The overall goals of the process evaluation were to assess the participants' views on the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT), a Therapeutic Community program at Baylor Women's Correctional Institute, and to determine whether the women thought the program met their needs specifically based on gender. The specific goals of the study were: (1) to determine drop-out points along the continuum of the treatment model and to review the case files to discover any patterns in client participation and review demographic data in the program, and (2) to assess what current participants thought about the program and treatment model. For Part 1, Recent Graduate Data, data were secured from case files of women who had been discharged from the Therapeutic Community (Key Village) program in Baylor Women's Correctional Institute in 1999. This analysis was used to prepare the survey instrument used for the interviews given to the women currently participating in the program. For Part 2, Client Assessment Satisfaction Data, the current residents of the program were interviewed. During fall of 2000 and spring of 2001, a survey was developed to assess how the current participants viewed the Key Program. The questions were intended to gather information to assess the gender appropriateness of the program. A database was constructed to search for any consistencies or variables that would address the issue of gender appropriateness or lack of such in the operation of the program from the participants' point of view. During the interview period there were a total of 88 women in the Key Program. Of the 88 women, 76 agreed to participate in the study. For Part 1, the variables cover demographic data, criminal history information, medical information, prior drug treatment histories, and program success or failure. Part 2 variables cover demographic information, and questions dealing with prior drug use, the first four weeks of the program, the confrontation aspects of the program, sanctions and program rules, staff/participant interaction, program activities and responsibilities as opposed to the general population, readiness for change, support systems, children's visits and children as motivation, physical aspects of the program, mental health, the need for additional vocational and educational services, significant aspects and experiences from the program, and desired changes to the program.

This study contributed to the growing interest in mental illness and impairment among incarcerated individuals. It focused on the larger spectrum of psychopathology that characterized the general, nonhospitalized population at the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women in Virginia. Part 1 consists of clinical data obtained through several questionnaires completed by a sample of 812 inmates between April 1999 and January 2000. Parts 2 through 4 consist of additional clinical data on subsamples of the Part 1 sample that were obtained between June 1999 and July 2000 through interviews and self-enumerated questionnaires. Part 5 contains data on inmate behavior and attitudes obtained through questionnaires completed by correctional officers.

This study examined victimization in the lives of incarcerated women, specifically victimization as a risk factor for crime, with particular emphasis on the direct and indirect ways in which the impact of victimization contributed to criminal involvement. Interviews were conducted with 60 women incarcerated in a maximum security state correctional facility in South Carolina from October 2001 to August 2002. Interview measures consisted of participant responses to loosely-structured open-ended prompts and addressed each woman's own perspective on psychological, physical, and sexual victimization within her life, as well as her history of family and peer relationships, alcohol and drug use, and criminal activity. The South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) provided demographic and criminal history information for each prospective participant, including participants, no-shows, and decliners (Part 1) and for the female prison population without the prospective participants (Part 2). These data were used for sampling decisions and provide descriptive information on sample characteristics. In addition the SCDC provided inmate data on offenses committed while in the SCDC (Part 3), disciplinary actions at the SCDC (Part 4), education through the SCDC (Part 5), and known prior offenses (Part 6). The project also conducted online searches in NewsLibrary for media reports concerning women who participated in the study. Variables include age, race, number of children, marital status, criminal offense history, correctional disciplinary records, probation/parole information, victim/witness notification, corrections program participation, intelligence scores, math and reading scores, basic academic history/degrees, mental health assessment, and special medical needs.

This study was undertaken as a process evaluation of the Grants to Combat Violence Against Women on Campus Program (Campus Program), which was conducted by the Institute for Law and Justice under a grant from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and funding from the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO). The Campus Program was comprised of 38 colleges or universities, which received funding in 1999 and 2000. Part 1 data consist of basic demographic information about each campus and the violence against women programs and services available at each site. Data for Part 2, collected from questionnaires administered to grant project staff, documented perceptions about the Campus Program project and participation and collaboration from those involved in the partnership with each college or university (i.e., non-profit, non-governmental victim service providers).

This data collection focused on problems in the women's correctional system over a 135-year period. More specifically, it examined the origins and development of prisoner and sentencing characteristics in three states. Demographic data on female inmates cover age, race, parents' place of birth, prisoner's occupation, religion, and marital status. Other variables include correctional facilities, offenses, minimum and maximum sentences, prior commitments, method of release from prison, and presence of crime partners.

