Alternative Probation Strategies in Baltimore, Maryland (ICPSR 8355)
Annual Probation Survey, 1994 (ICPSR 29668)
Annual Probation Survey, 1995 (ICPSR 29669)
Annual Probation Survey, 1996 (ICPSR 29670)
Annual Probation Survey, 1997 (ICPSR 29671)
Annual Probation Survey, 1998 (ICPSR 29672)
Annual Probation Survey, 1999 (ICPSR 29673)
Annual Probation Survey, 2000 (ICPSR 28361)
Annual Probation Survey, 2001 (ICPSR 28362)
Annual Probation Survey, 2002 (ICPSR 28363)
Annual Probation Survey, 2003 (ICPSR 28364)
Annual Probation Survey, 2004 (ICPSR 28365)
Annual Probation Survey, 2005 (ICPSR 28366)
Annual Probation Survey, 2006 (ICPSR 31323)
Annual Probation Survey, 2007 (ICPSR 31324)
Annual Probation Survey, 2008 (ICPSR 34319)
Annual Probation Survey, 2009 (ICPSR 34320)
Annual Probation Survey, 2010 (ICPSR 34321)
Annual Probation Survey, 2011 (ICPSR 34717)
Annual Probation Survey, 2012 (ICPSR 35256)
Annual Probation Survey, 2013 (ICPSR 35631)
Annual Probation Survey, 2014 (ICPSR 36343)
Annual Probation Survey, 2015 (ICPSR 36618)
Annual Probation Survey, 2016 (ICPSR 37459)
Annual Probation Survey, 2017 (ICPSR 37482)
Annual Probation Survey, 2018 (ICPSR 38057)
Census of Juveniles on Probation, United States, 2012 (ICPSR 37438)
The purpose of the Census of Juveniles on Probation (CJP) was to collect individual-level data about youth on probation, including their numbers and characteristics. The CJP survey asked respondents to report the total number of juveniles on formal probation within their reporting jurisdiction on the reference date of October 24, 2012.
For each youth on probation, responding agencies were asked to provide the following information: sex, date of birth, race, most serious offense, state and county where most serious offense was committed, and the state and county where the juvenile resided on the census reference date.
This data collection contains the national data.
Community Supervision of Drug-Involved Probationers in San Diego County, California, 1991-1993 (ICPSR 2023)
Comparative Evaluation of Court-Based Responses to Offenders with Mental Illnesses, Cook County, Illinois, 1953-2014 (ICPSR 35650)
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.
Evaluation of a Drug Testing and Graduated Sanctions Program in Delaware, 2010-2012 (ICPSR 35010)
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.
The "Design Your Time" (DYT) program was designed to test, in a real world setting, the efficacy of systematically providing increased monitoring of probationers coupled with known, certain and quickly enforced sanctions to reduce substance use and increase positive probationer outcomes. Developed from a model of deterrence, the program informed eligible probationers of what exactly was required of them, what would happen to them when they failed to meet requirements (increased sanctions), and how to reduce their level of monitoring once they violated and triggered increased sanctions (reduced sanctions and garnered rewards). The program utilized a model based on deterrence in which certainty and speed, rather than immediate severity, were the key elements. It also empowered the probationer by clearly informing him or her of the elements of the program, thus allowing them to "Decide Your Time." The program focused on those offenders who tested positive for drugs at intake and involved frequent urinalysis for offenders, coupled with increasing sanctions and referral to treatment.
The collection includes 1 SPSS data file with 404 variables and 400 cases. Data from qualitative interviews with probationers, day to day observations in the probation office, qualitative interviews with the DYT probation officers conducted three months after that program launched, and a focus group with the DYT officers at the conclusion of the study are not available.
Evaluation of Intensive Probation in Milwaukee, 1980-1981 (ICPSR 8276)
Evaluation of the Community Supervision Mapping System for Released Prisoners in Rhode Island, 2008-2010 (ICPSR 32004)
Evaluation of the Focused Offender Disposition Program in Birmingham, Phoenix, and Chicago, 1988-1992 (ICPSR 6214)
Evaluation of the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Community Supervision Strategy, 2007-2009 (ICPSR 27921)
Evaluation of the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement Demonstration Field Experiment (HOPE DFE), 4 United States counties, 2012-2014 (ICPSR 36857)
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.
Evaluation of the Implementation and Impact of the Massachusetts Intensive Probation Supervision Project, 1984-1985 (ICPSR 9970)
Evaluation of the New York City Department of Probation's Drug Treatment Initiative, 1991-1994 (ICPSR 2652)
Examination of Actuarial Offender-Based Prediction Assessments in Texas, 1993-1996 (ICPSR 20403)
Experimental Evaluation of Drug Testing and Treatment Interventions for Probationers in Maricopa County, Arizona, 1992-1994 (ICPSR 2025)
A Follow-Up Evaluation of Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE), 2007-2014 (ICPSR 36239)
Hair Assays for Drugs of Abuse in a Probation Population: Pilot Study in a Florida Correctional Field Setting, 1993 (ICPSR 6527)
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)
Probationer Compliance With Conditions of Supervision, Virginia, 1994-1997 (ICPSR 34705)
Problem Solving Approaches to Issues of Inmate Reentry in Indianapolis, Indiana, 2000-2003 (ICPSR 30281)
Reducing Violent Crime and Firearms Violence in Indianapolis, Indiana, 2003-2005 (ICPSR 20357)
Research on Offender Decision-Making and Desistance From Crime: A Multi-Theory Assessment of Offender Cognition Change, United States, 2015-2019 (ICPSR 37457)
This study is largely exploratory and observational, with the main goals to understand (a) how cognitions change across time, (b) which cognitions are related to each other, and (c) which cognition measures are related to recidivism. Employing a two-phase program of research, this study sought to answer several research questions about the relationship between cognitions and desistance from crime:
- What cognitions do probationers self-identify as key beliefs that motivate their desire to desist from crime?
- What are the psychometric properties of newly developed standardized measures designed to assess desistance cognitions?
- Do probationers differ in their crime and desistance cognitions and, on average, do these cognitions change across time?
- How are crime and desistance cognitions related to official-record assessment and outcome data? Specifically, are there associations between self-reported cognitions and risk and strength factors rated by supervision officers?
- Do crime and desistance cognitions predict future revocations and arrests as hypothesized by rational choice, correctional psychology, and / or desistance theories?
Variables include offender's self-report of their personal perception on the costs and benefits of crime, costs and benefits of attempting to stay crime-free, attitudes, impulsive traits, and emotions. A demographic variable is available: participant gender.
Risk and Protective Trajectories, Community Context, and Juvenile Recidivism, Florida, 2015-2018 (ICPSR 38599)
Santa Cruz Research Partnership, California, 2012-2014 (ICPSR 35485)
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 project, The Santa Cruz Research Partnership, was developed to document how one central coast California county probation department adopted evidence based practices (EBP) and whether the adoption of these practices reduced gender and racial/ethnic disparities. To examine how these EBP related changes have affected their department, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) completed three studies for this National Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant. Specifically, NCCD: 1) completed interviews with the entire probation department staff to examine how the adoption of EBP affects the daily practices of the probation department, 2) analyzed case management system data to understand how the adoption of a probation violation graduated response grid affected outcomes for probationers, and 3) analyzed case management system data to examine why Latino probationers are more likely to have bench warrants issued against them even though they have statistically significantly lower risk levels.