Search results

Showing 1 – 50 of 53 results.
Curated

Alternative Probation Strategies in Baltimore, Maryland (ICPSR 8355)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Baltimore, United States, Maryland
Time period: 1981-01-01--1981-12-31
The purpose of this study was to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of supervised probation, unsupervised probation, and community service. Data were collected from several sources: input-intake forms used by the State of Maryland, probation officers' case record files, Maryland state police rap sheets, FBI sources, and interviews with Maryland probationers. Non-violent, less serious offenders who normally received probation sentences of 12 months or less were offered randomly selected assignments to one of three treatment methods over a five-month period. Baseline data for probationers in each of the three samples were drawn from an intake form that was routinely completed for cases. An interim assessment of recidivism was made at the midpoint of the intervention for each probationer using information drawn from police records. Probationers were interviewed six and twelve months after probation ended. Demographic information on the probationers includes sex, race, age, birthplace, marital status, employment status, and education.
Curated

Annual Probation Survey, 1994 (ICPSR 29668)

Released/updated on: 2012-12-10
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1994-01-01--1994-12-31
The 1994 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 1994, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 1994. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race and Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 1995 (ICPSR 29669)

Released/updated on: 2013-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1995-01-01--1995-12-31
The 1995 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 1995, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 1995. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race and Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 1996 (ICPSR 29670)

Released/updated on: 2013-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1996-01-01--1996-12-31
The 1996 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 1996, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 1996. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race and Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 1997 (ICPSR 29671)

Released/updated on: 2013-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1997-01-01--1997-12-31
The 1997 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 1997, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 1997. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race and Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 1998 (ICPSR 29672)

Released/updated on: 2013-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1998-01-01--1998-12-31
The 1998 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 1998, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 1998. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race and Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 1999 (ICPSR 29673)

Released/updated on: 2013-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1999-01-01--1999-12-31
The 1999 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 1999, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 1999. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race and Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 2000 (ICPSR 28361)

Released/updated on: 2013-02-26
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2000-12-31
The 2000 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2000, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2000. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race and Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 2001 (ICPSR 28362)

Released/updated on: 2013-02-26
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2001-01-01--2001-12-31
The 2001 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2001, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2001. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race and Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 2002 (ICPSR 28363)

Released/updated on: 2013-02-26
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2002-01-01--2002-12-31
The 2002 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2002, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2002. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race and Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 2003 (ICPSR 28364)

Released/updated on: 2013-02-26
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2003-01-01--2003-12-31
The 2003 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2003, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2003. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race and Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 2004 (ICPSR 28365)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-06
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2004-01-01--2004-12-31
The 2004 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2004, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2004. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race and Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 2005 (ICPSR 28366)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-06
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2005-01-01--2005-12-31
The 2005 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2005, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2005. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race and Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 2006 (ICPSR 31323)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2006-01-01--2006-12-31
The 2006 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2006, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2006. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 2007 (ICPSR 31324)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2007-01-01--2007-12-31
The 2007 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2007, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2007. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 2008 (ICPSR 34319)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-22
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2008-01-01--2008-12-31
The 2008 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2008, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2008. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 2009 (ICPSR 34320)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-21
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2009-01-01--2009-12-31
The 2009 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2009, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2009. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 2010 (ICPSR 34321)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-27
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2010-01-01--2010-12-31
The 2010 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2010, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2010. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 2011 (ICPSR 34717)

Released/updated on: 2013-10-31
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2011-01-01--2011-12-31
The 2011 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2011, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2011. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 2012 (ICPSR 35256)

Released/updated on: 2014-09-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2012-01-01--2012-12-31
The 2012 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2012, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2012. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 2013 (ICPSR 35631)

Released/updated on: 2015-01-07
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2013-01-01--2013-12-31
The 2013 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2013, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2013. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 2014 (ICPSR 36343)

Released/updated on: 2015-12-02
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2014-01-01--2014-12-31
The 2014 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2014, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2014. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 2015 (ICPSR 36618)

Released/updated on: 2016-12-22
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2015-01-01--2015-12-31
The 2015 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2015, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2015. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 2016 (ICPSR 37459)

Released/updated on: 2020-04-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2016-01-01--2016-12-31
The 2016 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2016, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2016. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 2017 (ICPSR 37482)

Released/updated on: 2021-09-09
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2017-01-01--2017-12-31
The 2017 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2017, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2017. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Annual Probation Survey, 2018 (ICPSR 38057)

Released/updated on: 2021-10-28
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2018-01-01--2018-12-31
The 2018 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2018, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2018. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as sex, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
Curated
Restricted

Census of Juveniles on Probation, United States, 2012 (ICPSR 37438)

Released/updated on: 2020-01-30
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, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2012-01-01--2012-12-31

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.

