Showing 1 – 15 of 15 results.
Curated
Availability and Use of Intermediate Sanctions by Judges and Corrections Professionals in the United States, 1994 (ICPSR 6788)
Released/updated on: 2013-05-15
Geographic coverage: United States
This survey is part of a larger project designed to explore ways to increase the availability and use of intermediate sanctions (IS) on a national level without jeopardizing public safety. A model for an Intermediate Punishment System is suggested. The survey was undertaken to ascertain attitudes and practices concerning IS for three groups: state and federal judges (Part 3), correctional system administrators responsible for community corrections in their state or jurisdiction (Part 1), and program directors who actually operated community programs (Part 2). The units of analysis were intermediate sanctions/programs operating in jurisdictions across the United States. Data were collected on the availability and frequency of use of IS, as well as costs, client/staffing ratios, use of rehabilitative programming, respondents' opinions concerning the field's needs, and program eligibility criteria. Information was also gathered on how decisions were made to place offenders into the various programs, program outcome and whether the program was viewed as being successful (and how this was measured), and types of new programs needed.
Curated
Data-Driven Supervision Protocols for Positive Parole Outcomes in Georgia, 2007-2008 (ICPSR 26441)
Released/updated on: 2010-04-08
Geographic coverage: United States, Georgia
Time period: 2007-03-01--2008-12-31
The goal of this study was to identify and evaluate case management and supervision strategies most effective in achieving successful parole outcomes. As part of an evaluation of 3 new supervision practice protocols on a cohort of parolees, a total of 1,964 parolees who began supervision in Georgia between March 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, were assigned to experimental and control groups. Parolees in the experimental group were subjected to the new practice protocols: positive drug test resulting in a referral to treatment, job loss followed by referral to an employment program and increased contact, and chronic technical violations responded to with an administrative hearing and enrollment in a cognitive skills program. In the control sites, the parole officer's response to a parolee's violation or success was still defined by the Board's Behavior Response and Adjustment Guide (BRAG). Each parolee was tracked for a 12-month follow-up period. The research team collected data on the parolees using two Georgia Department of Corrections and Board of Pardons and Paroles agency databases: the Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) and the Parole Field Log of Interaction Data (FLOID) database. Outcomes during a 12-month follow-up period were defined as employment, general violations of the conditions of supervision, positive drug tests, arrests for technical violations, misdemeanor and felony arrests, and revocation of parole. The dataset includes a total of 218 variables including supervision protocol variables, demographic and other parolee characteristics variables, offense and parole supervision variables, drug test results, employment activity, as well as arrests, violations, sanctions, programs, and referrals information.
Curated
Evaluation of Day Fines in Maricopa County, Arizona, 1991-1993 (ICPSR 2024)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Arizona
Time period: 1991-01-01--1993-01-01
This study sought to evaluate how well day fines work as an intermediate sanction. Day fines are a structured approach to imposing fines that considers both the offender's ability to pay and the severity of the offense. The program involves two steps: (1) a determination of the number of fine units for an offense, based on the severity of the offense, and (2) a valuation of fine units, based on the offender's net daily income, hence the name "day fines". While four jurisdictions participated in the day fines evaluation, only the site in Maricopa County, Arizona, was structured in such a way to allow for a quasi-experimental research design. Therefore, this collection only contains data from the Financial Assessment Related to Employability (FARE) day fines program in Maricopa County. The FARE program was started in 1991 and targeted felony offenders with little need for supervision or treatment -- in other words, the low risk-low need defendant. The intent of the program was to draw clients from the population of offenders who would traditionally receive routine probation, thus serving as an intermediate sanction between routine and summary probation. The major research strategy was to consider the FARE-sentenced offenders as the experimental group and to construct a similar comparison group out of the offenders sentenced by non-day fines judges. The design involved three major steps: (1) identification of 1991 and 1992 defendants who received a FARE sentence, (2) screening of sentenced defendants in non-FARE courts using FARE eligibility criteria to match the FARE participants, and (3) coding background and 12-month follow-up information for both FARE and comparison group offenders from probation and clerk files to record background information, monetary payments, and any technical violations and arrests occurring during the 12-month follow-up period. Variables in Part 1, Fines Paid Data, include the total amount of the fine and how much of the fine was applied to probation fees, reimbursement, restitution, and victim compensation. Part 2, Official Records Data, contains background information such as arrest history, marital status, education, drug use, and drug treatment. Additional information includes current arrest, recommended sentence, disposition, sentence imposed, employment and income, and risk/needs assessment. Six- and 12-month reviews collected data on supervisory status, technical violations, new arrests, payment enforcement, and payment term revisions.
