The certainty and promptness of punishment have long been hypothesized to be important variables in deterring crime. This data collection evaluates whether sentencing reforms to enhance certainty of punishment and speedy trial laws to enhance promptness of punishment affected crime rates, prison admissions, and prison populations. Variables include state, year, crime reports, economic conditions, population (including age structure), prison population, prison releases, and prison admissions. The unit of observation is the state by the year.

The primary purpose of this data collection was to examine the impact of the implementation of sentencing guidelines on the rate of incarcerative and nonincarcerative sentences imposed and on the average length of expected time to be served in incarceration for all offenses as well as for select groups of offenses. The measure of sentence length, "expected time to be served," was used to allow for assumed good time and parole reductions. This term represents the amount of time an offender can expect to spend in prison at the time of sentencing, a roughly equivalent standard that can be measured before and after the implementation of federal criminal sentencing guidelines in 1987. Three broad offense categories were studied: drug offenses, robbery, and economic crimes. Drug offenses include a wide range of illegal activities involving marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. Robbery includes bank and postal robbery (both armed and unarmed) as well as other types of robbery offenses that appear less frequently in the federal system, such as carrying a firearm during the commission of a robbery. Economic offenses include fraud (bank, postal, and other), embezzlement (bank, postal, and other), and tax evasion. Other monthly data are provided on the number of prison and probation sentences for all offenses and by offense categories.

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).

The study examined the first five years of operation of Kansas senate bill 123 (November 2003-November 2008) examining individual-level and system-level outcomes over time and across community corrections districts and judicial actors. The study also assesses the impact of SB 123 on the work routines of criminal justice system actors, examining changes in sentencing and supervision practices and interactions across agencies following the implementation of SB 123. Individual-level impacts of SB 123 on recidivism rates are assessed using sentencing and revocation data collected by the Kansas Sentencing Commission for drug possessors sentenced in Kansas between November 1, 2001 and October 31, 2008 (Dataset 1). Propensity score matching was used to compare the revocation and reconviction rates of drug possessors sentenced to SB 123 with the recidivism rates of similar individuals sentenced to regular probation (standard supervision by community corrections or court services) (Dataset 2). Supervision and program participation data provided by the Kansas Department of Corrections were used to assess the use of drug treatment services, education and employment services, and sanctions for individuals sentenced to SB 123 or standard community corrections (Dataset 3). These quantitative data were complemented by a set qualitative data derived from interviews with SB 123-eligible offenders (Dataset 4), community corrections managers, and courtroom actors (judges, prosecutors, public defenders) (Dataset 5).

This study sought to examine the effect of of two separate forms of post-prison supervision on offender recidivism and employment outcomes: split supervision and conditional release supervision. In order to assess the effect of post-prison supervision on reentry outcomes for Florida inmates, this study addressed the following research questions: What is the impact of post-release supervision on employment and recidivism? Do various types of post-release supervision result in different outcomes of employment and recidivism? How does the length of post-release supervision impact employment and recidivism? Florida was chosen as the state of focus because of its shift from indeterminate to determinate sentencing and elimination of parole in the 1980s. Researchers used arrest data, corrections data, and employment data from the Federal Department of Corrections, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and the Florida Department of Revenue.

This study examined adult drug treatment courts. Drug treatment courts are intended to reduce the recidivism of drug-involved offenders by changing their drug-use habits. These courts provide a connection between the criminal justice and treatment systems by combining treatment with structured sanctions and rewards. Researchers collected data between February 2001 and May 2002 on drug court participants, treatment services and staff, and organizations involved in drug court operations in four jurisdictions: Bakersfield, California, Jackson County, Missouri, Creek County, Oklahoma, and St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. Part 1, Retrospective Participant Data, contains recidivism and treatment data on 2,357 drug treatment court participants who were enrolled in one of the drug courts between January 1997 and December 2000. Part 2, Treatment Observation Data, contains data collected from observations of treatment sessions at each site from May through July 2001. Part 3, Staff Survey Data, provides data obtained through surveys of 54 treatment service staff members.

This study was conducted to address the dropping rates in residential placements of adjudicated youth after the 1990s. Policymakers, advocates, and reseraches began to attirbute the decline to reform measures and proposed that this was the cause of the drop seen in historic national crime. In response, researchers set out to use state-level data on economic factors, crime rates, political ideology scores, and youth justice policies and practices to test the association between the youth justice policy environment and recent reductions in out-of-home placements for adjudicated youth. This data collection contains two files, a multivariate and bivariate analyses. In the multivariate file the aim was to assess the impact of the progressive policy characteristics on the dependent variable which is known as youth confinement. In the bivariate analyses file Wave 1-Wave 10 the aim was to assess the states as they are divided into 2 groups across all 16 dichotomized variables that comprised the progressive policy scale: those with more progressive youth justice environments and those with less progressive or punitive environments. Some examples of these dichotomized variables include purpose clause, courtroom shackling, and competency standard.

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.

This study examined the public's preferences regarding sentencing and parole of criminal offenders. It also investigated the public's willingness to pay for particular crime prevention and control strategies and tested new methods for gathering this kind of information from the public. This involved asking the public to respond to a series of crime vignettes that involved constrained choice. The study consisted of a telephone survey of 1,300 adult respondents conducted in 2000 in the United States. Following a review by a panel of experts and extensive pretesting, the final instrument was programmed for computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI). The questionnaire specifically focused on: (1) the attitudes of the public on issues such as the number of police on the street, civil rights of minority groups, and the legal rights of people accused of serious crimes, (2) the randomized evaluation of preferred sentencing alternatives for eight different crime scenarios, (3) making parole decisions in a constrained choice setting by assuming that there is only enough space for one of two offenders, (4) the underlying factors that motivate the public's parole decisions, and (5) respondents' willingness to pay for various crime prevention strategies.

This data collection examines the effects of determinant sentencing on prison climate and administration. Three data collection periods are covered in the dataset. Parts 1-3 contain data taken from a total random sample of offenders housed at five prisons over all three data collection periods. Part 4 is an additional sample from the state of Connecticut of inmates serving determinate sentences, collected during the third period of data collection. Parts 5 and 6 comprise indeterminate sample data from all three data collection periods, while Parts 7-9 contain determinate panel sample data from all three collection periods. There were six questionnaires used in collecting these data, covering inmates' feelings about their arrest, court case, and conviction, their feelings about the law, physical problems developed during their prison term, how their time was spent in prison, family contacts outside prison, relationships with other prisoners and guards, involvement in prison programs, and criminal history.