The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) program on high-risk offenders. The IPS program was characterized by four changes in usual procedures: (1) increased supervision, (2) risk/needs assessment for substance abuse, employment, and marital/family relationships, (3) stricter enforcement of probation, and (4) a four-stage revocation procedure for technical violations. The investigators also studied whether the additional caseload of the probation officers who implemented the IPS program reduced the number of supervision contacts with non-IPS probationers under normal minimum, moderate, and maximum supervision regimens. Offenders put on IPS probation in 1985 from 13 experimental courts were compared to high-risk offenders put on regular probation in the experimental courts in 1984, and to high-risk offenders on regular probation from 13 control courts for both 1984 and 1985. Data were derived from risk assessment forms, needs/strengths assessment forms, probation supervision records, and criminal history data obtained from the state's probation central field. For each offender, a full range of data were collected on (1) offender risk characteristics at initial, four-month, ten-month, and termination assessments, (2) offender needs characteristics at the same intervals, (3) probation officer/offender contact chronologies for the entire one-year follow-up period, and (4) offender prior criminal history and recidivism during a one-year follow-up period.

This study provides an overview of how the supervision of a class of felony probationers operates in a jurisdiction, and gives a baseline against which the impact of changes to probationary supervision can be measured. The objectives of this study were to describe the demographic characteristics of probationers, the nature and level of supervision that probationers receive, the extent and types of specified conditions imposed on probationers, the degree of probationer compliance with these specified conditions, the extent to which probationers are arrested and/or subjected to probationary disciplinary hearings while under supervision, and the exit status of probationers from community supervision.

Criminal justice researchers have studied caseload size to determine whether smaller caseloads improve probation outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether reduced caseloads improved supervision outcomes for medium to high risk offenders in a probation agency that trains its officers to apply a balance of controlling and correctional/rehabilitative measures. Three different probation agencies were selected to take part in this study. The first was Oklahoma City (Datasets 1 and 2), where a randomized controlled trial (RCT) experiment was implemented. The second site was Polk County, Iowa (Dataset 3), where a regression discontinuity design study (RDD) was implemented. Lastly, four judicial districts in Colorado (Dataset 4) were selected where a RDD study again was implemented. In Oklahoma City the RCT degenerated and the study team turned to a difference in differences (DD) estimator. The research team also collected Evidence-Based Practices Probation Officer Data (Dataset 5) from a set of survey questionnaires administered to the participating officers from the three research sites and the scoring of taped officers' supervision sessions with probationers on their caseloads by trained raters.

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 study was a process evaluation of the Michigan Department of Corrections' (MDOC) residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) program at the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan. The 272-bed program was designed to treat male, minimum-custody inmates with a history of serious chemical dependency. The phase of treatment at the Jackson Cooper Street facility lasted six months, and was followed by a 12-month aftercare component. The main theory of change behind the program was that education about drugs and their physical, familial, and social effects, coupled with opportunities to learn about recovery and identify triggers for substance use, would help substance-abusing offenders to avoid both substance abuse and criminal behaviors once released into the community. This study used multiple data sources. Part 1, Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Data, was acquired from the MDOC's Correctional Management Information System, which included demographic, criminal history, programming, and institutional misconduct information for a snapshot of the entire inmate population. These data provided information on all 44,061 inmates in the custody of MDOC on July 1, 1999. Part 2, RSAT Applications data, contains data for the 834 applications received by August 30, 1999. These data were received from University of Michigan (UM) researchers studying the long-term impact of the RSAT program on offender substance abuse and recidivism. The data were collected using a screening form for each application, and were initially generated and entered into an electronic format by RSAT program staff. Part 3, Service Tracking Data, contains RSAT admission and parole data, which were manually collected.