Curated
Partially restricted
Evaluation of the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Community Supervision Strategy, 2007-2009 (ICPSR 27921)
Released/updated on: 2011-07-06
Geographic coverage: United States, Honolulu, Hawaii
Time period: 2007-01-01--2009-01-01
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) community supervision strategy for substance-abusing probationers. The study involved the administration of key stakeholder surveys as part of a process evaluation of the HOPE program and the comparison of HOPE probationers with control-group probationers on two primary outcome measures: no-shows for probation appointments and positive urine tests for illicit-substance use. For Part 1 and Part 2, data were collected from administrative data sources. Missed Appointments Data (Part 1) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on a total of 1,174 probationers including 1,078 HOPE probationers, 78 comparison probationers, and 18 probationers for which study group information was not available. Specifically, for Part 1, the research team compiled data on the proportion of missed appointments in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Drug Test Results Data (Part 2) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on the same 1,174 probationers. Specifically, for Part 2, the research team compiled data on the proportion of positive urine tests in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Stakeholder survey data were collected from September 2008 through March 2009 on 50 Integrated Community Sanctions or "Specialized Unit" probationers (Part 3), 28 probationers in treatment (Part 4), 16 probationers in jail (Part 5), 20 probation officers in the Integrated Community Sanctions Unit (Part 6), 11 public defenders (Part 7), 12 prosecutors (Part 8), 7 judges (Part 9), and 11 court staff (Part 10). Part 1 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean missed appointments scores for three periods. Part 2 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean positive urine tests for illicit-substance use scores for three periods. The Integrated Community Sanctions Probationers Survey Data (Part 3), the Probationers in Treatment Survey Data (Part 4), and the Probationers in Jail Survey Data (Part 5) each include variables about the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 3 contains 24 variables, Part 4 contains 30 variables, and Part 5 contains 30 variables. The Probation Officers Survey Data (Part 6), Public Defenders Survey Data (Part 7), Prosecutors Survey Data (Part 8), Judges Survey Data (Part 9), and Court Staff Survey Data (Part 10) include variables about workload issues and the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 6 contains 65 variables, Part 7 contains 45 variables, Part 8 contains 55 variables, Part 9 contains 36 variables, and Part 10 contains 36 variables.
Curated
Fines as a Criminal Sanction: Practices and Attitudes of Trial Court Judges in the United States, 1985 (ICPSR 8945)
Released/updated on: 2002-06-27
These data were collected to examine the practices and views of state trial court judges with respect to their use of fines as a criminal sanction. Respondents were asked about the composition of their caseloads, sentencing practices (including fines imposed for various circumstances), available information about the offender at time of sentencing, enforcement and collection procedures in their courts, and their attitudes toward the use of fines. In addition to questions concerning the judges' use of fines and other sanctions, the questionnaire presented the judges with hypothetical cases.
Curated
International Crime Victimization Survey (ICVS), 1989-2000 (ICPSR 3803)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: Cambodia, United States, Wales, England, Scotland, Portugal, Global, Russia, Netherlands, South Korea, Sweden, Mongolia, Latvia, Mozambique, Panama, Poland, Slovenia, France, Nigeria, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Lesotho, Croatia, Colombia, Argentina, Romania, Hungary, Georgia (Republic), Philippines, Ukraine, Zambia, Belarus, Northern Ireland, Switzerland, Albania, Canada, Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Belgium, Swaziland, Namibia, Botswana, Finland, Denmark, South Africa, Uganda, Australia, Estonia
The International Crime Victim Survey (ICVS) is a far-reaching program of fully standardized surveys investigating householders' experience of crime in different countries. The data were collected in four waves: 1989, 1992, 1996, and 2000. The main focus of the ICVS is whether the respondent was a victim of theft of or from vehicles, other thefts, vandalism, robbery, pickpocketing, sexual harassment or violence, or assault. The surveys also investigated the frequency of victimization, reasons for not reporting a crime to the police, familiarity with the offender in the case of a sexual offense, physical violence, injuries, fear of crime in the respondent's local area, use of help agencies for victims, satisfaction with police behavior, preferred legal sanctions, punishment, and length of detention for offenders, safety precautions when leaving home, possession of a gun, burglar alarm, or insurance, and frequency of going out. Some of the 2000 surveys were administered nationally and some were restricted to a main city within a given country. The ICVS National Survey Data cover the following countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Catalonia, Denmark, England and Wales, Finland, France, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. The ICVS City Survey Data cover the following countries: Albania, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Botswana, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lesotho, Lithuania, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda, Ukraine, and Zambia.
