Showing 1 – 2 of 2 results.
Curated
Electronic Monitoring of Nonviolent Convicted Felons: An Experiment in Home Detention in Marion County, Indiana, 1986-1988 (ICPSR 9587)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States
Time period: 1986-11-01--1988-12-31
The purpose of the study was to provide information about home detention monitoring systems and to evaluate their effectiveness. The principal investigators sought to determine (1) whether electronic monitoring systems relieved some of the burdens associated with manual monitoring of home detention, such as making telephone calls and field visits, (2) how home detention affected the lifestyles of offenders, (3) whether the methods of monitoring influenced offender behavior during the program, (4) how electronic monitoring differed from manual monitoring in terms of supervision of the offenders, (5) how offenders reacted to electronic monitoring, (6) how offenders' families reacted to electronic monitoring, and (7) whether the method of monitoring influenced the probability of an arrest or subsequent contact with the criminal justice system after release from the program. Part 1 contains demographic information, such as age, race, marital status, number of children, living arrangements, employment, and education for each offender. Also included is information on the offense leading to the current case, including numbers and types of charges and convictions for both felonies and misdemeanors, recommendations and judicial disposition for the current case, and information on the criminal history of the offender. Part 2 contains data from the intake interview with the offender, such as information on the offender's family, living arrangements, education, employment, past alcohol and drug use, and expectations for the home detention program and monitoring procedures. Part 3 contains information collected in the exit interview and is similar in content to Part 2. Part 4 contains information on the program delivery (type of release from the program, violations of the program, results of tests for alcohol and drug use, errand time, payment, contacts with offenders, and the characteristics and results of the contacts with electronically monitored offenders). Part 5 is a check of criminal histories of offenders for at least one year after their release from the program.
Curated
Restricted
Parents and Children Together (PACT) Healthy Marriage (HM) Study Data Collection, New York and Texas, 2013-2016 (ICPSR 37843)
Released/updated on: 2020-09-28
Geographic coverage: New York City, El Paso, United States, Texas, New York (state)
Time period: 2013-01-01--2016-12-31
The Parents and Children Together (PACT) project included a large-scale, random assignment examination of two federally funded healthy marriage (HM) and relationship education programs. Two HM programs participated in the PACT HM impact study: (1) Supporting Healthy Relationships, at University Behavioral Associates in the Bronx, New York; and (2) the Healthy Opportunities for Marriage Enrichment Program, at the El Paso Center for Children in El Paso, Texas. The PACT evaluation team randomly assigned 1,595 eligible couples, dividing them between either (1) a program group, which was offered HM services, or (2) a control group, which was not offered these services. The data collection effort covered many topics, including relationship status and quality, coparenting, intimate partner violence, father involvement, employment and earnings, and social-emotional and mental well-being. The PACT data collection effort included attempts to collect data for each couple enrolled in the study from three data sources: (1) baseline surveys completed by all couples when they applied to a HM program in PACT, (2) follow-up surveys conducted with couples about one year after study enrollment, and (3) the PACT Information System (PACTIS), a web-based information management system. This data collection contains five parts: (1) the baseline survey raw data file, (2) the 12-month survey raw data file, (3) the program participation file, (4) the 12-month follow-up analysis file, and (5) the file containing analysis weights.