The major objective of the Six-year Follow-up Study on Career Criminals was to provide data describing the effects of sentencing decisions on the behavior of career criminals. A second purpose was to develop programs to target career offenders at the time of sentencing who were likely to commit crimes in the future and incarcerate them accordingly. The data collection includes detailed demographic background and complete prior and follow-up criminal records for each selected offender. There are two types of data sets in the study, the PSI data set based on pre-sentence investigation (PSI) reports, and the Parole data set based on Parole Commission records. The PSI data set describes each offender's demographic background, criminal history, and court entry/exit history. The Parole data set contains information about the offender's background characteristics, prior records of arrests, convictions, dispositions and sentences, and follow-up records for a period of six years. Arrests are described in terms of arrest date, offense charge, disposition, result of sentence, and months incarcerated.

This study examines the criminal activities of a group of young offenders after their release from prison to parole supervision. Previous studies have examined recidivism using arrests as the principal measure, whereas this study examines a variety of factors, including length of incarceration, age, sex, race, prior arrest record, prosecutions, length of time between parole and rearrest, parolees not prosecuted for new offenses but having their parole revoked, rearrests in states other than the paroling states, and the nature and location of rearrest charges. Parolees in the 22 states covered in this study account for 50 percent of all state prisoners paroled in the United States in 1978.

These data were gathered in order to evaluate the implications of rational choice theory for offender rehabilitation. The hypothesis of the research was that income-enhancing prison rehabilitation programs are most effective for the economically motivated offender. The offender was characterized by demographic and socio-economic characteristics, criminal history and behavior, and work activities during incarceration. Information was also collected on type of release and post-release recidivistic and labor market measures. Recividism was measured by arrests, convictions, and reincarcerations, length of time until first arrest after release, and seriousness of offense leading to reincarceration.

Using data from RECIDIVISM OF PRISONERS RELEASED IN 1994: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 3355), this study developed an analytical approach to utilize detailed dated criminal arrest history information in order to investigate whether, and to what extent, incarceration is able to deter offenders from future offending. This data collection consists of the syntax for a SAS macro used to estimate individual specific offending micro-trajectories, project counterfactual trajectories, and to assess the actual post-release offending patterns against the backdrop of these counterfactuals. The arrest records of individuals were clustered in chronological order and were truncated after the first post-release re-arrest event. The key independent variables used in estimating the pre-release criminal history accumulation process included the arrest number, the age at first arrest, whether or not the individual was confined as a result of the previous arrest event, and a measure of the number of years taken to reach each arrest event cumulated through the last arrest event. The same set of basic variables were used to model first re-arrest after release (recidivism).

This study was undertaken to investigate the relationship, if any, between drug treatment and success or failure of drug-involved offenders on probation/community supervision. Further, the researchers sought to evaluate the outcomes of drug-involved offenders admitted to (1) secure residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) programs, (2) non-secure residential drug treatment programs, (3) non-residential drug treatment programs, and (4) no drug treatment programs. Data were collected from administrative records provided by the Florida Department of Corrections, specifically case history records of offenders admitted to supervision in the community from July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1997. Part 1 is comprised of all cases admitted to community supervision between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993 (fiscal years 1991 and 1992) and treated in a secure residential drug treatment program. Part 2 is comprised of all cases admitted to community supervision from July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1995, receiving treatment in a non-secure residential drug treatment program. Part 3 contains data on offenders admitted to non-residential drug treatment programs, whose community supervision admissions were between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993. Part 4 contains data on offenders admitted to non-residential drug treatment programs, whose community supervision admissions were between July 1, 1993, and June 30, 1995 (fiscal years 1993 and 1994). Part 5 contains data on cases admitted to community supervision between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993, who did not receive drug treatment of any kind. Cases admitted to community supervision between July 1, 1993, and June 20, 1995, receiving no drug treatment are contained in Part 6. Each supervision admission record contains a history of subsequent court actions that were complete through December 31, 1997. Variables for all parts include population estimates, unemployment rates, population by age-specific categories, violent and nonviolent index offenses, per capita personal income, clearance rates, split sentence flag, primary offense disposition, primary offense felony level, current commitment years supervised, supervision type, whether current offense included a drug charge, number of prior supervision terms, number of prior commitments, reasons for failure, treatment facility code, number of drug sale/traffic offenses, outcome of supervision period, and reasons for prison intake. Demographic variables include race and gender.

