The purpose of this data collection was to identify those attributes of offenders that are most often associated with receiving particular types of financial penalties along with probation, such as fines, restitution, and cost of probation. A further purpose was to estimate the relative effectiveness of these penalties in preventing recidivism. Variables include descriptions of the type of offense and penalties received, the location of the court where sentencing took place, and information about the individual's race, age, gender, level of education, employment, living arrangements, and financial status. Prior arrests and convictions are included, as are arrests, convictions, and penalties subsequent to the original case under study. Also provided are six sets of variables that describe all offenders within each conviction category. These six groups provide additional information about the offender's background and behavior. The conviction categories include assault, burglary, drug crimes, driving under the influence, theft, and indecent exposure.

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 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.

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.

By 1996 it became apparent that the Los Angeles county jails faced a serious overcrowding problem. Two possible solutions to the problem were to build more jail capacity or to divert a greater number of incoming inmates to community-based, intermediate sanctions. The research team for this study was asked to review a 1996 profile of inmates in the Los Angeles jail system and to determine how many of them might have been good candidates for intermediate sanctions such as electronic monitoring, work release, house arrest, and intensive supervision. The researchers selected a sample of 1,000 pre-adjudicated (or unconvicted) inmates from the total census of inmates in jail custody on January 15, 1996, to study in more detail. Of the 1,000 offenders, the researchers were able to obtain jail and recidivism data for two years for 931 inmates. For each of these offenders, information on their prior criminal history, current offense, and subsequent recidivism behavior was obtained from official records maintained by several county agencies, including pretrial services, sheriff's department, probation, and courts. Demographic variables include date of birth, race, and gender. Prior criminal history variables for each prior adult arrest include type of filing charge, case disposition, type of sentence and sentence length imposed, and total number of prior juvenile petitions sustained. Current offense variables include arrest date, crime type for current arrest, crime charge, type and date of final case disposition, and sentence type and length, if convicted. Strike information collected includes number of strikes and the offense that qualified as a strike. Jail custody variables include the jail entry and exit data for the current offense and the reason for release, if released. Lastly, two-year follow-up variables include the date, type, and disposition of each subsequent arrest between January 15, 1996, and January 15, 1998.

In 2014, the researchers began work on a grant from the National Institute of Justice to evaluate the effectiveness of home and field contacts in community supervision. The study was designed to describe the varying practices of home and other field contacts in community supervision, to document their use nationwide, and to evaluate their effectiveness in maintaining public safety and promoting compliance with supervision requirements. The research is designed to address the gap in the understanding of home and field contacts as part of community supervision. While home and field contacts with clients are common practice within many probation and parole agencies, little is known about how they are conducted, the goals of their use, and whether they impact client outcomes. Researchers conducted a mixed methods study of home and field contact practices within multiple agencies. A nationwide survey of community supervision agencies at the federal, state, and local levels was conducted to understand common policies and practices for home and field contacts. To analyze the effectiveness of home and field contacts, quasi-experimental designs were employed using administrative data. To understand the activities that make up home and field contacts and the goals behind them within each agency, officers were asked to complete a qualitative home and field contact checklist and participate in focus groups.

The purpose of this data collection was to evaluate the effectiveness of judicial intervention and varying degrees of sanction severity by comparing persons who have been processed at the juvenile or adult level in the justice system with persons who have not. The main research question was whether the number of judicial interventions and severity of sanctions had any effects on the seriousness of offenders' future offenses or the decision to desist from such behavior. Variables include characteristics of the person who had the police contact as well as items specific to a particular police contact. Others are the number of police contacts, seriousness of police contacts, severity of sanctions, and age, cohort, and decade the contact occurred.

This study is a census of all state and local probation and parole systems. It was conducted in late 1976 by the United States Census Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The data contain information on each agency, including jurisdiction, funding and operation, employment, and client caseload.

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.

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.