Data were collected from three states to evaluate the success of community corrections programs and to identify the conditions that underlie these successes. In-person field interviews, telephone interviews, and mailback questionnaires were used at state, county, and district levels. The variables in the study were designed to examine the kinds of people who implement and maintain these programs, the level of commitment by judicial and prison officials to these programs, community support, and the goals of cost reduction, work training, and rehabilitation.

The Probationers in Recovery (PIR) program, developed by the San Diego County Probation Department, targeted high-risk, drug-abusing offenders with the goal of controlling offender behavior without increasing risks to communities. This evaluation of PIR was based on a quasiexperimental design that compared program activities and outcomes for two matched groups of high-risk probationers receiving different levels of service and supervision. The assessment included both a process evaluation to discover if expected service levels were implemented as designed, and an impact evaluation to assess the effectiveness of drug treatment within an intensive community supervision program. The experimental group included 209 PIR participants who received intensive community supervision and drug treatment, and the control group consisted of 151 probationers who were assigned to regular high-risk probation caseloads and who met the PIR screening criteria. The samples were selected from probationers entering community supervision from February to December 1991. The length of the PIR program varied, but for purposes of analysis the minimum time in the program to represent the intervention period was set at eight months, including relapse prevention. A comparable period was used for the control group. The subsequent six-month period was used to measure the effects of PIR and regular high-risk probation after intervention. Intake interviews were conducted with a subsample of 96 probationers in PIR and 80 in the control group (Part 1). The interviews were conducted within the first two weeks after intake. Follow-up interviews were conducted with these probationers after they had completed eight months of PIR or regular high-risk probation to measure experiences on probation and changes in behavior and attitudes (Part 2). Follow-up interviews were completed with 47 probationers from the experimental group in the PIR program and 35 in the control group. The case tracking portion of the study involved the review of probation, treatment, and state and local criminal history files (Part 3). Data on technical violations and arrests for new crimes were compiled for the following time periods: (1) six months prior to the instant offense (the baseline), (2) the first eight months of community supervision (the in-program period), (3) the six months after intervention, and (4) the combined 14-month period. The initial interview (Part 1) included questions regarding sociodemographic characteristics, current offense, awareness of probation conditions ordered, perceived consequences for violations of probation, drug use and drug history, prior drug treatment and treatment needs, criminal history, expectations regarding the probation term, opinions regarding probation and treatment, daily activities prior to the current offense, current life satisfaction, and prospects for the future. Questions on the follow-up interview (Part 2) focused on changes in probationers' personal lives (e.g., employment, income, education, marital status, living situation, and relationships with family and friends), technical probation violations and new offenses committed during the eight-month period, sanctions imposed by probation staff, contacts with probation and treatment staff, changes in drug use and daily activities, expectations with regard to remaining crime- and drug-free in the future, attitudes regarding probation and treatment, treatment needs, and significant life changes over the eight-month period. Variables in the tracking data file (Part 3) include sociodemographic characteristics, current offense and sentence imposed, probation conditions ordered, drug use history, offense and probation violations occurring before, during, and after an eight-month probation period, custody time, changes in level of probation supervision, and program interventions such as drug tests, services delivered, and sanctions imposed.

