Search results

Showing 1 – 25 of 25 results.
Curated
Restricted

Aftercare Services for Juvenile Parolees with Mental Disorders in Ohio, 2005-2006 (ICPSR 20624)

Released/updated on: 2013-12-13
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio
Time period: 2005-01-01--2006-12-31
The purpose of the study was to examine the aftercare services juvenile parolees with mental disorders receive as they transition from correctional facilities to the community. The study assessed rates of recidivism for juvenile parolees with mental disorders, the type and frequency of mental health care received in the community by youth on parole, and the relationship between parolees' recidivism and functional outcomes with their utilization of mental health care. The sample came from the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS), which covers youths aged 10 to 21 sentenced to correctional care for the 88 Ohio counties in 2005 and 2006. The actual cohort was composed of 175 youths aged 12 to 19 years who had a presumptive release date within the next 60 days and were placed on the mental health caseload. Data were collected in 2005 and 2006 at four time points: one month pre-release, one month post-release, three months post-release, and six months post-release. Variables were gathered from the Ohio DYS and through the administration of a variety of standardized surveys and interview protocols. The main categories of variables include variables relating to arrest history and recidivism, variables relating to the mental health of subjects, variables relating to the administration of mental health treatment and health insurance coverage post-release, and demographic variables.
Curated
Restricted

Case Classification for Juvenile Corrections: Evaluation of the Youth Level of Service Inventory in Ohio, 1998-2001 (ICPSR 3965)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio
This study assessed the effectiveness of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI or Y-LSI). The Y-LSI is an instrument for classifying juvenile offender risk of recidivism and for identifying areas of treatment need that, if addressed, will result in a reduced risk of recidivism. Three juvenile correction agencies in Ohio that used the Y-LSI for case classification were the settings for this study. Data in Part 1 were collected on 1,679 youths received in the three correctional settings between July 1, 1998, and June 30, 1999. Youths' files were reviewed to complete the data collection instruments. These files contained demographic and background information, Y-LSI assessments, and information relating to treatment and service referrals, completion of programming, and supervision outcome. One year after the initial Y-LSI assessments, reassessment data were collected on youths. Reassessments were completed on youth at the time of program completion or one year after the initial assessment. Supervision outcome data were collected two years after the initial data collection. Data in Part 2 were collected in 2001 through a survey of 196 agency staff members on their reactions to the use of the Y-LSI as a classification instrument.
Curated

Criminal Careers of Juveniles in New York City, 1977-1983 (ICPSR 9986)

Released/updated on: 1999-03-18
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 1977-04-01--1983-09-30
This longitudinal study of juvenile offenders traces the criminal histories of a sample of juveniles, including those who were "dropouts" (juvenile offenders who did not go on to become adult criminal offenders) and those who continued to be arrested, ranging from those with only one subsequent arrest to "persisters" (juveniles who did become career criminal offenders). The data are intended to address the following questions: (1) Are serious juvenile offenders more likely than nonserious juvenile offenders to become adult offenders? (2) Are offenders who begin at a younger age more likely to have more serious criminal careers than those who begin when they are older? (3) As a criminal career progresses, will the offender become more skilled at one type of offense and commit that type of crime more frequently, while decreasing the frequency of other types of crimes? (4) As a criminal career continues, will the offender commit progressively more serious offenses? (5) How well can it be predicted who will become a high-rate offender? Part 1 of this study, Juvenile Case File, contains data on a subsample of 14- and 15-year-olds who were brought to Probation Intake in the New York City Family Court for delinquency offenses. Included are variables for the date and type of arrest, disposition and sentence of the offender, and sex and race of the offender, as well as questions concerning the offender's home environment and highest school grade completed. Part 2, Arrest and Incarceration Event File, includes information on prior delinquency arrests, including the date of arrest, the charge and severity, and the disposition and sentence, as well as similar information on subsequent offenses that occurred up to six years after the original delinquency offense. Included for each incarceration is the status of the offender (juvenile or adult), the date of admission to a facility, and the length of time incarcerated.
Curated

Criminal Histories and Criminal Justice Processing of Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Sample Members in Washington, DC, 1989-1991 (ICPSR 6122)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1989-01-01--1991-12-31
These data provide information on the relationship between arrestee drug tests and future criminality once other risk factors, such as prior criminal history, are accounted for. Also explored is whether the association between drug test results and future offending varies depending upon the attributes of individual offenders. The dataset contains information drawn from the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) in Washington, DC, and the National Institute of Justice's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program. Data are available from each source for 1989 and 1990 with subsequent arrest data provided by PSA through August 1991. The 1989-1990 data supplied by PSA contain information on criminal history and drug test results taken at the time of arrest. Data provided from the DUF program include drug test results from a sample of persons arrested as well as information obtained from arrestee interviews on items such as family and work status. The combined data contain the arrestees' demographic characteristics, arrest and charge information, prior criminal history, and subsequent offending. Drugs tested for include cocaine, opiates, methadone, PCP, amphetamines, barbiturates, marijuana, methaqualone, Darvon, and Valium. In addition, self-reported information regarding an individual's use of and dependency on these drugs is supplied. Demographic information includes age, sex, income, and employment status. Due to changes in the DUF measurement instrument from 1989 to 1990, the variables contained in the two data files are not completely identical.
Curated
Restricted