This data collection effort was designed to assess the effects of different types of supervised pretrial release (SPR). Four major types of effects were examined: (1) defendants' behaviors while awaiting trial (failure to appear and arrests for new offenses), (2) the costs of SPR to victims and the criminal justice system, (3) pretrial release practices, and (4) jail populations. This study provides detailed information for a selected group of defendants awaiting trial on criminal histories and arrests while awaiting trial. Data are also available on services provided between arrest and disposition. The study produced four different data sets. The first, Supervised Release Information System (SRIS), contains intake information on current arrest, criminal record, socio-economic status, ties with the community, contact with mental health and substance abuse facilities, and pretrial release decisions. The release section of this data base contains information on services provided, intensity of supervision, termination from program, personal characteristics at termination, criminal charges at disposition, and new charges resulting from arrests while under pretrial status. The Arrest Data Set includes variables on type and number of crimes committed by SPR defendants, property costs to victims, personal injury costs, and court disposition for each offense. The Retrospective Data Set supplies variables on charges filed and method of release, personal characteristics, length of pretrial incarceration, bail, whether the defendant was rebooked during the pretrial period, charge at disposition, sentence, total court appearances, and total failures to appear in court (FTAs). The Jail Population Data Set contains monthly counts of jail population and average daily population.

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 research was designed to determine whether the supervision of misdemeanant probationers was cost-effective for increasing the level of successful probation completions in Hamilton County, Ohio. The primary objective was to examine the relationships among these factors: supervision costs, the collection of court costs, fines, and restitution, types of supervision, risk assessment, and probationer conduct for the population of probationers. Probationers were initially classified according to risk assessment and then randomly assigned to a supervision category. The probationer's risk potential was a numerical score derived from demographic background variables, prior record, and history of substance use. The DSCP (Degree of Successful Completion of Probation) was developed specifically to measure probationer conduct and to compare trends and relationships. The variables examined in the study include: risk assessment at intake, supervision level assigned, number of times the probationer was assigned to probation, start and planned termination dates, date of last status change, status at termination, degree of successful completion of probation achieved, costs incurred in administering probation, and amounts collected from each probationer for court costs, restitution, and fines. Although data were collected on 7,072 misdemeanant probation experiences, there are only 2,756 probationers included in the study. The remaining 4,316 cases were excluded due to failure of the probationer to show up for screening or for other reasons that did not meet the research criteria.

In 1996, the Los Angeles County Probation Department developed a set of six instruments to better assess offender risks and needs. Each instrument was intended to serve a specific purpose, with separate instruments used for adult and juvenile populations and release and placement decisions. The instruments were to be completed by probation staff. These instruments were tested in a pilot project by probation field staff in 1997. The probation department then asked RAND to re-examine the six instruments for instrument integrity, use of overrides, and relationship to long-term recidivism outcomes. The probation department's research staff had completed the instruments between April and December 1997 using available reports and case file information. RAND's involvement in the study began after all samples had been selected and instruments completed. The probation department gave RAND the data on instrument scores. Recidivism data were gathered at 6, 12, and 18 months after the instruments' administration. For juveniles data on the nature and date of arrest were available from the Juvenile Automated Information files. Data on adult re-arrests were unavailable, but the Adult Probation System provided the date, nature, and disposition of offenses referred to probation.

These data were collected in the Illinois prison system where, in response to a prison overcrowding crisis, approximately two-thirds of the inmates released by the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) were discharged prior to serving their expected sentences. This study was designed to evaluate the effects of an early release program on prisoners, prison populations, offense rates, local criminal justice systems, and the general public. The files contain extensive Federal Bureau of Investigation arrest history information and other personal and social indicators describing inmates released from the state prison system. Data are available for three comparison groups: (1) a sample of prisoners who served their regular sentences prior to the "forced release" program, (2) a group that served regular sentences after implementation of the program, and (3) a group of inmates who were released early under the program (i.e., before serving their full sentences). The "inmate jacket file," which is the comprehensive institutional file maintained for all inmates, contains variables for each inmate on social and personal characteristics, criminal history, risk scales, court decisions for each offense, institutional conduct, prior release and return records, method of release, condition of supervision, and parole violation records. The arrest file includes variables that describe the type and number of charges at arrest, case disposition of each charge, probation length, incarceration length, admission and release dates, and release type.