These data were collected in an attempt to cross-validate the 1984 and 1985 versions of the Iowa model for assessing risk of offending while on parole by applying the model to a Michigan sample of male parolees over a follow-up period of two and one-half years. Different measures of predictors such as prior criminal history, current offense, substance abuse history, age, and recidivism on parole are available. The first file contains information on parolees such as demographic characteristics, drug use history, prior criminal history, risk scores, and parole history. The second file includes parolees' detailed criminal histories including the total number of violent and nonviolent felony arrests and dates, and charges and dispositions of each arrest with a maximum of eight arrests.

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.

This study was undertaken to address Iowa's inability to classify juveniles at risk of recidivism uniformly across the state by creating and testing a proposed risk assessment instrument. It was anticipated that the risk assessment instrument would be useful in not only providing the juvenile court officers with a tool to appropriately assess the risk of recidivism, but also in providing "common ground" to treatment staff and other relevant officials to determine whether certain interventions worked better with certain levels of risk than others, and whether limited resources were being appropriately utilized in providing appropriate interventions to juveniles with specific risk scores. To develop the Proposed Iowa Juvenile Court Intake Risk Assessment, a team of juvenile court representatives from all eight judicial districts in Iowa, consisting of juvenile court officers, intake officers, and supervisors, designed a risk assessment test instrument to assess a group of juveniles at intake during a one-month period between October and November 1994. The follow-up data collection was conducted by chief juvenile court officers eight months after the original data collection. The purpose of the follow-up was to gather data regarding reoffending. Risk assessment variables include types and number of current offenses, prior arrests and adjudication, histories of supervision and service, substance use and abuse, runaway occurrences, peer relationships, gang affiliation, attitude during intake interview, level of parental control, schooling status (dropped out, graduated, truant), type of current school, discipline problems, suspensions at school, current employment, history of family problems, and reoffending. Demographic variables include offender's sex and race.

In 1996, the Los Angeles County Probation Department developed a set of six instruments to better assess offender risks and needs. Each instrument was intended to serve a specific purpose, with separate instruments used for adult and juvenile populations and release and placement decisions. The instruments were to be completed by probation staff. These instruments were tested in a pilot project by probation field staff in 1997. The probation department then asked RAND to re-examine the six instruments for instrument integrity, use of overrides, and relationship to long-term recidivism outcomes. The probation department's research staff had completed the instruments between April and December 1997 using available reports and case file information. RAND's involvement in the study began after all samples had been selected and instruments completed. The probation department gave RAND the data on instrument scores. Recidivism data were gathered at 6, 12, and 18 months after the instruments' administration. For juveniles data on the nature and date of arrest were available from the Juvenile Automated Information files. Data on adult re-arrests were unavailable, but the Adult Probation System provided the date, nature, and disposition of offenses referred to probation.

The current study was conducted as a supplemental study to the Cleveland/Cuyahoga County Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program in the second quarter of 2003 (April-June). A risk screening instrument was implemented to classify Cleveland/Cuyahoga County adult arrestees into four groups: arrestees at no risk for substance abuse or dependence or mental disorder; arrestees at risk for substance abuse or dependence with no risk for mental disorder; arrestees at risk for mental disorder with no risk for substance abuse or dependence; and arrestees at risk for both mental disorder and substance abuse or dependence. A total of 311 adult arrestees were interviewed and provided a urine sample submitted for testing. The dual risk screening instrument includes six mental disorder risk questions and six substance abuse risk questions. The mental disorder risk questions include questions on having feelings or emotions that make it difficult to complete normal day to day activities, feeling hopeless or depressed, having thoughts of hurting oneself or committing suicide, and hearing or seeing things that others cannot hear or see. The substance abuse risk questions include questions on problems caused by drinking or drug use, arrests due to alcohol or drug use, time spent on thinking about or trying to get alcohol or drugs, and feelings of guilt about drinking or drug use.

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.

This survey of inmates in five California prisons was conducted by the RAND Corporation with a grant from the National Institute of Justice. Researchers distributed an anonymous self-administered questionnaire to groups of 10-20 inmates at a time. Using the self-report technique, the survey obtained detailed information about the crimes committed by these prisoners prior to their incarceration. Variables were calculated to examine the characteristics of repeatedly arrested or convicted offenders (recidivists) as well as offenders reporting the greatest number of serious crimes (habitual criminals). The variables include crimes committed leading to incarceration, rates of criminal activity, and social-psychological scales for analyzing motivations to commit crimes, as well as self-reports of age, race, education, marital status, employment, income, and drug use.

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.

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a reliable and accurate method for measuring the effectiveness of offender classification systems to improve the management of correctional facilities. In the early 1980s, the state of Hawaii began classifying its prisoners with a newly developed Federal Bureau of Prisons classification instrument. This study was designed to develop a method to evaluate this form. Two prediction models were used. The first, initial classification, used the sum of four variables to arrive at a security score, which was taken to be predictive of violence. The second, reclassification, used the sum of seven different variables to obtain a custody total, which was then used as a major determinant of reclassification. Two groups of inmates were used: inmates who had committed infractions and inmates with no reported infractions. Research variables include (a) initial classification: offense (severity), expected length of incarceration (sentence), type of prior commitments, and history of violence, and (b) reclassification: percentage of time served, involvement with drugs/alcohol, mental/psychological stability, most serious disciplinary report, frequency of disciplinary reports, responsibility that the inmate demonstrated, and family/community ties. In addition, the collection supplies information on race and sex of inmates, sentence limitation, history of escapes or attempts, previous infractions, entry, reclassification, and termination dates (month and year), and custody level. There are demographic variables for sex and race. The unit of observation is the inmate.