This study examined the effects of timing and level of legal supervision in controlling antisocial behavior and promoting prosocial behavior in chronic addict offenders. The study sought to answer several questions: (1) What is the effect of legal supervision on the criminal behavior of addicts? (2) Does legal supervision have time-course effects? (3) What are the differential effects of varying types of legal supervision (e.g., probation, parole, urinalysis, higher or lower number of contacts per month)? Data were obtained by conducting retrospective interviews with four separate groups of subjects from four distinct research projects previously conducted in Southern California (McGlothlin, Anglin, and Wilson, 1977, Anglin, McGlothlin, and Speckart, 1981, Anglin, McGlothlin, Speckart, and Ryan, 1982, and McGlothlin and Anglin, 1981). The first group were male patients in the California Civil Addict Program, admitted in 1962-1964, who were interviewed for this survey in 1974-1975. The second group was a sample of addicts drawn from male first admissions between the years 1971-1973 from Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Orange County methadone maintenance programs. These respondents were interviewed during the years 1978-1979, an average of 6.6 years after admission. The third group consisted of male and female methadone maintenance patients selected from rosters of clients active on June 30, 1976, at clinics in Bakersfield and Tulare, California. These subjects were interviewed during 1978 and 1979, an average of 3.5 years after admission. The fourth group of subjects consisted of males and females who were active on September 30, 1978, at San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange County clinics and were interviewed during the years 1980-1981, an average of six years after their admission. Subjects included Anglo-American and Mexican-American males and females. The samples were generally representative of California methadone maintenance patients except for the second sample, which had been selected to study the impact of civil commitment parole status on the behavior of patients receiving methadone and was not necessarily representative of the overall population of admitted patients receiving methodone. Before the interview, a schematic time line on each offender was prepared, which included all known arrests and intervals of incarceration, legal supervision, and methadone treatment, based on criminal justice system and treatment program records. In discussion with the subject, the interviewer established the date of the first narcotics use on the time line, then proceeded chronologically through the time line, marking a change in narcotics use from less-than-daily use to daily use (or vice versa), or a change in the respondent's legal or treatment status, as a time interval. The interviewer repeated this process for successive intervals up through the date of the interview. Parts 1-8 consist of the interview data, with Forms 2 and 3 corresponding to the various intervals. There can be multiple intervals for each individual. Variables cover drug use, employment, criminal behavior, legal status, conditions of parole or probation, and drug treatment enrollment. Form 1 data contain background information on offenders, such as family and substance abuse history, and Form 4 data include other personal information as well as self-reported arrest and treatment histories. Parts 9 and 10, Master Data, were created from selected variables from the interview data. Parts 11 and 12, Arrest Data, were collected from official criminal justice records and describe each offender's arrests, such as month and year of arrest, charge, disposition, and arrest category. The datasets are split between the Southern California (Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange County, Bakersfield, Tulare, and Riverside) and San Diego clinic locations.

The purpose of this research was to improve understanding of the conditions under which criminal sanctions do and do not reduce repeat violence between intimate partners. This study involved repeated reading and close inspection of four documents in order to compare and contrast the multivariate analyses reported by John Wooldredge and Amy Thistlethwaite (RECONSIDERING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RECIDIVISM: INDIVIDUAL AND CONTEXTUAL EFFECTS OF COURT DISPOSITIONS AND STAKE IN CONFORMITY IN HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO, 1993-1998 [ICPSR 3013]). The first part of this study's design involved the detailed literature review of four Wooldredge and Thistlethwaite publications between the years 1999 and 2005. The second element of the study's design required researchers to gain a detailed understanding of the archived data using the documentation provided by Wooldredge. The third element of the study's secondary analysis research design involved using the identified variables to reproduce the multivariate empirical findings about the effects of sanctions, stakes, and social context on repeat offending. These findings were presented in a series of tables in the four Wooldredge and Thistlethwaite publications. After numerous iterations of reading reports and documentation and exploring alternative measures and methods, researchers produced a report detailing their ability to reproduce Wooldredge and Thistlethwaite's descriptive measures. This study's design called for using explicit criteria for determining the extent to which Wooldredge and Thistlethwaite's findings could be reproduced. Researchers developed and applied three criteria for making that determination. The first was a simple comparison of the regression coefficients and standard errors. The second criterion was a determination of whether the reproduced results conformed to the direction and statistical significance levels of the original analyses. The third criterion was to apply a statistical test to assess the significance of any differences in the sizes of the original and the reproduced coefficients. The data archived by Wooldredge provided seven dichotomous measures of criminal sanctions (no charges filed, dismissed, acquitted, a treatment program, probation only, jail only, and a combination of probation and jail). Part of the design of this study was to go beyond reproducing Wooldredge and Thistlethwaite's approaches and to reformulate the available measures of criminal sanctions to more directly test the prosecution, conviction, and sentence severity hypotheses. The researchers produced these tests by constructing three new measures of criminal sanctions (prosecution, conviction, and sanction severity) and testing each of them in separate multivariate models. The Part 1 (Hamilton County, Ohio, Census Tract Data) data file contains 206 cases and 35 variables. The Part 2 (Neighborhood Data) data file contains 47 cases and 12 variables. The variables in Part 1 (Hamilton County, Ohio, Census Tract Data) include a census tract indicator, median household income of tract, several proportions such as number of college graduates in the tract and corresponding Z-scores, a regression factor score for analysis 1, a socio-economic factor, a census tract number for the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, and a Cincinnati neighborhoods indicator. Variables in Part 2 (Neighborhood Data) include a neighborhood indicator, average age in the neighborhood, demographic proportions such as proportion male in the neighborhood and proportion of college graduates in the neighborhood, and a social class factor.