Criminal Recidivism in a Large Cohort of Offenders Released from Prison in Florida, 2004-2008 (ICPSR 27781)

Released/updated on: 2010-07-29
Geographic coverage: United States, Florida
Time period: 2004-01-01--2008-12-31
The purpose of the study was to quantify the effect of the embrace of DNA technology on offender behavior. In particular, researchers examined whether an offender's knowledge that their DNA profile was entered into a database deterred them from offending in the future and if probative effects resulted from DNA sampling. The researchers coded information using criminal history records and data from Florida's DNA database, both of which are maintained by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), and also utilized court docket information acquired through the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) to create a dataset of 156,702 cases involving offenders released from the FDOC in the state of Florida between January 1996 and December 2004. The data contain a total of 50 variables. Major categories of variables include demographic variables regarding the offender, descriptive variables relating to the initial crime committed by the offender, and time-specific variables regarding cases of recidivism.
Curated

Drug Abuse as a Predictor of Rearrest or Failure to Appear in Court in New York City, 1984 (ICPSR 9979)

Released/updated on: 2000-04-18
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 1984-04-01--1984-10-31
This data collection was undertaken to estimate the prevalence of drug use/drug use trends among booked arrestees in New York City and to analyze the relationship between drug use and crime. The data, which were collected over a six-month period, were generated from volunteer interviews with male arrestees, the analyses of their urine specimens, police and court records of prior criminal behavior and experience with the criminal justice system, and records of each arrestee's current case, including court warrants, rearrests, failures to appear, and court dispositions. Demographic variables include age, education, vocational training, marital status, residence, and employment. Items relating to prior and current drug use and drug dependency are provided, along with results from urinalysis tests for opiates, cocaine, PCP, and methadone. The collection also contains arrest data for index crimes and subsequent court records pertaining to those arrests (number of court warrants issued, number of pretrial rearrests, types of rearrests, failure to appear in court, and court dispositions), and prior criminal records (number of times arrested and convicted for certain offenses).
Curated
Restricted

Drug Use Forecasting in 24 Cities in the United States, 1987-1997 (ICPSR 9477)

Released/updated on: 1998-07-15
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1987-06-01--1997-12-31
The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program measures levels of and trends in drug use among persons arrested and booked in the United States. The data address the following topics: (1) types of drugs used by arrestees (based on self-reports and urinalysis), (2) self-reported dependency on drugs, (3) self-reported need for alcohol/drug treatment, (4) the relationship between drug use and certain types of offenses, and (5) the relationship between self-reported indicators of drug use and indicators of drug use based on urinalysis. Participation in the project is voluntary, and all information collected from the arrestees is anonymous and confidential. The data include the arrestee's age, race, gender, educational attainment, marital status, and the charge at the time of booking. The recently modified DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of the 1996 and 1997 data) also collected information about the arrestee's use of 15 drugs, including recent and past use (e.g., 3-day and 30-day drug use) of each of these drugs, age at first use, and whether the arrestee had ever been dependent on drugs. In the original DUF interview instrument (used for the 1987 to 1994 data and part of the 1995 data), the information collected was the same as above except that the use of 22 drugs was queried, and the age at which the arrestee first became dependent on the drug was included. Arrestees also were questioned in the original instrument about their history of intravenous drug use, whether the consideration of AIDS influenced whether they shared needles, history of drug and alcohol treatment, their past and current drug treatment needs, and how many persons they had sex with during the past 12 months. Finally, arrestees were asked to provide a urine specimen, which was screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography). The Gun Addendum Data (Parts 27, 35, and 37) contain variables on topics such as arrestees' encounters with guns, whether they agreed or disagreed with statements about guns, gun possession, how they obtained handgun(s), whether they were armed with a gun at their arrest or during crimes, and if they had ever used a gun against another person. The Heroin Addendum Data, 1995 (Part 29) contains information that was formerly covered in the main annual file in 1992-1994, but in 1995 was revised and prepared as a separate dataset.
Curated

Early Identification of the Serious Habitual Juvenile Offender Using a Birth Cohort in Philadelphia, 1958-1984 (ICPSR 2312)

