weekly drug tests to all clients in the program. These urinalysis tests allowed DTE to monitor each client's compliance with release conditions and progress in treatment programs, and to intervene appropriately when a client showed signs of a drug abuse problem. The DTE program supplemented drug testing with client drug evaluations and treatment recommendations, which were provided to the client's probation officer or case manager. This study was a program evaluation of two of DTE's divisions: the Pretrial Release Supervision Program (PRSP) and the probation and parole program. The pretrial division was chosen because it was the first opportunity for the criminal justice system to supervise and control the drug use of potential DTE clients. The probation and parole program was selected for three reasons: it was the largest component of the DTE program, it linked the pretrial and post-sentence DTE programs, and the experience of this program could be readily applied to the development of other such programs in other jurisdictions. The programs were evaluated using administrative data collected by corrections technicians, case managers, probation and parole officers, and the DTE central office. Part 1 (Pretrial Data) variables include dates of entry into and exit from the program, number of drug tests, number of positive tests for various drugs, type of offense and arrest date for each offense, and need assessment rating for medical, employment, legal, family, psychological, and drug addiction problems. Part 2 (Probation and Parole Data) variables include a probation or parole indicator, prior drug arrests, prior non-drug arrests, prior convictions, technical violations, drug use, and new drug crimes committed during the program. Demographic variables for both files include age, race, and gender.

Curated

Partially restricted

Multi-Site Evaluation of Reduced Probation Caseload Size in an Evidence-Based Practice Setting in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Polk County, Iowa, and Colorado, 1997-2010 (ICPSR 31961)

Released/updated on: 2014-02-14

Geographic coverage: Oklahoma City, Iowa, United States, Oklahoma, Colorado

Time period: 2001-01-01--2010-01-01, 2001-01-01--2007-01-01, 1997-01-01--2007-01-01, 2007-01-01--2010-01-01

Criminal justice researchers have studied caseload size to determine whether smaller caseloads improve probation outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether reduced caseloads improved supervision outcomes for medium to high risk offenders in a probation agency that trains its officers to apply a balance of controlling and correctional/rehabilitative measures. Three different probation agencies were selected to take part in this study. The first was Oklahoma City (Datasets 1 and 2), where a randomized controlled trial (RCT) experiment was implemented. The second site was Polk County, Iowa (Dataset 3), where a regression discontinuity design study (RDD) was implemented. Lastly, four judicial districts in Colorado (Dataset 4) were selected where a RDD study again was implemented. In Oklahoma City the RCT degenerated and the study team turned to a difference in differences (DD) estimator. The research team also collected Evidence-Based Practices Probation Officer Data (Dataset 5) from a set of survey questionnaires administered to the participating officers from the three research sites and the scoring of taped officers' supervision sessions with probationers on their caseloads by trained raters.

Curated

Partially restricted

Probationer Compliance With Conditions of Supervision, Virginia, 1994-1997 (ICPSR 34705)

Released/updated on: 2023-06-29

Geographic coverage: United States, Virginia

Time period: 1994-01-01--1997-01-01

The impact of probation on the criminal activities of offenders and the relationship between these activities and technical violations were studied using both self-report and official data regarding 126 offenders on probation in Northern Virginia. Results revealed that probation reduced the self-reported criminal activities of the offenders. Younger males self-reported more criminal activities than did other groups. Offenders were more likely to be involved in criminal activity during the months when they were in school, using illegal drugs, or drinking alcohol heavily. Probation was more effective in reducing the criminal activities of older offenders than of younger offenders. Individuals with mental health counseling as a condition of probation self-reported fewer criminal activities than others. Self-reported criminal activities were also less likely to occur in months when probationers had personal contact with their probation officer or were assigned to the day reporting center.