The purpose of this study was to examine multiple treatment process measures and post-release outcomes for inmates who participated in Therapeutic Community (TC) drug treatment programs or comparison groups provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections at five state prisons. The project attempted to examine more closely the relationships among inmate characteristics, treatment process, and treatment outcomes than previous studies in order to explore critical issues in prison-based drug treatment programming and policies. Researchers examined in-treatment measures and multiple post-release outcomes for inmates who participated in TC drug treatment programs or comparison groups at five state prisons: Graterford, Houtzdale, Cresson, Waymart, and Huntingdon. Matched comparison groups were made up of TC-eligible inmates who participated in less intensive forms of treatment (e.g., short-term drug education and outpatient treatment groups) due to a shortage of intensive treatment slots at the five institutions. Included in the treatment sample were all current TC residents as of January 1, 2000. New subjects were added to the study as they were admitted to treatment programs. Between January 1 and November 30, 2000, data on all inmates admitted to or discharged from alcohol or drug treatment programs were collected on a monthly basis. Monthly tracking was continued throughout the study to determine treatment outcomes (e.g., successful vs. unsuccessful). TC clients were asked to complete additional self-report measures that tapped psychological constructs and inmate perceptions of the treatment experience, and TC counselors were asked to complete periodic reassessments of each inmate's participation in treatment. Self-reports of treatment process and psychological functioning were gathered within 30 days after admission, again after six months, again at the end of 12 months, and again at discharge if the inmate remained in TC longer than 12 months. Counselor ratings of inmate participation in treatment were similarly gathered one month, six months, and 12 months following admission to treatment. After release, both treatment and comparison groups were tracked over time to monitor rearrest, reincarceration, drug use, and employment. Measures can be broken down into the following four categories and their sources: (1) Inmate Background Factors were collected from the Pennsylvania Additive Classification System (PACT), the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Screening Instrument (PACSI), and the TCU (Texas Christian University) Drug Screen. (2) Institutional Indicators: Impacts Internal to the Prison Environment were collected from the Department of Corrections Misconduct Database, research and program records, and TCU Resident Evaluation of Self and Treatment (REST) forms. (3) Intermediate or "Proximal" Outcomes: Reductions in Risk for Drug Use and Criminal Behavior were collected from research and program records, TCU Counselor Rating of Client (CRC) forms, and TCU Resident Evaluation of Self and Treatment (REST) forms. (4) Post-Release Indicators: Inmate Behavior Upon Release from Prison were collected from the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Pennsylvania state police records provided by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD), and the Department of Corrections inmate records system.

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.

Investigator(s): Bureau of Justice Statistics This series of studies contains a descriptive analysis of federal and state-operated adult confinement and correctional facilities nationwide. The census included prisons, penitentiaries, and correctional facilities; boot camps; community corrections; prison farms; reception, diagnostic, and classification centers; road camps; forestry and conservation camps; youthful offender facilities (except in California); vocational training facilities; prison hospitals; and correctional drug and alcohol treatment facilities. Variables include physical security, age of facilities, functions of facilities, programs, inmate work assignments, staff employment, facilities under court order/consent decree for conditions of confinement, capital and operating expenditures, custody level of residents/inmates, one-day and average daily population counts, race/ethnicity of inmates, inmate deaths, special inmate counts, and assaults and incidents by inmates. The institution is the unit of analysis. The Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities is produced every 5 years.

This data collection contains information gathered in a two-part survey that was designed to assess institutional conditions in state and federal prisons and in halfway houses. It was one of a series of data-gathering efforts undertaken during the 1970s to assist policymakers in assessing and overcoming deficiencies in the nation's correctional institutions. This particular survey was conducted in response to a mandate set forth in the Crime Control Act of 1976. Data were gathered via self-enumerated questionnaires that were mailed to the administrators of all 558 federal and state prisons and all 405 community-based prerelease facilities in existence in the United States in 1979. Part 1 contains the results of the survey of state and federal adult correctional systems, and Part 2 contains the results of the survey of community-based prerelease facilities. The two files contain similar variables designed to tap certain key aspects of confinement: (1) inmate (or resident) counts by sex and by security class, (2) age of facility and rated capacity, (3) spatial density, occupancy, and hours confined for each inmate's (or resident's) confinement quarters, (4) composition of inmate (or resident) population according to race, age, and offense type, (5) inmate (or resident) labor and earnings, (6) race, age, and sex characteristics of prison (or half-way house) staff, and (7) court orders by type of order and pending litigation. Other data (contained in both files) include case ID number, state ID number, name of facility, and operator of facility (e.g., federal, state, local, or private).