Released/updated on: 2008-04-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Time period: 1958-01-01--1984-12-31
Beginning in the mid-1980s, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) funded the creation of Habitual Offender Units (HOUs) in 13 cities. HOUs were created to prosecute habitual juvenile offenders by deploying the most experienced attorneys to handle these cases from start to finish. By targeting the earliest points in the career sequence of the juvenile offenders, the greatest number of serious offenses can potentially be averted. Selection criteria to qualify for priority prosecution by an HOU usually encompassed one or more generic components relating to aspects of a juvenile's present and prior offense record. In Philadelphia, to be designated a serious habitual offender and to qualify for priority prosecution by the HOU, a youth had to have two or more prior adjudications or open cases for specific felonies, as well as a current arrest for a specified felony. The first three police contacts in a Philadelphia juvenile offender's record were of special interest because they included the earliest point (i.e., the third contact) at which a youth could be prosecuted in the Philadelphia HOU, under their selection criteria. The main objectives of this study were to determine how well the selection criteria identified serious habitual offenders and which variables, reflecting HOU selection criteria, criminal histories, and personal characteristics, were most strongly and consistently related to the frequency and seriousness of future juvenile and young adult offending. To accomplish this, an assessment was conducted using a group of juveniles born in 1958 whose criminal career outcomes were already known. Applying the HOU selection criteria to this group made it possible to determine the extent to which the criteria identified future habitual offending. Data for the analyses were obtained from a birth cohort of Black and white males born in 1958 who resided in Philadelphia from their 10th through their 18th birthdays. Criminal careers represent police contacts for the juvenile years and arrests for the young adult years, for which police contacts and arrests are synonymous. The 40 dependent variables were computed using 5 different criminal career aspects for 4 crime type groups for 2 age intervals. The data also contain various dummy variables related to prior offenses, including type of offense, number of prior offenses, disposition of the offenses, age at first prior offense, seriousness of first prior offense, weapon used, and whether it was a gang-related offense. Dummy variables pertaining to the current offenses include type of offense, number of crime categories, number of charges, number of offenders, gender, race, and age of offenders, type of intimidation used, weapons used, number of crime victims, gender, race, and age of victims, type of injury to victim, type of victimization, characteristics of offense site, type of complainant, and police response. Percentile of the offender's socioeconomic status is also provided. Continuous variables include age at first prior offense, age at most recent prior offense, age at current offense, and average age of victims.
Curated

Estimating the Elasticities of Demand for Cocaine and Heroin with Data from 21 Cities from the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program, 1987-1991 (ICPSR 6567)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1987-01-01--1991-12-31
The objective of this research was to estimate the elasticity of the demand for cocaine and heroin with respect to the price. Price elasticity is the percentage of change in the dependent quantity corresponding to a one-percent change in price. The project involved the development of an econometric model to determine price elasticity, given that national- and city-level data on the consumption of cocaine and heroin are insufficient or nonexistent. The researchers circumvented this lack of data by partitioning the desired elasticity into the product of two elasticities, involving a measurable intermediate quantity whose relationship to the quantity of consumption could be modeled and estimated by measurable techniques. The intermediate quantity used for this project was the fraction of arrestees testing positive for cocaine or heroin as measured by the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) System. From the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA's) System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) data, expected purity was computed by regressing on log quantity and dummy variables for location and quarter. Price series were produced by finding the median standardized price per expected pure gram for each location and quarter. Variables for Part 1, National Data, include year, quarter, standardized prices for a gram of cocaine and a gram of heroin, and expected purity of cocaine and heroin. The Cities Data, Part 2, cover city, year, quarter, number of observations used to compute the median price of cocaine and heroin, standardized prices, and expected purity.
Curated
Restricted

Evaluation of the Implementation of the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS), United States, 1978-2017 (ICPSR 37035)

Released/updated on: 2020-10-29
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, Phoenix, New York (state), Arizona

The purpose of the project was to (1) determine whether the combined dynamic (SOTIPS) and static risk assessment (Static-99R) tools better predicted sexual recidivism than either alone, and (2) determine whether the tools could be implemented successfully in more representative populations. Previous research has established a "status quo" for risk assessments.