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--1993-12-31
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
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--2013-12-31, 1953-01-01--2014-12-31, 2010-01-01--2014-12-31

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.

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
Restricted

Evaluation of a Drug Testing and Graduated Sanctions Program in Delaware, 2010-2012 (ICPSR 35010)

Released/updated on: 2017-03-22
Geographic coverage: Delaware
Time period: 2010-01-01--2012-12-31

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.

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.

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
Restricted

Evaluation of the Community Supervision Mapping System for Released Prisoners in Rhode Island, 2008-2010 (ICPSR 32004)

Released/updated on: 2014-09-30
Geographic coverage: Rhode Island, United States
Time period: 2008-01-01--2010-12-31
This study evaluated the Community Supervision Mapping System (CSMS), an online geospatial tool that enables users to map the formerly incarcerated and others on probation, along with related data such as service provider locations and police districts. Probation officers in the state of Rhode Island were surveyed a few weeks before and 18 months after the implementation of CSMS. A total of 56 probation officers participated in the first wave of the study (pre-implementation survey), and 52 probation officers participated in the second wave (post-implementation survey), yielding an overall sample size of 108 probation officers. Dataset 1 contains the data for both waves of the study. The dataset is comprised of 140 variables. Both waves of the study examined the following categories of variables: the probation officer's professional background, contact with clients, amount of time spent on job duties specific to the profession, contact with other agencies, and computer usage. The second wave added 86 variables to explore officers' experiences with CSMS, which features they used, how it impacted their work, and their expected use of CSMS in the future.
Curated
Partially restricted

Evaluation of the Focused Offender Disposition Program in Birmingham, Phoenix, and Chicago, 1988-1992 (ICPSR 6214)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois, Phoenix, Alabama, Birmingham, Arizona
The Drug Testing Technology/Focused Offender Disposition (FOD) program was designed to examine two issues regarding drug users in the criminal justice system: (1) the utility of need assessment instruments in appropriately determining the level of treatment and/or supervision needed by criminal offenders with a history of drug use, and (2) the use of urinalysis monitoring as a deterrent to subsequent drug use. This data collection consists of four datasets from three sites. The FOD program was first established in Birmingham, Alabama, and Phoenix, Arizona, in December 1988 and ran through August 1990. The Chicago, Illinois, program began in October 1990 and ended in March 1992. These first three programs studied probationers with a history of recent drug use who were not incarcerated while awaiting sentencing. The subjects were assessed with one of two different treatment instruments. Half of all clients were assessed with the objective Offender Profile Index (OPI) created by the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors (NASADAD). The other half were assessed with the local instrument administered in each site by Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC), Inc. Regardless of which assessment procedure was used, offenders were then randomly assigned to one of two groups. Half of all offenders assessed by the OPI and half of the offenders assessed by the local instrument were assigned to a control group that received only random urinalysis monitoring regardless of the drug treatment intervention strategy prescribed by the assessment instrument. The other half of offenders in each assessment group were assigned to a treatment group that received appropriate drug intervention treatment. The Phoenix pilot study (Part 4), which ran from March 1991 to May 1992, was designed like the first Phoenix study, except that the sample for the pilot study was drawn from convicted felons who were jailed prior to sentencing and who were expected to be sentenced to probation. These data contain administrative information, such as current offense, number of arrests, number of convictions, and prior charges. The need assessment instruments were used to gather data on clients' living arrangements, educational and vocational backgrounds, friendships, history of mental problems, drug use history, and scores measuring stakes in conformity. In addition, the study specifically collected information on the monitoring of the clients while in the FOD program, including the number of urinalyses administered and their results, as well as the placement of clients in treatment programs. The files also contain demographic information, such as age, race, sex, and education.
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--2009-12-31
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
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--2014-12-31