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.

The purpose of this study was to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of supervised probation, unsupervised probation, and community service. Data were collected from several sources: input-intake forms used by the State of Maryland, probation officers' case record files, Maryland state police rap sheets, FBI sources, and interviews with Maryland probationers. Non-violent, less serious offenders who normally received probation sentences of 12 months or less were offered randomly selected assignments to one of three treatment methods over a five-month period. Baseline data for probationers in each of the three samples were drawn from an intake form that was routinely completed for cases. An interim assessment of recidivism was made at the midpoint of the intervention for each probationer using information drawn from police records. Probationers were interviewed six and twelve months after probation ended. Demographic information on the probationers includes sex, race, age, birthplace, marital status, employment status, and education.

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 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.

In 1986, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) funded a demonstration project of intensive supervision programs (ISPs), alternatives to control sanctions that involve community sanctions and emphasize stringent conditions and close monitoring of convicted offenders. The primary intent of the demonstration project was to determine the effects of participation in an ISP program on the subsequent behavior of offenders and to test the feasibility of the ISP's stated objectives: (1) to reduce recidivism by providing a seemingly cost-effective alternative to imprisonment, and (2) to provide an intermediate punishment between incarceration and regular probation that allows the punishment to fit the crime. Fourteen sites in nine states participated in the project and each of the selected sites was funded for 18 to 24 months. Individual agencies in each site tailored their ISP programs to their local needs, resources, and contexts, developed their own eligibility criteria, and determined whether probationers met those criteria. While the individual ISP projects differed, each site was required to follow identical procedures regarding random assignment, data collection, and overall program evaluation. Data collection instruments that differed in the amount of drug-related questions asked were used for the six- and twelve-month reviews. The "non-drug" data collection instrument, used in Contra Costa, Ventura, and Los Angeles counties, CA, Marion County, OR, and Milwaukee, WI, gathered drug data only on the number of monthly drug and alcohol tests given to offenders. The "drug" data collection instrument was distributed in Atlanta, Macon, and Waycross, GA, Seattle, WA, Santa Fe, NM, Des Moines, IA, and Winchester, VA. Variables regarding drug use included the number of drug tests ordered, the number of drug tests taken, and the number of positives for alcohol, cocaine, heroin, uppers, downers, quaaludes, LSD/hallucinogens, PCP, marijuana/hashish, and "other". The drug questions on the instrument used in Dallas and Houston, TX, were the same as those asked at the drug sites. Once a site determined that an offender was eligible for inclusion, RAND staff randomly assigned the offender to either the experimental ISP program (prison diversion, enhanced probation, or enhanced parole) or to a control sanction (prison, routine probation, or parole). Assignment periods began in January 1987 and some sites continued to accept cases through January 1990. Each offender was followed for a period of one year, beginning on the day of assignment to the experimental or control program. The six-month and twelve-month review data contain identical variables: the current status of the offender (prison, ISP, or terminated), record of each arrest and/or technical violation, its disposition, and sentence or sanction. Information was also recorded for each month during the follow-up regarding face-to-face contacts, phone and collateral contacts, monitoring and record checks, community service hours, days on electronic surveillance (if applicable), contacts between client and community sponsor, number and type of counseling sessions and training, days in paid employment and earnings, number of drug and alcohol tests taken, and amount of restitution, fines, court costs, and probation fees paid. Background variables include sex, race, age at assignment, prior criminal history, drug use and treatment history, type of current offense, sentence characteristics, conditions imposed, and various items relating to risk of recidivism and need for treatment. For the two Texas sites, information on each arrest and/or technical violation, its disposition, and sentence or sanction was recorded in separate recidivism files (Parts 10 and 17). Dates were converted by RAND to time-lapse variables for the public release files that comprise this data collection.