Curated
International Crime Victim Survey (ICVS), 1989-1997 (ICPSR 2973)
Released/updated on: 2001-08-24
Geographic coverage: Chechnya, Wales, England, Paraguay, Kazakhstan, Global, Austria, Mongolia, Latvia, Yugoslavia, El Salvador, Brazil, Slovenia, Colombia, Argentina, Hungary, Georgia (Republic), Japan, Ukraine, Tanzania, Belarus, Northern Ireland, India, Albania, New Zealand, Canada, Belgium, Finland, South Africa, Italy, Macedonia, Germany, United States, Egypt, China (Peoples Republic), Scotland, Bolivia, Russia, Costa Rica, Malta, Netherlands, Sweden, Poland, Slovakia, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Tunisia, Kyrgyzstan, Croatia, Romania, Philippines, Switzerland, Spain, Norway, Botswana, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Australia, Indonesia, Estonia
The International Crime Victim Survey (ICVS) was a far-reaching program of standardized sample surveys that investigated householders' experiences with crime, policing, crime prevention, and perceptions of safety. The surveys were carried out in the following countries: Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chechnia, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Egypt, England and Wales, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany (West), Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Norway, Paraguay, the Philippines, Poland, Rumania, Russia, Scotland, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, the United States, Yugoslavia, and Zimbabwe. The data were collected in three waves: 1989, 1992-1994, and 1995-1997. The main focus of the ICVS was whether the respondent was a victim of theft of or from vehicles, other thefts, vandalism, robbery, pickpocketing, sexual harassment or violence, or assault. The surveys also investigated the frequency of victimization, reasons for not reporting a crime to the police, familiarity with the offender in the case of a sexual offense, physical violence, injuries, fear of crime in the respondent's local area, use of help agencies for victims, satisfaction with police behavior, preferred legal sanctions, punishment, and length of detention for offenders, safety precautions when leaving home, possession of a gun, burglar alarm, or insurance, and frequency of going out.
Curated
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
Multi-site National Institute of Justice Evaluation of Second Chance Act Reentry Courts in Seven States, 2012-2016 (ICPSR 36748)
Released/updated on: 2018-07-24
Geographic coverage: Texas, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida, Delaware, Virginia
Time period: 2012-01-01--2016-01-01
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 study used a multi-method approach including 1. a process evaluation in all eight sites involving yearly site visits from 2012 to 2014 with key stakeholder interviews, observations, and participant focus groups; 2. a prospective impact evaluation (in four sites) including interviews at release from jail or prison and at 12 months after release (as well as oral swab drug tests) with reentry court participants and a matched comparison group; 3. a recidivism impact evaluation (in seven sites) with a matched comparison group tracking recidivism for 2 years post reentry court entry and 4. a cost-benefit evaluation (in seven sites) involving a transactional and institutional cost analysis (TICA) approach. Final administrative data were collected through the end of 2016.
This collection includes four SPSS data files: "interview_archive2.sav" with 746 variables and 412 cases, "NESCCARC_Archive_File_3.sav" with 518 variables and 3,710 cases, "Interview Data1.sav" with 1,356 variables and 412 cases, "NESCCARC Admin Data File.sav" with 517 variables and 3,710 cases, and three SPSS syntax files: "Interview Syntax.sps", "archive_2-17.sps", and "NESCCARC Admin Data Syntax.sps".