This study was conducted for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to (1) collect and analyze data on conditions of confinement in public and private juvenile facilities, (2) determine the extent to which conditions were consistent with those required by nationally recognized standards for juvenile confinement facilities, (3) suggest explanations for variations in conformance to standards among facilities, and (4) assist OJJDP in formulating recommendations for improving conditions of confinement. In challenging the premise that high levels of conformance to nationally recognized standards result in improved conditions of confinement, this study examined client outcomes. Areas of concern for juvenile facilities usually center on living space, health care, security, and control of suicidal behavior. Key incident measures provided in this data collection include injuries, escapes, acts of suicidal behavior, incidents requiring emergency health care, and isolation incidents. Part 1, Mail Survey Data, collected information from facility administrators. Part 2, Site Visit Data, consists of questions answered by the juvenile inmates as well as by the independent observers who administered the on-site surveys. Additional variables in Part 2 that are not present in Part 1 include subjective measures such as the quality of the food, medical care, and recreation facilities, and whether various facility programs were effective. The study covered all 984 public and private juvenile detention centers, reception centers, training schools, and ranches, camps, and farms in the United States. Three types of facilities were excluded: (1) youth halfway houses, shelters, and group homes, (2) police lockups, adult jails, and prisons that held juveniles tried and convicted as adults, and (3) psychiatric and drug treatment programs.

This data collection consists of the SPSS syntax used to recode existing variables and create new variables from the SURVEY OF INMATES OF LOCAL JAILS, 1996 [ICPSR 6858] and the SURVEY OF INMATES IN STATE AND FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, 1997 [ICPSR 2598]. Using the data from these two national surveys on jail and prison inmates, this study sought to expand the analyses of these data in order to fully explore the relationship between type and intensity of substance abuse and other health and social problems, analyze access to treatment and services, and make estimates of the need for different types of treatment services in correctional systems.

Investigator(s): Bureau of Justice Statistics The Annual Survey of Jails, formerly titled National Survey of Jails, is the only data collection effort that provides an annual source of data on local jails and jail inmates. The series was begun in 1982 by the Bureau of Justice Statistics with data collected by the Bureau of the Census. Local jails are locally-operated correctional facilities that confine persons before or after adjudication. Inmates sentenced to jails usually have a sentence of a year or less, but jails also incarcerate persons in a wide variety of other categories. Data on the size of the jail population and selected inmate characteristics are obtained every five to six years from the Census of Jails. In each of the years between the full censuses, a sample survey of jails is conducted to estimate baseline characteristics of the nation's jails and inmates housed in these jails. Data are supplied on admissions and releases, growth in the number of jail facilities, changes in their rated capacities and level of occupancy, growth in the population supervised in the community, changes in methods of community supervision, and crowding issues in state and federal prisons. The data are intended for a variety of users, including federal and state agencies, local officials in conjunction with jail administrators, researchers, planners, and the public.Years Produced: Annually, except every 5th year when the National Jail Census is produced.

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.

The purpose of this collection was to measure the extent to which the Prisoner Management Classification (PMC) system in Washington state improved overall operations of prison facilities and reduced safety risks to inmates and staff. Four primary issues were addressed: (1) To what extent the PMC reduces rates of assaults on staff and inmates, (2) To what extent the PMC reduces rates of other serious misconduct, (3) To what extent the PMC increases rates of inmate participation in work or vocational programs, and (4) To what extent the PMC enhances staff job satisfaction, morale, and staff performance. Information is included on outcome variables against which comparisons between the experimental and control groups can be made. For each correctional facility, figures were collected for the number of staff-inmate assaults, number of inmate-inmate assaults, number of suicides and suicide attempts, number of escapes and escape attempts, number of "serious" disciplinary incidents, number of total staff, number of inmates, number of security staff vacancies, rated capacity of the facility, number of staff transfers and reasons, and number of inmates involved in educational, vocational, and work programs. Demographic variables include date of birth, sex, and race. Additional information concerns the family structure of the inmates and conditions surrounding the inmates' lives prior to entering prison.