This data collection was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a vocational training program on post-release vocational skills, employment, and recidivism of youthful male inmates 18 to 21 years old. The study used an experimental design to examine the differences in post-release activities among three inmate groups. A comprehensive inmate data base was created to describe inmates' confinement history, employment history, and their criminal records. The contextual data files provide additional information relevant to inmates' post-release activities.

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 study was conducted to test whether job counseling and placement services, accompanied by intensive follow-up after placement, would significantly increase the effectiveness of employment programs for individuals recently released from prison. Data were collected on personal, criminal, and employment backgrounds, including the type, duration, and pay of previous employment, living arrangements, marital status, criminal history, and characteristics of the employment placement.

The cross-site evaluation of the Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects (AORDP) was a seven-site study designed to 1) describe the implementation and sustainability of each AORDP project through a process evaluation, 2) determine the per capita program costs of each AORDP project through a cost study, and 3) determine the effectiveness of the programs through a multicomponent outcome study. The seven evaluation sites were located in California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The objectives of the outcome evaluation were to determine the effects of program participation on recidivism and other outcomes and assess whether program participation increased engagement in services, including substance abuse treatment and mental health services. The outcome evaluation consisted of two components: 1. Cross-site prospective study designed to collect longitudinal survey data with a sample of program participants and appropriate comparison or control subjects to assess the impact of the SCA funding on access to services and reentry outcomes, such as substance use, employment, housing, and health. 2. Site-specific recidivism analyses using administrative data to assess the impact of AORDP program participation on recidivism outcomes for all individuals enrolled in the AORDP programs and a matched comparison group in each site

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

There were three specific goals of this research. The first was to evaluate three procedures currently available for the classification of correctional inmates: the Risk Analysis method, Megargee's Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Typology, and Toch's Prison Preference Inventory. Second, the research devised and tested a postdictive model of adjustment to prison life. Third, a new classification scheme was developed for predicting inmate adjustment to prison life that considers individual and organizational (contextual) factors and various interactions between the two. These data were collected from a sample of 942 volunteer inmates from ten New York state correctional facilities, five of which were maximum security and five of which were medium security facilities. Only one-half of the original 942 inmates completed the MMPI. Background and questionnaire data were collected during the summer and fall of 1983. Outcome data on each inmate infraction were collected for a three-year period prior to that time. Each case in Part 1, Merged Survey Response File [PPQ, PEI, PAQ], represents survey response data from an individual inmate, with variables from the Prison Preference Questionnaire (PPQ), the Prison Environment Inventory (PEI), and the Prison Adjustment Questionnaire (PAQ). Cases in Part 2, Medical Records, are records of medical contacts and diagnoses of inmates' illnesses. Part 3, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, contains personality assessment information and scores for each individual offender. Data in Part 4, Sample Data [Background Characteristics], consist of individual-based variables covering inmates' background characteristics. Part 5, Offenses and Disciplinary Action Records, contains records of offenses and disciplinary action by individual offender. The client number is unique and consistent across all data files.

Work release programs allow selected prisoners nearing the end of their terms to work in the community, returning to correctional facilities or community residential facilities in nonworking hours. This project was designed as both a randomized and quasi-experimental field study to assess the effectiveness of work release in the Seattle area. It evaluated the impact of work release sentencing on recidivism and on corrections costs by comparing a sample of inmates who participated in work release with a comparable sample of inmates who completed their sentences in prison. The study was designed to answer the following questions: (1) What are the background and offense characteristics of offenders assigned to work release in the Seattle area? (2) What types of services are received by offenders in work release? and (3) How does the community experience of work release participants compare to that of similar offenders discharged directly into the Seattle community without having gone through work release? For each offender, detailed information was collected on measures relating to work release participation and recidivism outcomes. Information was gathered from Department of Corrections institutional files, work release program records, computerized payment information for legal and financial obligations, and statewide criminal history records. For each offender, background and six- and twelve-month reviews were completed. Part 1, Background Data, supplies variables that cover inmate demographics, employment history, drug use, current offense, prior criminal history, and risk/needs items. Part 2, Drug Testing Data, lists the types of drugs tested for, types of drugs for which there were positive results, and sanctions for drug use. Part 3, Offender Status Data, provides information on inmates' supervision status and the types of programs they participated in. Part 4, Prison Data, includes the number of days spent at different institutions and prerelease centers, work assignment, and prison infractions. Part 5, Work Release Data, contains information on the number of days spent at different work release facilities and any time spent in jail or on escape status while in work release. Data in this file also cover contacts and services received during work release, including personal and phone contacts between the work release participant and community corrections officer at the job and other sites, monitoring checks (employment verification, criminal records checks), sessions in outpatient counseling (drug, alcohol, family, other), employment (number of attempted and completed job interviews, primary job classification, length of employment, wages, and reason left), drug testing (date and type of test, type of positives, sanction imposed), infractions during work release and their sanctions, and arrests and their sanctions. Part 6, Community Placement Data, provides variables on the number of days each month that the offender was on the street, in work release, in pretrial detention, or in other custody, while Part 7, Post-Release Data, focuses on the number of days each month that the offender was on the street, in pretrial detention, or in prison or jail after being released from the work release program. Variables in Part 8, Infractions Data, pertain to the number and types of infractions and associated sanctions. Part 9, Recidivism Data, provides information on each offense after discharge from the program, including the date of the offense, nature of arrest, disposition, and sentence.

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 order to assess the impacts of state-level sentencing and corrections policies in the United States implemented between 1975 and 2002 on state incarceration rates during that same time period, researchers conducted a two-phase study between November 2002 and March 2004. The first phase of the research involved building a framework for understanding the types of state-level sentencing and corrections policies in use between 1975 and 2002. Phase two of the project consisted of state-level data collection for all 50 states for all study years, 1975 to 2002. The researchers produced a dataset containing outcome variables that focus on the change and growth in state incarceration rates, non-policy control variables that were found in previous studies to be associated with changes in incarceration rates, and policy variables regarding sentencing structure, drug policy, time served requirements, habitual offender laws (HOL), and mandatory sentences.

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a reliable and accurate method for measuring the effectiveness of offender classification systems to improve the management of correctional facilities. In the early 1980s, the state of Hawaii began classifying its prisoners with a newly developed Federal Bureau of Prisons classification instrument. This study was designed to develop a method to evaluate this form. Two prediction models were used. The first, initial classification, used the sum of four variables to arrive at a security score, which was taken to be predictive of violence. The second, reclassification, used the sum of seven different variables to obtain a custody total, which was then used as a major determinant of reclassification. Two groups of inmates were used: inmates who had committed infractions and inmates with no reported infractions. Research variables include (a) initial classification: offense (severity), expected length of incarceration (sentence), type of prior commitments, and history of violence, and (b) reclassification: percentage of time served, involvement with drugs/alcohol, mental/psychological stability, most serious disciplinary report, frequency of disciplinary reports, responsibility that the inmate demonstrated, and family/community ties. In addition, the collection supplies information on race and sex of inmates, sentence limitation, history of escapes or attempts, previous infractions, entry, reclassification, and termination dates (month and year), and custody level. There are demographic variables for sex and race. The unit of observation is the inmate.