This study was set within the context of the developing sexual offender risk prediction field, where investigators explored reliable and valid means to assess what have been termed "dynamic risk factors." Instruments that identify the specific psychological risk factors present in the individual offender ought to allow treatment for that individual to be tailored to these specific needs, thus increasing its effectiveness. Thus, instruments have been designed to:

  • Assess psychological factors that are empirically related to sexual recidivism, thus creating a basis for selecting treatment targets
  • Show robust incremental predictive validity relative to Static-99R or other measures of static risk factors
  • Measure change in a way that is convincingly related to sexual recidivism
  • Incorporate and point risk managers towards some of the factors identified in the desistance literature
  • Improve the effectiveness of treatment in reducing sexual recidivism

Enrollment of sex offenders in the evaluation study began in April 2013. To be included, offenders needed to be Static-99R eligible (an adult male convicted of a contact or non-contact sex offense with an identifiable victim), mentally cognizant, released to community supervision, and at least 18 years old in January 2013 in Maricopa County and April 2013 in New York City.

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

Incarceration and Desistance: Evidence from a Natural Policy Experiment, North Carolina and South Dakota, 1995-2019 (ICPSR 38817)

Released/updated on: 2025-04-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States, South Dakota
Time period: 2009-01-01--2015-12-30, 1995-01-01--2019-11-30

In order to investigate whether reductions to sentence length reduce recidivism and its related costs, the research team conducted two studies under the same NIJ grant.

In Study 1, the research team used a quasi-experimental approach to examine how sentence length influenced time to rearrest. Specifically, the team estimated an instrumental variable hazard model using variation stemming from the implementation of South Dakota's Public Safety Improvement Act of 2013 (SB70). SB70 was a major sentencing reform that reduced the likelihood of incarceration and the length of sentence for certain non-violent offenses. The legislation was a response to high rates of incarceration and rising criminal justice costs with a particular focus on addressing individuals convicted of non-violent offenses. The goal was to improve public safety while reducing corrections spending. For grand theft below $5,000 and third-degree burglary, the reform reduced the severity of the felony class and the maximum allowed sentence length by 50% to 80%. Only certain offenses were subject to sentencing reductions such that unaffected offense types were included in the analysis as a comparison group.

In Study 2, the research team applied the logic of recurring event hazard models that predicted the probability of events over time with two distinct objectives: to identify desisters and to estimate the impact of life events on the longitudinal pattern of offending. Administrative data from the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (NCDPS) Division of Adult Correction were obtained to answer this research question. The team connected commonly used trajectory models to recurrent event survival models.

This collection contains only syntax files and documentation that were created for Study 1 (South Dakota). The P.I. codebook reflects the dataset that was created for analysis, though the data are not available. Please refer to the User Guide for more information. While Study 2's (North Carolina) methodology is described, please note that, excluding the NIJ Final Report, no Study 2 materials are available through ICPSR.

Curated
Restricted

Michigan Study of Life After Prison, Administrative Data on 2003 Cohort of Michigan Parolees (ICPSR 32681)

Released/updated on: 2019-03-28
Geographic coverage: United States, Michigan
Time period: 2003-01-01--2003-12-31

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 files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The Michigan Study of Life After Prison examined the association between neighborhood context and outcomes related to employment and recidivism among the cohort of former prisoners released on parole from Michigan state prisons in one calendar year (2003), controlling for pre-incarceration neighborhood context, local labor market conditions, and a large set of individual characteristics. The primary goals of this study were to answer two questions: (1) "Are ex-offenders who are released to more disadvantaged neighborhoods (those with greater poverty, unemployment, residential turnover, etc.) more likely to recidivate?" (2) "Are ex-offenders who are released to more disadvantaged neighborhoods less likely to gain stable employment?" This research sought to supplement available literature on prisoner reentry and criminal desistance, which the researchers posit existing literature has largely ignored the role that neighborhoods play in shaping the recidivism and employment of returning prisoners.

The 31 data files included as part of this collection are as follows:

Cleaned Data Files:

  • casenotearrestsreps1-4_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 4,932 Cases, 12 Variables
  • casenotearrestsreps5-8_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 5,302 Cases, 13 Variables
  • casenotearrestsrep9_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 2,321 Cases, 13 Variables
  • casenoteemploymentreps1-4_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 4,871 Cases, 28 Variables
  • casenoteemploymentreps5-8_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 4,754 Cases, 23 Variables
  • casenoteemploymentrep9_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 2,610 Cases, 23 Variables
  • cleanedcasenoteaddressesreps1-8_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 50,207 Cases, 72 Variables
  • cleanedcasenoteaddressesrep9_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 10,309 Cases, 69 Variables
  • preprisonaddress_all_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 5,183 Cases, 30 Variables
  • preprisonaddress_all_rep9_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 1,017 Cases, 63 Variables
  • postprisads_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 11,064 Cases, 41 Variables
  • cleaned-demographics-population_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 11,064 Cases, 57 Variables
  • simplecrimhistory.dta: 11,064 Cases, 4 Variables
  • popSAhistory.dta: 11,064 Cases, 8 Variables
  • deathdates_ICPSR-EDITED.dta: 308 Cases, 3 Variables
  • popprisonenterdates.dta: 11,064 Cases, 7 Variables
  • discharge dates.dta: 7,369 Cases, 5 Variables
  • parole and release dates for pop.dta: 11,064 cases, 3 Variables
  • mdoc_recidivism_measures.dta: 11,064 Cases, 6 Variables
  • recidivism dates from transits.dta: 11,064 Cases, 8 Variables
  • recidivism from bir.dta: 11,064 Cases, 3 Variables
  • sample marker.dta: 3,689 Cases, 2 Variables
  • samplereps.dta: 3,689 Cases, 2 Variables
  • tta_rsid_rep.dta: 1,363 Cases, 2 Variables
  • Contextual Data Files:

  • Complete.data.file.dta: 2,757 Cases, 1,055 Variables
  • countyemployment.dta: 10,956 Cases, 6 Variables
  • places.dta: 5,004 Cases, 5 Variables
  • TractDataInterpolated-long.dta: 57,036 Cases, 50 Variables
  • TractDataInterpolated-wide.dta: 2,716 Cases, 1,009 Variables
  • tractscales2000.dta: 2,716 Cases, 49 Variables
  • urbanicity + density.dta: 2,716 Cases, 9 Variables
  • Demographic variables included: gender, race, educational attainment, age, employment, and marital status.

  • Curated
    Restricted

    A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment in Vermont, 2001-2010 (ICPSR 31782)

    Released/updated on: 2014-09-04
    Geographic coverage: Vermont, United States
    Time period: 2001-01-01--2010-12-31

    Since 2001, Vermont Department of Corrections (DOC) sex offender treatment providers and probation and parole officers have scored every adult male sex offender under community supervision on three measures of static (unchangeable) risk at intake (i.e., Static-99, RRASOR-Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offence Recidivism, and VASOR-Vermont Assessment of Sex Offender Risk) and one measure of dynamic (changeable) risk (i.e, SOTNPS) at intake and then every six months thereafter. This project conducted record reviews to verify the accuracy of the risk assessment scores and examined how scores on the Sex Offender Treatment Needs and Progress Scale (SOTNPS) and one or more of these static risk instruments can be combined into an overall model of risk assessment. An empirically derived decision-making model was created to assist correctional administrators, probation and parole officers, and treatment providers in allocating and delivering supervision and treatment services based on an individual's treatment needs and risk to sexually re-offend.

    Three hypotheses were tested. First, it was expected that one or more static risk measures (Static-99R, Static-2002R and VASOR) would predict sexual recidivism with moderate accuracy in the sample. Second, a dynamic risk measure, Sex Offender Treatment Needs and Progress Scale (SOTNPS), or a subset of risk factors contained in this measure would also predict sexual recidivism with moderate accuracy and be sensitive to the changes in dynamic risk over time. Third, a combined static and dynamic risk measure would predict sexual recidivism more accurate than either measure alone.

    Curated
    Restricted

    Multilevel and Policy-Focused Analysis of Parole Violations and Revocations in California, 2003-2004 (ICPSR 27161)

    Released/updated on: 2010-03-30
    Geographic coverage: United States, California
    Time period: 2003-01-01--2004-12-31
    The purpose of the study was to facilitate an understanding of the sanctioning of parolees in California. The central databases used in the study were the Offender Based Information System (OBIS), the Revocation Scheduling and Tracking System (RSTS), and the Statewide Parolee Database (SPDB). These three central databases provided information for the outcome variables of the study as well as information about parolees' personal characteristics, aspects of their supervision, and criminal histories. For the Parole Violations Data (Part 1), these data were combined with data extracted from several California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) data systems and connected to other pieces of data using administrative and geographic identifiers to construct measures of parole agent and community characteristics. Parole agent and parole policy measures were drawn from the California State Personnel Board Parole Agent Database (PACD) and California parole policies. Measures of community conditions were drawn from the 2000 United States Census, the United States Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the California Secretary of State, and the Religious Congregations and Membership Study, 2000. A total of 13,070 parolees were observed for a maximum of 106 weeks during 2003-2004, yielding a total of 1,376,820 parolee-week observations for Part 1. The Parole Revocations Data (Part 2) include every parole violation case that went through a county court or a parole board hearing in 2003 and 2004 -- a total of 151,586 cases. Individual, organizational, and community-level data were merged into the Part 2 dataset using administrative and geographic identifiers. Information about each parolee was extracted from several CDCR data systems. Similar to Part 1, the central databases used in Part 2 of the study were the OBIS and the RSTS. Organizational measures were drawn from CDCR Annual Population Reports, California Corrections Standards Authority Jail Profile Surveys, and Judicial Council of California Court Statistics Reports. Measures of community conditions were drawn from the 2000 United States Census, the SAMHSA, and the California Secretary of State. The Parole Violations Data (Part 1) contain a total of 50 variables including past and present offense history variables, parolee characteristics, supervision characteristics, and community environment variables. The Parole Revocations Data (Part 2) contain a total of 42 variables including case characteristics, individual characteristics, organizational factors, and community factors.
    Curated
    Restricted