As part of its organization-wide transition to community policing in 1989, the Portland Police Bureau, in collaboration with the Family Violence Intervention Steering Committee of Multnomah County, developed a plan to reduce domestic violence in Portland. The creation of a special police unit to focus exclusively on misdemeanor domestic crimes was the centerpiece of the plan. This police unit, the Domestic Violence Reduction Unit (DVRU), had two goals: to increase the sanctions for batterers and to empower victims. This study was designed to determine whether DVRU strategies led to reductions in domestic violence. Data were collected from official records on batterers (Parts 1-10), and from surveys on victims (Parts 11-12). Part 1 (Police Recorded Study Case Data) provides information on police custody reports. Part 2 (Batterer Arrest History Data) describes the arrest history during a five-year period prior to each batterer's study case arrest date. Part 3 (Charges Data for Study Case Arrests) contains charges filed by the prosecutor's office in conjunction with study case arrests. Part 4 (Jail Data) reports booking charges and jail information. Part 5 (Court Data) contains sentencing information for those offenders who had either entered a guilty plea or had been found guilty of the charges stemming from the study case arrest. Data in Part 6 (Restraining Order Data) document the existence of restraining orders, before and/or after the study case arrest date. Part 7 (Diversion Program Data) includes deferred sentencing program information for study cases. Variables in Parts 1-7 provide information on number of batterer's arrests for domestic violence and non-domestic violence crimes in the past five years, charge and disposition of the study case, booking charges, number of hours offender spent in jail, type of release, type of sentence, if restraining order was filed after case arrest, if restraining order was served or vacated, number of days offender stayed in diversion program, and type of diversion violation incurred. Part 8 (Domestic Violence Reduction Unit Treatment Data) contains 395 of the 404 study cases that were randomly assigned to the treatment condition. Variables describe the types of services DVRU provided, such as taking photographs along with victim statements, providing the victim with information on case prosecution, restraining orders, shelters, counseling, and an appointment with district attorney, helping the victim get a restraining order, serving a restraining order on the batterer, transporting the victim to a shelter, and providing the victim with a motel voucher and emergency food supply. Part 9 (Police Record Recidivism Data) includes police entries (incident or arrest) six months before and six months after the study case arrest date. Part 10 (Police Recorded Revictimization and Reoffending Data) consists of revictimization and reoffending summary counts as well as time-to-failure data. Most of the variables in Part 10 were derived from information reported in Part 9. Part 9 and Part 10 variables include whether the offense in each incident was related to domestic violence, whether victimization was done by the same batterer as in the study case arrest, type of police action against the victimization, charges of the victimization, type of premises where the crime was committed, whether the police report indicated that witnesses or children were present, whether the police report mentioned victim injury, weapon used, involvement of drugs or alcohol, whether the batterer denied abuse victim, number of days from study cases to police-recorded revictimization, and whether the recorded victimization led to the batterer's arrest. Part 11 (Wave 1 Victim Interview Data) contains data obtained through in-person interviews with victims shortly (1-2 weeks) after the case entered the study. Data in Part 12 (Wave 2 Victim Interview Data) represent victims' responses to the second wave of interviews,