Curated
Police Corruption in Thirty Agencies in the United States, 1997 (ICPSR 2629)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This study examined police officers' perceptions of and tolerance for corruption. In contrast to the popular viewpoint that police corruption is a result of moral defects in the individual police officer, this study investigated corruption from an organizational viewpoint. The approach examined the ways rules are communicated to officers, how rules are enforced by supervisors, including sanctions for violation of ethical guidelines, the unspoken code against reporting the misconduct of a fellow officer, and the influence of public expectations about police behavior. For the survey, a questionnaire describing 11 hypothetical scenarios of police misconduct was administered to 30 police agencies in the United States. Specifically, officers were asked to compare the violations in terms of seriousness and to assess the level of sanctions each violation of policies and procedures both should and would likely receive. For each instance of misconduct, officers were asked about the extent to which they supported agency discipline for it and their willingness to report it. Scenarios included issues such as off-duty private business, free meals, bribes for speeding, free gifts, stealing, drinking on duty, and use of excessive force. Additional information was collected about the officers' personal characteristics, such as length of time in the police force (in general and at their agency), the size of the agency, and the level of rank the officer held.
Curated
Profiling Inmates in the Los Angeles County Jail, 1996-1998 (ICPSR 3271)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 1996-01-15--1998-01-15
By 1996 it became apparent that the Los Angeles county jails faced a serious overcrowding problem. Two possible solutions to the problem were to build more jail capacity or to divert a greater number of incoming inmates to community-based, intermediate sanctions. The research team for this study was asked to review a 1996 profile of inmates in the Los Angeles jail system and to determine how many of them might have been good candidates for intermediate sanctions such as electronic monitoring, work release, house arrest, and intensive supervision. The researchers selected a sample of 1,000 pre-adjudicated (or unconvicted) inmates from the total census of inmates in jail custody on January 15, 1996, to study in more detail. Of the 1,000 offenders, the researchers were able to obtain jail and recidivism data for two years for 931 inmates. For each of these offenders, information on their prior criminal history, current offense, and subsequent recidivism behavior was obtained from official records maintained by several county agencies, including pretrial services, sheriff's department, probation, and courts. Demographic variables include date of birth, race, and gender. Prior criminal history variables for each prior adult arrest include type of filing charge, case disposition, type of sentence and sentence length imposed, and total number of prior juvenile petitions sustained. Current offense variables include arrest date, crime type for current arrest, crime charge, type and date of final case disposition, and sentence type and length, if convicted. Strike information collected includes number of strikes and the offense that qualified as a strike. Jail custody variables include the jail entry and exit data for the current offense and the reason for release, if released. Lastly, two-year follow-up variables include the date, type, and disposition of each subsequent arrest between January 15, 1996, and January 15, 1998.
Curated
Registry of Randomized Criminal Justice Experiments in Sanctions, 1951-1983 (ICPSR 9668)
Released/updated on: 1997-08-15
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1951-01-01--1983-01-01
This registry categorizes, summarizes, and analyzes datasets containing information on randomized criminal justice experiments in sanctions. These datasets vary in methodology, geographic region, and other aspects. Among the topics covered in this registry are the nature of offense being sanctioned, type of sanction, racial and sexual composition of the sample, and procedures and outcomes of each collection.
Curated
United Nations World Crime Surveys: Fourth Survey, 1986-1990 (ICPSR 6945)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, Latin America
Time period: 1986-01-01--1990-01-01
The Fourth United Nations Survey, covering the years 1986-1990, was designed to increase knowledge regarding the incidence of reported crime and the structure of criminal justice systems, as a basis for improving the international exchange of information. The main objectives of the survey were to determine which data are generally available in national databases and to provide an instrument for strengthening cooperation among member states of the United Nations by putting the review and analysis of national crime-related data in a broader context. Variables describe combined police and prosecution expenditure by year and by country, number of police personnel by gender, total number of homicides by country and by city, number of assaults, rapes, robberies, thefts, burglaries, frauds, and embezzlements, amount of drug crime, number of people formally charged with crime, age of suspects, number and gender of prosecutors, number of individuals prosecuted and the types of crimes prosecuted for, gender and age of individuals prosecuted, types of courts, number of individuals convicted and acquitted, numbers sentenced to capital punishment and to various other punishments, number of convictions on various charges, number of individuals sentenced and in detention, number of prisoners, sentence lengths, and prison demographics.
