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.

The purpose of this multisite program evaluation project was to provide detailed and systematic descriptions of participants and treatment program components for a sample of five drug treatment programs in local jails. Three of the programs were located in California: Jail Education and Treatment (JET), Deciding, Educating, Understanding, Counseling, and Evaluation (DEUCE), and Rebuilding, Educating, Awareness, Counseling, and Hope (REACH). Two programs were in New York State: Substance Abuse Intervention Division (SAID) and New Beginnings. The project was aimed at assessing program completion rates as well as 12-month post-release recidivism for program participants versus matched controls. Background information obtained about the participating offenders includes sex, race, age, education, marital status, and employment status, as well as history of drug use, previous drug treatment, mental illness, inpatient/outpatient episodes, and offenses and sentencing. Additional data cover program location, dates of release from the program and from jail, type of program termination, type of residence upon release, and anticipated post-custody treatment. Information on each conviction/disposition was obtained through state criminal information systems, and state-level criminal history data (rap sheets) were collected for both the treatment and comparison groups. The unit of analysis is arrest events.

The primary research goal of this study was to explore the effects of juvenile incarceration on future recidivism using social and legal history data about adjudicated juvenile delinquents in New York City. The secondary research goal of this study was to explore family court decision-making and the nature of family court processing. Study subjects were chosen by examining Family Court calendars in all five New York City boroughs for each day in April, May, and June of 2000, which identified every youth who received a disposition during this period. Research staff located case files for each subject in probation department file rooms in the five family courts, using personal and numeric identifiers taken from court calendars. Using a standardized data collection instrument that was developed by the research team, coded information was derived for 698 total cases by examining documents in each subject's probation case file. Coded data from probation case files offered a baseline portrait of this sample of delinquent youth. In order to measure recidivism, the principal investigator linked baseline records, using personal and numeric identifiers, to arrest and incarceration information provided by other city and state agencies. In this dataset, each record is essentially a snapshot of a particular youth at the time of his or her disposition. Variables about the sampled youth include: demographic profile, case processing, legal history, characteristics of present and past family environments, school performance indicators, community and peer relationships, history of alcohol and drug use, mental health history, and history of victimization.

This study was an outcome evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program at the Barnstable House of Corrections in Massachusetts. The study is based on the 188 inmates referred to the RSAT program at Barnstable between January 1, 1999, and June 6, 2001. Data on participants' criminal histories were gathered from the Criminal History Systems Board through March 2002. Data on offender age, entry, and discharge dates were supplied by the Barnstable County House of Corrections. Data from offender scores on psychological inventories and offender outcomes in the RSAT program were supplied by AdCare Criminal Justice Services.

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.

A different model of justice is assumed to be reflected in the prosecution of adolescents in juvenile jurisdictions compared to criminal jurisdictions, with a juvenile justice model in the juvenile jurisdiction and a criminal justice model in the criminal jurisdiction. These two models of justice are believed to be very different from one another across three dimensions: formality of case processing, evaluation of defendants, and punishment. This research project compared the prosecution and punishment of adolescent felony offenders in the New Jersey juvenile jurisdiction and the New York criminal jurisdiction to determine whether these two models of justice varied across the two jurisdiction types. Data from this collection were used by the researcher only to examine the dimension of punishment severity across jurisdiction types and across courts within each jurisdiction type. Data were collected on comparable cases of adolescent felony offenders from counties in New Jersey and New York. Due to the very different boundaries between juvenile and criminal jurisdictions in these adjacent states, the data include cases (matched by offense and offender age) in New Jersey's juvenile jurisdiction and New York's criminal jurisdiction. Cases of 15- and 16-year-old defendants who had been charged with aggravated assault, robbery, or burglary in three counties of New Jersey and three counties of New York City in 1992 and 1993 were sampled. Variables include offender characteristics, such as age at offense, sex, race, and ethnicity, offense characteristics, court action and sentencing information, state, and county.

