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.

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.

This study was undertaken to determine whether a new form of community supervision in Multnomah County, Oregon, had been properly implemented and to determine its impact on public safety, as well as to assess recidivism rates in light of the revised supervision. A quasi-experimental design was employed using non- randomized comparison groups consisting of offenders admitted to community supervision in Multnomah County, Oregon, in 1995, 1998, and 2000. Administrative records data were collected from the Oregon Department of Corrections, Multnomah County Department of Community Justice, Portland Police Departments, Multnomah County Sheriff, the District Attorney's office, and court records.

This study sought (1) to set up a system to evaluate the operations and effectiveness of The Other Way (TOW) residential substance abuse treatment program at the Clarinda Correctional Facility in Clarinda, Iowa, and (2) to assist program staff in developing and implementing intake, discharge, and follow-up instruments and evaluation protocols to document inmate characteristics and changes over time related to substance use/abuse, mental health, social functioning, and criminal behavior and attitudes. Inmates are referred to this program if they have an identified need for residential-level substance abuse treatment and are within 12 months of release consideration. TOW is a voluntary, six-month long program that works with inmates to identify the causes of their addictive behaviors and encourage changes in unacceptable behaviors and criminal thinking. The sample for this study consists of adult male inmates at the Clarinda Correctional Facility between January 1998 and March 1999. The first point of data collection was the intake assessment. At intake, each subject completed an intake packet consisting of several instruments that measured variables relevant to TOW program goals. Each inmate was also given an Addiction Severity Index (ASI) interview by a counselor at intake. Upon discharge from the program, each subject completed a discharge packet, which contained instruments slightly different from those in the intake packet. Instruments were chosen for reliability and validity, ease of administration, potential for dual clinical and evaluation use, and whether they duplicated any existing efforts. Versions of the following instruments were included in both the intake and discharge packets: the Colorado Cognitive Assessment Questionnaire, Circumstances, Motivation, and Readiness (CMR) Scales for Substance Abuse Treatment, the Social Provisions Scale (SPS), the Self-Help Questionnaire, and the STEPS Questionnaire. A consumer satisfaction survey was also administered at the discharge interview. Variables obtained from answers to the ASI include gender, living situation, date of birth, race, religion, length of incarceration, medical status, education and employment history, sources of financial support, family/social relationships including abuse history, psychiatric status, drug and alcohol use including kinds of drugs used, length of use, age at first use, and frequency of use for each drug, personal problems caused by drug use, drug treatment history, legal history, and family history of drug, alcohol, and psychological problems. Intake assessment variables included are related to social attitudes, and include variables on life goals and the subjects' own views of their achievability, how subjects thought their friends viewed them, how wrong subjects thought certain illegal acts were, and criminal acts by the subjects' friends in the past six months. Discharge packet variables include the same variables on social attitudes as the intake packet as well as variables obtained from answers to the SPS relating to the amount of social support subjects felt they had, past involvement with self-help groups, and life attitudes related to drug/alcohol use.

In partnership with the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC), this study a) collected prison administrative data to create person-level cohort-analysis files of inmates admitted to and released from Florida prisons between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2015, b) collected stock population data of inmates incarcerated on June 30, 2011, c) examined recidivism outcomes, d) examined the effects of long-term solitary confinement on inmate behavior and mental health, and e) conducted a survey of prison personnel from November 4, 2019 to January 10, 2020, in order to conduct an analysis to address the need in public policy decision-making for evidence on the impacts of restricted housing on inmates, prisons and personnel, and public safety overall.

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.

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.

These data evaluate the New Jersey Intensive Supervision Program (ISP), a program implemented by the New Jersey Department of Corrections in 1983-1986. The central premise of ISP is that certain felony offenders sentenced to prison can be resentenced to a program of intensive supervision in which they are successfully supervised in the community. The data collection evaluates the impact of ISP on recidivism rates, prison space availability, and cost effectiveness and also assesses the opinions of criminal justice professionals toward the program. In the first file data collected on four types of sentenced felons include education, psychological condition, financial status, substance abuse, prior and follow-up criminal records, earning and payment records, sentence and correctional histories, and case characteristics including sentences, offenses, and other dispositions. The second file presents data on type of criminal justice professional interviewed, opinion scale scores on aspects of ISP, and suggestions for ISP.

The Urban Institute and the Minnesota Department of Corrections (MnDOC) attempted to improve the surveillance system in two state correctional facilities: Stillwater (STW) and Moose Lake (ML). The goal of this study was to conduct a rigorous process and impact evaluation of the steps that STW and ML took to optimize their surveillance systems, which included repositioning existing cameras, installing new cameras, and making other infrastructural upgrades. In addition, ML integrated an audio analytic technology in their system that would alert on-unit security staff through a visual and audio alert when it detected sounds associated with anger, fear, or verbal aggression. Quantitative administrative data was collected from ML and comparison facilities and comparative interrupted time-series (CITS) analyses were employed to examine changes in two outcomes (total misconduct incidents and guilty dispositions) following the intervention. To support the CITS, another unit in ML was identified that did not upgrade its surveillance system but was similar to the intervention housing unit in terms of population, architecture, and misconduct levels (internal comparison unit), and used the synthetic control method to create another comparison unit derived from the three other medium-security prisons operated by MnDOC (external comparison unit).

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.