Curated
United Nations World Surveys on Crime Trends and Criminal Justice Systems, 1970-1994: Restructured Five-Wave Data (ICPSR 2513)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, Global, Latin America
Time period: 1970-01-01--1994-01-01
The United Nations International Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch began the Surveys of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (formerly known as the World Crime Surveys) in 1978. The goal of the data collection effort was to conduct a more focused inquiry into the incidence of crime worldwide. To date, there have been five quinquennial surveys, covering the years 1970-1975, 1975-1980, 1980-1986, 1986-1990, and 1990-1994, respectively. Starting with the 1980 data, the waves overlap by one year to allow for reliability and validity checks of the data. For this data collection, the original United Nations data were restructured into a standard contemporary file structure, with each file consisting of all data for one year. Naming conventions were standardized, and each country and each variable was given a unique identifying number. Crime variables include counts of recorded crime for homicide, assault, rape, robbery, theft, burglary, fraud, embezzlement, drug trafficking, drug possession, bribery, and corruption. There are also counts of suspects, persons prosecuted, persons convicted, and prison admissions by crime, gender, and adult or juvenile status. Other variables include the population of the country and largest city, budgets and salaries for police, courts, and prisons, and types of sanctions, including imprisonment, corporal punishment, deprivation of liberty, control of freedom, warning, fine, and community sentence. The countries participating in the survey and the variables available vary by year.
Curated
White-Collar Criminal Careers, 1976-1978: Federal Judicial Districts (ICPSR 6540)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1976-01-01--1978-01-01
This study examined the criminal careers of 1,331 offenders convicted of white-collar crimes in the United States District Courts to assess the relative effectiveness of court-imposed prison sanctions in preventing or modifying future criminal behavior. The white-collar crime event that was the central focus of this study, the "criterion" offense, provided the standard point of entry for sample members. Researchers for this study supplemented the data collected by Wheeler et al. in their 1988 study (NATURE AND SANCTIONING OF WHITE COLLAR CRIME, 1976-1978: FEDERAL JUDICIAL DISTRICTS [ICPSR 8989]) with criminal history data subsequent to the criterion offense through to 1990. As in the 1988 study, white-collar crime was considered to include economic offenses committed through the use of some combination of fraud, deception, or collusion. Eight federal offenses were examined: antitrust, securities fraud, mail and wire fraud, false claims and statements, credit fraud, bank embezzlement, income tax fraud, and bribery. Arrests were chosen as the major measure of criminal conduct. The data contain information coded from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal history records ("rap sheets") for a set of offenders convicted of white-collar crimes in federal courts in fiscal years 1976 to 1978. The seven federal judicial districts from which the sample was drawn were central California, northern Georgia, northern Illinois, Maryland, southern New York, northern Texas, and western Washington. To correct for a bias that can be introduced when desistance from criminality is confused with the death of the offender, the researchers examined the National Death Index (NDI) data to identify offenders who had died between the date of sentencing for the criterion offense and when data collection began for this study in 1990. This data collection contains three types of records. The first record type (Part 1, Summary Data) contains summary and descriptive information about the offender's rap sheet as a whole. Variables include dates of first entry and last entry on the rap sheet, number of separate crimes on the rap sheet, whether the criterion crime was listed on the rap sheet, whether the rap sheet listed crimes prior to or subsequent to the criterion crime, and date of death of offender. The second and third record types are provided in one data file (Part 2, Event and Event Interim Data). The second record type contains information about each crime event on the rap sheet. Variables include custody status of offender at arrest, type of arresting agency, state of arrest, date of arrest, number of charges for each arrest, number of charges resulting in no formal charges filed, number of charges dismissed, number of charges for white-collar crimes, type of sanction, length of definite sentence, probation sentence, and suspended probation sentence, amount of fines, amount of court costs, and restitution ordered, first, second, and third offense charged, arrest and court disposition for each charge, and date of disposition. The third record type contains information about the interim period between events or between the final event and the end of the follow-up period. Variables include date of first, second, and third incarceration, date discharged or transferred from each incarceration, custody/supervision status at each incarceration, total number of prisons, jails, or other institutions resided in during the interval, final custody/supervision status and date discharged from incarceration for the interval, dates parole and probation started and expired, if parole or probation terms were changed or completed, amount of fines, court costs, and restitution paid, whether the conviction was overturned during the interval, and date the conviction was overturned. A single offender has as many of record types two and three as were needed to code the entire rap sheet.