This study was a program evaluation of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation Cognitive Skills Development Program, an educational program that taught cognitive skills to offenders, as implemented in juvenile intensive supervision probation in Colorado. Using an experimental design, researchers sought to measure the extent of change in attitudes and behaviors due to the cognitive skills program by administering pre- and post-test interviews. Researchers also measured recidivism by conducting interviews with probation officers who supervised the offenders in the sample six months after termination from intensive supervision. These interviews were supplemented with administrative records data that provided background information about the sample. In addition, administrative data were collected on all juveniles sentenced to intensive supervision during fiscal years 1994 and 1995 to compare juveniles in the sample with all juveniles in the intensive program. Variables in this collection include cognitive measures, such as impulsivity, problem-solving ability, egocentricity, and cognitive style. Other variables measure emotional responses to various situations, attitudes toward the law, values, drug abuse, program participation, and recidivism. Administrative data include age, gender, ethnicity, offense of conviction, and basic assessment data.

The Other Way (TOW) program is an intensive residential substance abuse treatment program housed at the Clarinda Correctional Facility in Clarinda, Iowa. TOW is a voluntary, six-month program that works with inmates to identify the causes of their addictive behaviors and encourage changes in unacceptable behaviors and criminal thinking. The Iowa Consortium for Substance Abuse Research and Evaluation conducted an evaluation of TOW from October 1997 through March 2001. The Iowa Consortium worked extensively with the Clarinda TWO treatment staff to identify valid and reliable instruments that measured substance use and abuse, mental health and personality characteristics, criminal behavior and attitudes, social support, and involvement in education, employment, and therapeutic activities. These instruments were used to collect data at intake and discharge. Additionally, the researchers conducted a six-month follow-up of inmates to determine their post-program experiences as well as recidivism. Part 1 (Clinical and Recidivism Data) consists of selected variables gathered during the clinical interviews administered to program participants at intake and discharge, as well as recidivism data from the Department of Corrections. Part 2 (Follow-Up Data) consists of variables from the Addiction Severity Index, which were collected during the six-month follow-up telephone interview.

This data collection examines the effects of sentencing on offenders' subsequent criminal behaviors. The data address the following questions: (1) At what point in the criminal career is the criminal career interrupted or halted by the criminal justice system because the offender is "taken off the streets?" (2) How long is the criminal career interrupted as a result of intervention from the criminal justice system? (3) How significant are the effects of past criminal behavior, as opposed to offender characteristics, such as education, employment history, or drug use, on criminal behavior subsequent to sentencing? (4) How do the effects of sentencing differ among offenders according to background, criminal history, and offense? Special characteristics of the collection include detailed information on the demographic and psychological background of defendants, a description of the offenses and the victims, and criminal recidivism information for adult defendants. More specifically, the sentence file contains data on the defendant's family, educational background, psychological condition, social activities, financial status, employment history, substance abuse, prior and follow-up criminal records, sentence and correctional histories, and other disposition information. The event file provides data on arrest and court appearances as well as data on incarcerations, escapes, transfers, releases, paroles, and furloughs.

This study was undertaken to investigate the relationship, if any, between drug treatment and success or failure of drug-involved offenders on probation/community supervision. Further, the researchers sought to evaluate the outcomes of drug-involved offenders admitted to (1) secure residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) programs, (2) non-secure residential drug treatment programs, (3) non-residential drug treatment programs, and (4) no drug treatment programs. Data were collected from administrative records provided by the Florida Department of Corrections, specifically case history records of offenders admitted to supervision in the community from July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1997. Part 1 is comprised of all cases admitted to community supervision between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993 (fiscal years 1991 and 1992) and treated in a secure residential drug treatment program. Part 2 is comprised of all cases admitted to community supervision from July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1995, receiving treatment in a non-secure residential drug treatment program. Part 3 contains data on offenders admitted to non-residential drug treatment programs, whose community supervision admissions were between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993. Part 4 contains data on offenders admitted to non-residential drug treatment programs, whose community supervision admissions were between July 1, 1993, and June 30, 1995 (fiscal years 1993 and 1994). Part 5 contains data on cases admitted to community supervision between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993, who did not receive drug treatment of any kind. Cases admitted to community supervision between July 1, 1993, and June 20, 1995, receiving no drug treatment are contained in Part 6. Each supervision admission record contains a history of subsequent court actions that were complete through December 31, 1997. Variables for all parts include population estimates, unemployment rates, population by age-specific categories, violent and nonviolent index offenses, per capita personal income, clearance rates, split sentence flag, primary offense disposition, primary offense felony level, current commitment years supervised, supervision type, whether current offense included a drug charge, number of prior supervision terms, number of prior commitments, reasons for failure, treatment facility code, number of drug sale/traffic offenses, outcome of supervision period, and reasons for prison intake. Demographic variables include race and gender.