This study examined women correctional officers working in the 11 institutions for men operated by the California Department of Corrections in 1979. For Part 1, Census, researchers conducted a census of all 386 female correctional officers working in these institutions to collect demographic characteristics and baseline data. For Parts 2 (Staff) and 3 (Inmate), a survey was administered to staff and inmates asking their opinions about differences in performance between male and female correctional officers. Part 4, Profile, contains demographic and background data for the officers participating in the Part 2 survey. For Parts 5 (Female) and 6 (Male), researchers gathered job performance data for female correctional officers in 7 of the 11 institutions, as well as a matched sample of male correctional officers. Variables in Parts 1 and 4-6 include demographic information such as age, ethnicity, marital status, number of children, and educational and occupational history. Other variables measure attributes such as age, weight, and height, and record career information such as date and location of permanent assignment as a correctional officer, any breaks in service, and other criminal justice work experience. Additional variables in Parts 5 and 6 include job performance measures, such as ratings on skills, knowledge, work habits, learning ability, overall work habits, quality and quantity of work, and commendations. Parts 2 and 3 present information on staff and inmate evaluations of male and female correctional officers performing specific roles, such as control work officer, yard officer, or security squad officer. Additional variables include opinions on how well male and female officers handled emergency situations, maintained control under stress, and used firearms when necessary. Questions were also asked about whether inmates' or officers' safety was endangered with female officers, whether women should be hired as correctional officers, and whether female officers were gaining acceptance in correctional facilities.

This study evaluated the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) incentive grant program enacted in 1994. The program provided grants to states to be used to increase the capacity of state correctional systems to confine serious and violent offenders. This national evaluation addressed four broad areas: (1) How had the federal government implemented the law? How much money had been made available and what were the criteria for disbursement? (2) How had the states reacted legislatively to the law? Did states adopt truth-in-sentencing or statutes having equivalent effect? (3) How had the state VOI/TIS money been spent and for what? How much did it increased prison capacities? (4) Did the law increase the number of admissions, length of sentences, and terms served for violent offenders? In addition to these four major areas, the study looked at related areas of interest, such as the impact of VOI/TIS and other "get tough" legislation on prosecutorial and judicial attitudes, policies, and practices. It also examined state spending on corrections, particularly for construction. The researchers collaborated with the American Correctional Association (ACA), the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI), and the Justice Management Institute (JMI) to conduct special surveys among state correctional officials, prosecutors, and judges. The ACA surveyed state departments of correction in the summer of 1998. States were asked to indicate the extent of changes in a number of prison operations and activities since 1996, when VOI/TIS funds became available. In the summer of 1999 the APRI surveyed prosecutors nationwide to ascertain their perceptions of the effects of "get tough" legislation (including TIS) on a number of dimensions. In the fall of 1999, the JMI surveyed judges nationwide on their impressions of the effectiveness of several "get tough" measures in their states, including VOI/TIS. In Part 1, American Correctional Association Survey Data, state correction departments were questioned on the amount of VOI/TIS funds spent by their state since 1996, number of beds added using VOI/TIS funds and in what types of facilities, how VOI/TIS funds were used to increase number of beds, average prison sentences in 1993 and 1998 for different types of offenses, average time actually served in 1993 and 1998 for those offenses, the effects of VOI/TIS on prison and jail admissions for different types of offenders, and its effects on the composition of the prison population, prison inmate activities and programs, prison staffing, and prison operations. In Part 2, American Prosecutors Research Institute Survey Data, prosecutors were questioned about what "get tough" policies their states had enacted, the efficacy of "get tough" policies in achieving their goals, whether these policies had unanticipated or negative consequences, expected results of these policies, the percentage of cases to which these policies applied, the extent to which these policies had helped accomplish their office's goals, the effects of "get tough" policies on budget and resources, sentences and time actually served, and the criminal justice process, the size of their jurisdiction, and the number of staff in their office. In Part 3, Justice Management Institute Survey Data, judges were questioned about whether their state had enacted "get tough" policies in the past ten years, what kinds of policies were adopted, their effect on the efficiency of case processing, the formal positions of the Judicial Council and Judges Association on the policies, whether the respondent or other judges had input into the policies, how likely "get tough" policies were to achieve certain goals, what results the respondent expected from the policies, the impact of the policies on the criminal justice process, years experience on the bench, the percentage of their caseload that involved criminal cases, whether they handled civil, family law/domestic relations, or