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 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.

Investigator(s): Bureau of Justice Statistics This series of studies contains a descriptive analysis of federal and state-operated adult confinement and correctional facilities nationwide. The census included prisons, penitentiaries, and correctional facilities; boot camps; community corrections; prison farms; reception, diagnostic, and classification centers; road camps; forestry and conservation camps; youthful offender facilities (except in California); vocational training facilities; prison hospitals; and correctional drug and alcohol treatment facilities. Variables include physical security, age of facilities, functions of facilities, programs, inmate work assignments, staff employment, facilities under court order/consent decree for conditions of confinement, capital and operating expenditures, custody level of residents/inmates, one-day and average daily population counts, race/ethnicity of inmates, inmate deaths, special inmate counts, and assaults and incidents by inmates. The institution is the unit of analysis. The Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities is produced every 5 years.

There were three specific goals of this research. The first was to evaluate three procedures currently available for the classification of correctional inmates: the Risk Analysis method, Megargee's Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Typology, and Toch's Prison Preference Inventory. Second, the research devised and tested a postdictive model of adjustment to prison life. Third, a new classification scheme was developed for predicting inmate adjustment to prison life that considers individual and organizational (contextual) factors and various interactions between the two. These data were collected from a sample of 942 volunteer inmates from ten New York state correctional facilities, five of which were maximum security and five of which were medium security facilities. Only one-half of the original 942 inmates completed the MMPI. Background and questionnaire data were collected during the summer and fall of 1983. Outcome data on each inmate infraction were collected for a three-year period prior to that time. Each case in Part 1, Merged Survey Response File [PPQ, PEI, PAQ], represents survey response data from an individual inmate, with variables from the Prison Preference Questionnaire (PPQ), the Prison Environment Inventory (PEI), and the Prison Adjustment Questionnaire (PAQ). Cases in Part 2, Medical Records, are records of medical contacts and diagnoses of inmates' illnesses. Part 3, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, contains personality assessment information and scores for each individual offender. Data in Part 4, Sample Data [Background Characteristics], consist of individual-based variables covering inmates' background characteristics. Part 5, Offenses and Disciplinary Action Records, contains records of offenses and disciplinary action by individual offender. The client number is unique and consistent across all data files.

This study was conducted for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to (1) collect and analyze data on conditions of confinement in public and private juvenile facilities, (2) determine the extent to which conditions were consistent with those required by nationally recognized standards for juvenile confinement facilities, (3) suggest explanations for variations in conformance to standards among facilities, and (4) assist OJJDP in formulating recommendations for improving conditions of confinement. In challenging the premise that high levels of conformance to nationally recognized standards result in improved conditions of confinement, this study examined client outcomes. Areas of concern for juvenile facilities usually center on living space, health care, security, and control of suicidal behavior. Key incident measures provided in this data collection include injuries, escapes, acts of suicidal behavior, incidents requiring emergency health care, and isolation incidents. Part 1, Mail Survey Data, collected information from facility administrators. Part 2, Site Visit Data, consists of questions answered by the juvenile inmates as well as by the independent observers who administered the on-site surveys. Additional variables in Part 2 that are not present in Part 1 include subjective measures such as the quality of the food, medical care, and recreation facilities, and whether various facility programs were effective. The study covered all 984 public and private juvenile detention centers, reception centers, training schools, and ranches, camps, and farms in the United States. Three types of facilities were excluded: (1) youth halfway houses, shelters, and group homes, (2) police lockups, adult jails, and prisons that held juveniles tried and convicted as adults, and (3) psychiatric and drug treatment programs.

This data collection contains information gathered in a two-part survey that was designed to assess institutional conditions in state and federal prisons and in halfway houses. It was one of a series of data-gathering efforts undertaken during the 1970s to assist policymakers in assessing and overcoming deficiencies in the nation's correctional institutions. This particular survey was conducted in response to a mandate set forth in the Crime Control Act of 1976. Data were gathered via self-enumerated questionnaires that were mailed to the administrators of all 558 federal and state prisons and all 405 community-based prerelease facilities in existence in the United States in 1979. Part 1 contains the results of the survey of state and federal adult correctional systems, and Part 2 contains the results of the survey of community-based prerelease facilities. The two files contain similar variables designed to tap certain key aspects of confinement: (1) inmate (or resident) counts by sex and by security class, (2) age of facility and rated capacity, (3) spatial density, occupancy, and hours confined for each inmate's (or resident's) confinement quarters, (4) composition of inmate (or resident) population according to race, age, and offense type, (5) inmate (or resident) labor and earnings, (6) race, age, and sex characteristics of prison (or half-way house) staff, and (7) court orders by type of order and pending litigation. Other data (contained in both files) include case ID number, state ID number, name of facility, and operator of facility (e.g., federal, state, local, or private).

This data collection consists of the SPSS syntax used to recode existing variables and create new variables from the SURVEY OF INMATES OF LOCAL JAILS, 1996 [ICPSR 6858] and the SURVEY OF INMATES IN STATE AND FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, 1997 [ICPSR 2598]. Using the data from these two national surveys on jail and prison inmates, this study sought to expand the analyses of these data in order to fully explore the relationship between type and intensity of substance abuse and other health and social problems, analyze access to treatment and services, and make estimates of the need for different types of treatment services in correctional systems.

The study investigated self-sufficiency, community adjustment, substance use, and criminal recidivism outcomes for substance abusing offenders served through the Washington County (Oregon) Community Corrections Department (WCCC) to document the value-added of providing substance-free transitional housing services. The study addressed the value-added of Oxford House and other transitional housing services to the combination of services offenders receive, and documented the relative costs and benefits of substance-free transitional housing services. Individuals were eligible for the study if they entered Oxford Houses, entered some other form of substance-free transitional housing, or could benefit from, but did not enter, any form of substance-free transitional housing. A total of 356 supervisees were eligible for the study; 301 agreed to participate in baseline interviews, and 238 participated in 12-month follow-up interviews. The study included both interview data collection and administrative records data collection. The research team also collected Housing Data (Part 2) from the housing section of the interviews and Treatment Data (Part 3) from a statewide treatment database.