    Optimizing Juvenile Assessment Performance, United States, 2003-2019 (ICPSR 37840)

    Released/updated on: 2021-03-25
    Geographic coverage: United States
    Time period: 2003-01-01--2019-12-31, 2011-01-01--2016-12-31, 2009-01-01--2018-12-31, 2012-01-01--2016-12-31, 2009-01-01--2015-12-31, 2006-01-01--2017-12-31, 2008-01-01--2015-12-31, 2008-01-01--2017-12-31, 2010-01-01--2017-12-31, 2003-01-01--2018-12-31, 2005-01-01--2016-12-31
    In nearly every state and in the vast majority of juvenile justice agencies, risk assessments are incorporated into diversion, case management, supervision, and placement practices. Despite two decades of use within the juvenile justice system, little research regarding the methods of risk assessment development is discussed or translated to the field and practitioners. Many of the contemporary tools used today are implemented off-the-shelf, meaning that tools were developed with a specific set of methods, selecting and weighting items used in the prediction of a specified sample of youth. What is not known is how the various designs, methods, and circumstances of tool development impact the predictive performance when adopted by a jurisdiction. This study seeks to provide input into this dilemma. Demographic information in this study includes age, race, and sex.
    Curated
    Restricted

    Outcome Evaluation of a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program in Dallas County, Texas, 1998-2000 (ICPSR 3716)

    Released/updated on: 2003-06-05
    Geographic coverage: United States, Texas
    Time period: 1998-01-01--2000-12-31
    This study was an outcome evaluation of the Dallas County Judicial Treatment Center (DCJTC), a six-month residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) facility in Dallas County, Texas. The primary goal of this evaluation was to assess offender recidivism following treatment in this six-month community-based modified therapeutic community for probationers. Secondary goals were to examine change in social functioning over time among probationers mandated to this program, to determine which characteristics at intake and which during-treatment social functioning indicators were predictive of dropping out of treatment early, and to identify which indicators predicted being arrested one to two years after treatment. These goals were accomplished by a comparison of outcomes between treated probationers and an untreated comparison group and by an assessment of the relationships among treatment, social functioning, and recidivism. For both treatment and comparison groups, a criminal records search was performed on the Institutional Division database of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for all of the study participants for the two years following discharge for treatment or following commitment to probation. In addition to these records, treatment participants were asked to complete a set of data collection forms over their course of treatment. These forms collected information about mental status, background and psychosocial functioning, substance abuse, psychological status, offenders' perceptions of the program and their experiences in treatment, evaluations of counselors, self-evaluations, and counselors' evaluations of clients.
    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
    Restricted

    Statewide Impact Evaluation of Domestic Violence Courts and Recidivism in New York, 1993-2010 (ICPSR 34484)

    Released/updated on: 2016-04-29
    Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
    Time period: 1993-01-01--2010-12-31

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

    The purpose of this study was to answer the following research questions:

    • Do domestic violence courts reduce recidivism?
    • Do domestic violence courts hold defendants accountable through the use of more severe case outcomes and sentences?
    • What, if any, court-level policies make these courts more or less effective (e.g., related to eligibility, program mandates, compliance monitoring, or victim service)?
    • What, if any community characteristics make these courts more or less effective (e.g., related to population size, racial composition, or socioeconomic characteristics)?
    • Based on individual characteristics (e.g., age, criminal history, or current charges), which categories of defendants are at a high risk of re-offending; and are certain categories particularly responsive to the domestic violence court intervention?

    Outcome were compared between matched samples of defendants (Full File Data, n=17,718 and Convicted File Data, n=7,306) processed in the 24 domestic violence courts and in conventional courts operating in the same 24 jurisdictions in New York state prior to the opening of the specialized court. Cases processed in each domestic violence court during its first two full calendar years of operations comprised the domestic violence court sample. Cases processed in conventional courts during the two full calendar years preceding the opening of the specialized court comprised the comparison sample. Data on court policies and practices was drawn from two survey instruments administered to each of the 24 courts (Court and Community Characteristics Data, n=48). The first survey was administered statewide in 2008; the second was a supplemental survey administered in 2010.