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 Implementation and Impact of the Massachusetts Intensive Probation Supervision Project, 1984-1985 (ICPSR 9970)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts
Time period: 1984-01-01--1985-12-31
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) program on high-risk offenders. The IPS program was characterized by four changes in usual procedures: (1) increased supervision, (2) risk/needs assessment for substance abuse, employment, and marital/family relationships, (3) stricter enforcement of probation, and (4) a four-stage revocation procedure for technical violations. The investigators also studied whether the additional caseload of the probation officers who implemented the IPS program reduced the number of supervision contacts with non-IPS probationers under normal minimum, moderate, and maximum supervision regimens. Offenders put on IPS probation in 1985 from 13 experimental courts were compared to high-risk offenders put on regular probation in the experimental courts in 1984, and to high-risk offenders on regular probation from 13 control courts for both 1984 and 1985. Data were derived from risk assessment forms, needs/strengths assessment forms, probation supervision records, and criminal history data obtained from the state's probation central field. For each offender, a full range of data were collected on (1) offender risk characteristics at initial, four-month, ten-month, and termination assessments, (2) offender needs characteristics at the same intervals, (3) probation officer/offender contact chronologies for the entire one-year follow-up period, and (4) offender prior criminal history and recidivism during a one-year follow-up period.
Curated

Evaluation of the New York City Department of Probation's Drug Treatment Initiative, 1991-1994 (ICPSR 2652)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 1991-01-01--1994-12-31
This study was undertaken to evaluate the New York City Department of Probation's initiative to place clients in specialized Substance Abuse Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) units for treatment and management. The main analytical strategy of this study was to determine whether clients who were appropriately matched to outpatient drug treatment were less likely to recidivate after treatment in this modality. The focus of the research was not so much on developing powerful prediction models, but rather on determining whether outpatient drug treatment was appropriate and effective for certain types of probationers. The evaluation research involved an in-depth analysis of a sample of 1,860 probationers who were sentenced between September 1991-September 1992 and referred to contracting outpatient drug treatment programs one or more times as of December 31, 1993. The following types of data were collected: (1) the New York City Department of Probation's demographic and drug use information, obtained during the presentence investigation and at intake to probation, (2) the Department of Probation's Central Placement Unit (CPU) database records for each referral made through the CPU, as well as monthly progress reports filled out by the treatment programs on each probationer admitted to drug treatment, (3) the New York State Department of Criminal Justice Statistics' data on criminal histories, and (4) probation officers' reports on whether clients were referred to treatment, the kind of treatment modality to which they were referred, and the dates of admission and discharge. Demographic and socioeconomic variables include age at first arrest and sentencing, gender, race or ethnicity, marital status, family composition, educational attainment, and employment status. Other variables include drug use history (e.g., age at which drugs were first used, if the client's family members used drugs, if the client was actively using heroin, cocaine, or alcohol at time of intake into treatment), criminal history (e.g., age at first arrest, number of arrests, types of crimes, prior convictions, and prior probation and jail sentences), and drug treatment history (e.g., number and types of prior times in drug treatment, months since last treatment program, number of admissions to a CPU program, and number of AIDS education programs attended).
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

Experimental Evaluation of Drug Testing and Treatment Interventions for Probationers in Maricopa County, Arizona, 1992-1994 (ICPSR 2025)