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.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a Repeat Offender Unit in Phoenix. Repeat Offender Programs are police-initiated procedures for patrolling and apprehending likely offenders in communities. These units typically rely on the cooperation of police and prosecutors who work together to identify, convict, and incarcerate individuals who are judged likely to commit crimes, especially serious crimes, at high rates. For this study, previous offenders were assigned either to a control or an experimental group. If an individual assigned to the experimental group was later arrested, the case received special attention by the Repeat Offender Program. Staff of the Repeat Offender Program worked closely with the county attorney's office to thoroughly document the case and to obtain victim and witness cooperation. If the individual was in the control group and was later arrested, no additional action was taken by the Program staff. Variables include assignment to the experimental or control group, jail status, probation and parole status, custody status, number of felony arrests, type of case, bond amount, number of counts against the individual, type of counts against the individual, number of prior convictions, arresting agency, case outcome, type of incarceration imposed, and length of incarceration imposed.

This study is largely exploratory and observational, with the main goals to understand (a) how cognitions change across time, (b) which cognitions are related to each other, and (c) which cognition measures are related to recidivism. Employing a two-phase program of research, this study sought to answer several research questions about the relationship between cognitions and desistance from crime: What cognitions do probationers self-identify as key beliefs that motivate their desire to desist from crime? What are the psychometric properties of newly developed standardized measures designed to assess desistance cognitions? Do probationers differ in their crime and desistance cognitions and, on average, do these cognitions change across time? How are crime and desistance cognitions related to official-record assessment and outcome data? Specifically, are there associations between self-reported cognitions and risk and strength factors rated by supervision officers? Do crime and desistance cognitions predict future revocations and arrests as hypothesized by rational choice, correctional psychology, and / or desistance theories? Variables include offender's self-report of their personal perception on the costs and benefits of crime, costs and benefits of attempting to stay crime-free, attitudes, impulsive traits, and emotions. A demographic variable is available: participant gender.

recidivism rates for persons released from state prisons with specific demographic, criminal history, and sentence attributes.

The current study focused on 479 men and women from South Carolina who were enrolled as participants in the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) multi-site program evaluation shortly before prison release in 2004 or 2005. The original SVORI data suggested that the South Carolina respondents were similar to the multi-site sample with "committed to not going back to prison" as the most common reason for desisting and using drugs or alcohol as the most common reason for persisting. The goals of the current study were to (1) update information on the current status of these individuals across multiple domains (e.g., housing, employment, substance use); (2) gather additional administrative recidivism data to examine long-term offending; and (3) acquire information about the factors individuals associated with their decisions to desist from criminal activity, as well as circumstances associated with renewed criminal activity or desistence. Interviews were conducted with those that the study team were able to locate and additional administrative arrest and incarceration data were acquired for the full sample, providing recidivism follow-up over at least a 10-year period. Official administrative data were obtained from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (rearrests) and South Carolina Department of Corrections (reincarcerations). Arrest data span the entire arrest history (from first arrest through December 2015); reincarceration data span the period between the SVORI study prison release in 2005 and 2006 through June 2014. These data were obtained for the full sample of 479 South Carolina SVORI participants. Three components of interview data were collected. Desistance study interview data: 1 wave of in-person interviews was conducted with 208 study subjects who consented to participate in an interview. The research team used computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) to administer the survey, and interviews were conducted from September 2016 through March 2017. Life event data: The Life Events Calendar (LEC) is a tool used in qualitative and quantitative research to gather retrospective information about a person's life, experiences, and history. The approach is based on autobiographical memory and how entering events on a calendar or page help facilitate memory recall. LECs typically encompass periods of 5 years or less; this study's LEC covered a 10- to 12-year span to allow analysis since last contact with the study cohort. Data were collected from the 208 subjects who consented to be interviewed. SVORI interview data: This inventory includes files with select baseline and outcome data (e.g., self-reported employment, drug use, criminal behavior) for desistance study subjects who responded to follow-up interviews at Wave 2 (3-month), Wave 3 (9-month), and Wave 4 (15-month). This collection of administrative and interview data is organized into 14 data parts. Demographic data includes information on age, gender, race, and education.