    Curated

    Techniques for Assessing the Accuracy of Recidivism Prediction Scales, 1960-1980: [Miami, Albuquerque, New York City, Alameda and Los Angeles Counties, and the State of California] (ICPSR 9988)

    Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
    Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New Mexico, Albuquerque, California, Florida, New York (state), Miami
    Time period: 1960-01-01--1980-12-31
    The purpose of this data collection was to measure the validity or accuracy of four recidivism prediction instruments: the INSLAW, RAND, SFS81, and CGR scales. These scales estimate the probability that criminals will commit subsequent crimes quickly, that individuals will commit crime frequently, that inmates who are eligible for release on parole will commit subsequent crimes, and that defendants awaiting trial will commit crimes while on pretrial arrest or detention. The investigators used longitudinal data from five existing independent studies to assess the validity of the four predictive measures in question. The first data file was originally collected by the Vera Institute of Justice in New York City and was derived from an experimental evaluation of a jobs training program called the Alternative Youth Employment Strategies Project implemented in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Miami, Florida, and New York City, New York. The second file contains data from a RAND Corporation study, EFFECTS OF PRISON VERSUS PROBATION IN CALIFORNIA, 1980-1982 (ICPSR 8700), from offenders in Alameda and Los Angeles counties, California. Parts 3 through 5 pertain to serious juvenile offenders who were incarcerated during the 1960s and 1970s in three institutions of the California Youth Authority. A portion of the original data for these parts was taken from EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHRONIC OFFENDER, [1978-1980: CALIFORNIA] (ICPSR 8226). All files present demographic and socioeconomic variables such as birth information, race and ethnicity, education background, work and military experience, and criminal history, including involvement in criminal activities, drug addiction, and incarceration episodes. From the variables in each data file, standard variables across all data files were constructed. Constructed variables included those on background (such as drug use, arrest, conviction, employment, and education history), which were used to construct the four predictive scales, and follow-up variables concerning arrest and incarceration history. Scores on the four predictive scales were estimated.
    Curated
    Restricted

    Testing the Impact of Batterer Intervention Programs and Court Monitoring in the Bronx [New York City, New York], 2002-2004 (ICPSR 21900)

    Released/updated on: 2008-04-21
    Geographic coverage: New York City, New York, United States
    Time period: 2002-07-23--2004-02-27
    The purpose of this study was to provide a definitive test of whether batterer programs and varying intensities of judicial monitoring reduce reoffending among domestic violence offenders. Study enrollment took place between July 23, 2002, through February 27, 2004. In Part 1, Batterer Program Experiment Data, convicted male domestic violence offenders from court parts AP10 (Pretrial Appearances) or TAP2 (Trials) of the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court were randomly assigned into one of four experimental conditions. The four conditions were batterer program plus monthly judicial monitoring (n = 102), batterer program plus graduated monitoring (n = 100), monthly monitoring only (n = 109), and graduated monitoring only (n = 109). Defendants assigned to a batterer program completed either the Domestic Violence Accountability Program (DVAP) run by Safe Horizon or the Men's Choices Program run by the Fordham Tremont Community Mental Health Center. The offenders were tracked for at least 12 months after sentencing, and for up to 18 months for most of the men, to determine whether they fulfilled the conditions of their sentence, were rearrested for domestic violence, or were reported by the victim to have engaged in new incidents of abuse. Using each offender's New York State criminal identification number, complete criminal record files, including prior criminal history and recidivism, were obtained from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). Victims were interviewed about new domestic incidents committed within one year of sentencing. In Part 2, Monitoring Experiment Data, a quasi-experimental study using propensity score matching compared recidivism outcomes between the randomized offenders in Part 1 and a control group of conditional discharge (CD) offenders convicted of identical offenses, but who, as a result of the normal sentencing process, received neither a batterer program nor any form of monitoring. The propensity score predicted the probability of inclusion in the randomized trial (Part 1) sample, based not on actual membership in that sample, but on the statistical probability of membership in it, as computed from the observed set of background characteristics. Each offender in the randomized trial was then matched to the offender in the CD only group with the nearest propensity score. Sometimes multiple offenders from the the initial trial were matched to the same CD only offender. Variables in both Part 1 and Part 2 of the data set include demographic variables for both the defendants and victims, defendant arrest history, current sentence, assignment to a batterer program, type of judicial monitoring, and victim reports of new incidents of violence after sentencing.
    Curated

    Transitional Aid Research Project (TARP), 1976-1977 (ICPSR 7874)

    Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
    Geographic coverage: United States, Texas, Georgia
    Time period: 1976-01-01--1977-12-31
    The Transitional Aid Research Project (TARP) was a randomized field experiment conducted in Texas and Georgia in 1976-1977 that was designed to reduce recidivism among ex-prisoners by lowering incentives for re-engaging in property crime through provision of minimal levels of income support and extension of some unemployment insurance coverage to released prisoners. This study evolved out of an earlier LIFE (Living Insurance for Ex-Prisoners) study conducted in Baltimore, Maryland in the early 1970s. In the LIFE study, 500 prisoners with a high probability of re-arrest were randomly assigned at release from prison to experimental and control groups which varied by the amount of money received (contingent upon employment or unemployment and job placement services provided). The results showed that ex-prisoners receiving payments were less likely to be re-arrested for property theft-related crimes than those who received only job placement or no services or payments of any kind. The United States Department of Labor commissioned the TARP experiment, designed to replicate the LIFE experiment while providing a larger and more representative sample of prisoners, greater variation in treatment conditions, and administration of payments and job placement services through existing agencies rather than by a special purpose project staff. Texas and Georgia were the states chosen for the experiment, and stratified random samples of inmates were assigned, at the time of release from prison, to experimental and control groups. The groups varied in the amount of money and job placement services they received upon their release. Originally, the data were recorded in nine files for each state corresponding to each of the nine different sources of information for each TARP case. The ICPSR data collection combines these into one file for each state: Part 1 for Texas, and Part 2 for Georgia. Each file contains over 1,500 variables, clustered in nine topic areas for each inmate: (1) prison history (e.g., background information, psychological and aptitude test data, and prior criminal and present incarceration activity), (2-5) data from four personal interviews (conducted at the prerelease, three-month, six-month, and 12-month stages and that include living arrangements, employment history, and financial status), (6) state arrest data, (7) records of TARP payments received, (8) social security wages, and (9) parole records.
    Curated
    Restricted

    A Two-State Examination of Varied Measurement Strategies for Juvenile Reoffending, Florida and Oregon, 2012-2017 (ICPSR 38971)

    Released/updated on: 2025-01-30
    Geographic coverage: Oregon, Florida
    Time period: 2012-01-01--2017-12-31
    Past research indicates that there is wide variation in the measurement of juvenile recidivism across state juvenile justice systems. As such, concerns have been raised that cross-agency differences in the definition and measurement of juvenile recidivism may hamper the generalizability of knowledge as well as comparisons across jurisdictions. Yet it is unclear whether measurement choices do impact the conclusions of studies of juvenile recidivism. These data were collected to answer questions about the impact of measurement variation on the rates and predictors of juvenile recidivism. The first sample included 104,354 unique spells of Florida Department of Juvenile Justice supervision, including 48,616 diversion spells, 43,799 probation spells, and 11,939 residential commitment spells that ended between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2016. The second sample used data from the Oregon Youth authority and featured 2,743 unique spells of supervision, including 1,616 probation spells and 1,127 parole spells that ended between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2016. The data include a variety of operationalizations of juvenile recidivism that vary in terms of the type of system contact captured, the follow-up length used, and whether the measure includes adult criminal justice system information. The data also include information on youths' demographic characteristics, delinquency history, and risk and protective factors. Contextual data from the American Community Survey and Uniform Crime Reports are also included.
    Curated
    Restricted

    Validation of Risk Assessment Tools for Predicting Re-offending at Different Developmental Periods, 1951-2010 (ICPSR 32761)

    Released/updated on: 2014-02-26
    Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Canada, Netherlands, United States, Connecticut
    Time period: 1951-01-01--2010-12-31
    The study was a secondary data analysis examining the accuracy of risk assessment tools in predicting re-offending during early adulthood (age 18 to 25 years) compared to their accuracy in predicting re-offending during adolescence (age 12-17 years; youth tools only) or in later adulthood (older than 25 years, adult tools only). The investigators combined datasets that involved the same risk assessment tools. The adolescent risk assessment tools included the North Carolina Assessment of Risk (NCAR), the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI), and the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk for Youth (SAVRY). The adult risk assessment tools included the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 items (HCR-20) and the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG). Using the datasets, the study examined the following recidivism outcomes: (1) any type of re-offending (excluded status offenses), and (2) violent re-offending specifically.
    Curated

    Validation of the RAND Selective Incapacitation Survey and the Iowa Risk Assessment Scale in Colorado, 1982 and 1986 (ICPSR 9292)

    Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
    Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado
    This data collection was designed to replicate the Rand Selective Incapacitation Survey and the Iowa Risk Assessment Scale using a group of Colorado offenders. The Iowa model provides two assessments of offender risk: (1) a measure of general risk to society and (2) a measure of the risk of new violence. The Iowa dataset includes crime information from defendants' self-reports and from official crime records. Both files contain important self-report items such as perceived probability of being caught, weapon used in the offense committed, months free on the street during the reference period, and detailed activity description during the free period. Other items covered include employment history, plans, reasons for committing the crime, and attitudes toward life, law, prisons, and police.
    Back to top