Released/updated on: 2013-05-15
Geographic coverage: United States, Arizona
Time period: 1992-03-01--1994-04-30
This data collection represents a combined experimental evaluation of a drug court program, implemented in 1992 in cooperation with the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department, in comparison to standard probation with different levels of drug testing. The experiment's objective was to compare the drug use and criminal behavior of probationers assigned to four alternative regimes or tracks: (1) standard probation, but no drug testing, (2) standard probation with random monthly drug tests, (3) standard probation with testing scheduled twice a week, and (4) drug court, an integrated program of drug testing, treatment, and sanctions that utilized a carefully structured set of rewards and punishments. The experiment was limited to first-time felony offenders convicted of drug possession or use (not sales) and sentenced to a term of three years' probation. A total of 630 probationers from Maricopa County were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental regimes and tracked for a 12-month period. Data collection efforts included: (1) background information on each participant, (2) process information on the characteristics of supervision and services provided under each experimental condition, and (3) follow-up data on subsequent drug use, crime, and pro-social activities for 12 full months. Background Data (Part 1) include demographic variables such as race, sex, education, marital status, living arrangements, and employment history. In addition, there are variables on prior drug use and abuse, drug treatment, criminal histories as both a juvenile and an adult, and risk and need assessment scores. Other variables include the results of drug testing and any sanctions taken for a positive result (Part 2), new arrests while on probation and corresponding disposition and conviction (Part 3), and technical violations and any actions taken for these violations (Part 4). For probationers assigned to drug court (Part 5) there are variables measuring probationers' status, probation recommendations, and judges' decisions at 11 different progress assessments. The follow-up information (Parts 6-8) includes monthly data on the status of the probationer, the number of face-to-face office contacts, phone contacts, work/school contacts, and community contacts, collateral checks, employment/school verification, counseling sessions, alcohol tests, drug tests, substance abuse treatment, the number of hours the probationer spent job hunting, in educational training, in vocational training, and in community service, the number of days employed full- and part-time, and the amount of earnings, fines paid, restitution paid, and fees paid.
Curated
Restricted

A Follow-Up Evaluation of Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE), 2007-2014 (ICPSR 36239)

Released/updated on: 2023-05-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Hawaii, Oahu
Time period: 2007-01-01--2014-12-31
This study was a long term follow up of Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program. The goal of the evaluation was to assess long term criminal justice outcomes and probation officer and probationer perspectives of the program.
Curated

Hair Assays for Drugs of Abuse in a Probation Population: Pilot Study in a Florida Correctional Field Setting, 1993 (ICPSR 6527)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Florida
Time period: 1993-04-01--1993-09-30
The major objectives of this research project were: (1) to evaluate the effectiveness of the combination of hair and urine assays in determining drug use among probationers, (2) to examine the concordance patterns of hair and urine specimens, (3) to explore the perceptions and attitudes of probation officers regarding the use of hair assays for drug testing, and (4) to assess the feasibility of implementing hair analysis in a probationary field setting. The 22 correctional officers who participated in this study were recruited from the Florida Department of Corrections Probation Field Services Divisions, and worked within Pinellas and Pasco counties. Each officer was requested to solicit from his or her caseload eight to ten probationers who would be eligible for the project because they would be undergoing at least monthly urinalysis or urine testing. Approximately 150 probationers participated in the project and were subject to hair assays for illicit drug use, along with standard urine testing. Specimens were collected and analyzed on 90 probationers over a six-month period and on 101 probationers for five consecutive months, as well as fewer numbers of samples for the other probationers. The drugs for which the hair and urine specimens were analyzed included cocaine, opiates, cannabinoids such as marijuana, PCP, and methadone. Survey questions asked of the probation officers (Part 1) covered personal information (gender, ethnicity, education level, years of experience in corrections, and satisfaction with job) and attitudes and opinions about their jobs and drug testing (estimated percentage of caseload using drugs, whether all clients should be tested, and whether knowing drug quantities is helpful). Data in Part 2 cover probationers' drug test results and self-reported drug use, personal information (gender, age, weight, ethnicity, and criminal charge), a variety of hair questions (color, texture, style, length, how often shampooed, and if dyed, tinted, bleached, relaxed, or jeried), and use of medications, along with the medication name and amount.
Curated
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--2010-12-31, 2001-01-01--2007-12-31, 1997-01-01--2007-12-31, 2007-01-01--2010-12-31
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
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--1997-12-31
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.
Curated
Restricted

Problem Solving Approaches to Issues of Inmate Reentry in Indianapolis, Indiana, 2000-2003 (ICPSR 30281)

Released/updated on: 2012-10-08
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States, Indianapolis
Time period: 2000-01-01--2003-12-31
This study involved an evaluation of the reentry component of the Indianapolis Violence Reduction Partnership (IVRP). The IVRP included a problem solving approach to the issue of inmate reentry. On the basis of a problem analysis, the IVRP officials decided to implement a pilot project that involved having recently released inmates attend a neighborhood-based group meeting convened by criminal justice officials and including community representatives and service providers. The meetings were based on the notion of combining deterrence and social support (linkage to services). The pilot project was evaluated using a quasi-experimental design. The treatment group consisted of 82 former inmates who attended one of five meetings. The comparison group consisted of 103 former inmates released at the same time period as the treatment group but in a different neighborhood. Reentry lever-pulling meeting participants and comparison group members were tracked for a period of up to 24 months to determine whether they had been re-arrested during the study period.
Curated
Restricted

Reducing Violent Crime and Firearms Violence in Indianapolis, Indiana, 2003-2005 (ICPSR 20357)

Released/updated on: 2009-01-30
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States, Indianapolis
Time period: 2003-06-01--2005-03-31
The lever-pulling model was first developed as part of a broad-based, problem-solving effort implemented in Boston in the mid-1990s. The lever-pulling strategy was a foundational element of many collaborative partnerships across the country and it was a central element of the strategic plans of many Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) jurisdictions. This effort attempted to deter the future violent behavior of chronic offenders by first communicating directly to them about the impact that violence had on the community and the implementation of new efforts to respond to it, and then giving credibility to this communication effort by using all available legal sanctions (i.e., levers) against these offenders when violence occurred. The purpose of the study was to perform an experimental evaluation of a lever-pulling strategy implemented in Indianapolis, Indiana. Probationers were randomly assigned to the law enforcement focused lever-pulling group, the community leader lever-pulling group, or a regular probation control group during six months between June 2003 and March 2004. There were a total of 540 probationers in the study--180 probationers in each group. Probationers in the law enforcement focused lever-pulling group had face-to-face meetings with federal and local law enforcement officials and primarily received a deterrence-based message, but community officials also discussed various types of job and treatment opportunities. In contrast, probationers in the community leader lever-pulling group attended meetings with community leaders and service providers who exclusively focused on the impact of violence on the community and available services. Three types of data were collected to assess perceptions about the meeting: offending behavior, program participation behavior, and the levers pulled. First, data were collected using a self-report survey instrument (Part 1). Second, the complete criminal history for probationers (Part 2) was collected one-year after their meeting date. Third, all available probation data (Part 3) were collected 365 days after the meeting date. Part 1, Self-Report Survey Data, includes a total of 316 variables related to the following three types of data: Section I: meeting evaluation and perception of risk, Section II: Self-reported offense and gun use behavior, and Section III: Demographics. Part 2, Criminal History Data, includes a total of 94 variables collected about the probationer's complete offending history as well as their criminal activities after the treatment for one year. Part 3, Probation Data, includes a total of 249 variables related to probation history and other outcome data.
Curated
Restricted

Research on Offender Decision-Making and Desistance From Crime: A Multi-Theory Assessment of Offender Cognition Change, United States, 2015-2019 (ICPSR 37457)

Released/updated on: 2021-01-28
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2015-01-01--2019-12-31

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:

  1. What cognitions do probationers self-identify as key beliefs that motivate their desire to desist from crime?
  2. What are the psychometric properties of newly developed standardized measures designed to assess desistance cognitions?
  3. Do probationers differ in their crime and desistance cognitions and, on average, do these cognitions change across time?
  4. 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?
  5. 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.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Risk and Protective Trajectories, Community Context, and Juvenile Recidivism, Florida, 2015-2018 (ICPSR 38599)

Released/updated on: 2023-03-29
Geographic coverage: United States, Florida
Time period: 2015-07-01--2018-06-30
The study examines trajectories of risk and protective factors throughout probation supervision, whether such trajectories affect the likelihood of recidivism, and how community context influences those relationships. A state-wide sample of Florida juveniles who completed probation supervision between 2015 and 2018 were included in the analysis. Probationers completed multiple risk/need assessments during their supervision, which were leveraged by the researchers, in combination with census tract information in which the youth resided, and multiple official measures of recidivism. Major categories of variables include criminal background, school records, family history, drug and alcohol use, mental health, social skills, and social disorganization and immigration levels for youth's neighborhoods. Probationer's age, sex, and race were collected as well.
Curated
Restricted

Santa Cruz Research Partnership, California, 2012-2014 (ICPSR 35485)

Released/updated on: 2018-02-22
Geographic coverage: United States, California, Santa Cruz
Time period: 2012-01-01--2014-12-31

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.

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.

Curated

A Sentencing Postscript: Felony Probationers Under Supervision in the Community, 1983 (ICPSR 8647)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1983-01-01--1984-12-31
This study provides an overview of how the supervision of a class of felony probationers operates in a jurisdiction, and gives a baseline against which the impact of changes to probationary supervision can be measured. The objectives of this study were to describe the demographic characteristics of probationers, the nature and level of supervision that probationers receive, the extent and types of specified conditions imposed on probationers, the degree of probationer compliance with these specified conditions, the extent to which probationers are arrested and/or subjected to probationary disciplinary hearings while under supervision, and the exit status of probationers from community supervision.
Curated

Strategies for Retaining Offenders in Mandatory Drug Treatment Programs in Kings County, New York, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 2749)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state)
Time period: 1994-01-01--1995-12-31
This study examined the relationship between legal pressure and drug treatment retention by assessing perceptions of legal pressure held by two groups of legally-mandated treatment clients: (1) participants of the Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program operated by the Kings County (Brooklyn) District Attorney in New York City, and (2) a matched group of probationers, parolees, Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) participants, and other court-mandated offenders attending the same community-based treatment programs used by DTAP. The Brooklyn DTAP was selected for study because of the program's uniquely coercive program components, including the threat of a mandatory prison term for noncompliance. The goals of this project were (1) to test whether DTAP participants would show significantly higher retention rates when compared to a matched sample of other legally-mandated treatment clients, and (2) to assess the role of perceived legal pressure in predicting retention for both of these groups. Data were collected from program participants through interviews conducted at admission to treatment and follow-up interviews conducted about eight weeks later. Intake interviews were conducted, on average, one week after the client's admission to treatment. The one-to-one interviews, which lasted up to two hours, were administered by trained researchers in a private location at the treatment site. The intake interview battery included a mixture of standardized measures and those developed by the Vera Institute of Justice. Data in Part 1 were collected with the Addiction Severity Index and include age, sex, race, religion, and education. Additional variables cover medical problems, employment history, detailed substance abuse and treatment history, number of times arrested for various crimes, history of incarceration, family's substance abuse and criminal histories, relationships with family and friends, psychological problems such as depression, anxiety, and suicide, current living arrangements, and sources of income. Part 2, Supplemental Background and Retention Data, contains treatment entry date, number of days in treatment, age at treatment entry, termination date, treatment condition, arrest date, detention at arrest, date released on probation/parole, violation of probation/parole arrest date and location, problem drug, prior drug treatment, as well as age, gender, race, education, and marital status. Part 3, Division of Criminal Justice Services Data, includes data on the number of arrests before and after program entry, and number of total misdemeanor and felony arrests, convictions, and sentences. Part 4, Chemical Use, Abuse, and Dependence Data, contains information on type of substance abuse, intoxication or withdrawal at work, school, or home, effects of abuse on social, occupational, or recreational activities, and effects of abuse on relationships, health, emotions, and employment. Parts 5 and 6 contain psychiatric data gathered from the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised and Beck's Depression Inventory, respectively. Part 7 variables from the Circumstances, Motivation, Readiness, and Suitability scale include family's attitude toward treatment, subject's need for treatment, subject's desire to change life, and legal consequences if subject did not participate in treatment. Part 8, Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness scale, contains data on how the subject viewed the drug problem, desire to change, and history of dealing with substance abuse. Part 9, Motivational/Program Supplement Data, includes variables on the subject's need for treatment, attitudes toward treatment sessions, the family's reaction to treatment, and a likelihood of completion rating. Part 10, Perceived Legal Coercion Data, gathered information on who referred the subject to the treatment program, who was keeping track of attendance, whether someone explained the rules of participation in the program and the consequences if the subject failed the program, whether the rules and consequences were put in writing, who monitored program participants, the likelihood of using drugs while in treatment, the likelihood of leaving the program before completion, whether the subject understood the legal consequences of failing the program, the type and frequency of reports and contacts with the criminal justice system, and the subject's reaction to various penalties for not completing the program. Part 11 contains data from the Community Oriented Programs Environment Scale (COPES). Part 12, Treatment Services Review Data, includes data on the number of times the subject received medical attention, days in school, days employed, days intoxicated, days in substance abuse treatment, days tested for drugs, number of contacts with the criminal justice system, days treated for psychological problems, and time spent at recreational activities. Additional variables include the number of individual and group treatment sessions spent discussing medical problems, education and employment, substance abuse, legal problems, and psychological and emotional problems.
Back to top