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.

The Annual Probation Surveys collect administrative data from probation agencies in the United States. Data Collected include the total number of adults on state and federal probation on January 1 and December 31 of each year, the number of adults entering and exiting probation supervision each year, and the characteristics of adults under the supervision of probation agencies. The surveys cover all 50 states, the federal system, and the District of Columbia. A crosswalk of the items included in each year of the Annual Probation Survey series, and the variable names and variable labels that have been assigned in the NACJD documentation and datasets is available. Researchers may also be interested in the companion series Annual Parole Survey Series.

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.

This data collection provides an overview of how probation cases are processed in 32 urban and suburban jurisdictions in the United States and gauges the extent to which variations in probation patterns exist between jurisdictions. Data were collected on offenders who were sentenced in 1986 and who committed one or more of the following types of offenses: homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, drug trafficking, and other felony crimes. Probation history questionnaires were completed during the last half of 1989. Information is available on number of conviction charges, race, age, sex, marital status, educational level, and ethnicity of the probationer. In addition, data on drug and alcohol use and treatment, sentencing, restitution, and offenses are provided.

The United States Sentencing Commission, established by the 98th Congress, is an independent agency in the judicial branch of government. The Commission recommends guidelines prescribing the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of federal crimes. These data were collected to determine whether sentencing disparities existed and whether the guidelines were adequate. Basic information in the collection includes a description of the offense, characterization of the defendant's background and criminal record, method of disposition of the case, and sentence imposed. Felony and misdemeanor cases are included while petty offense cases are excluded. Three types of additional information were used to augment the existing data: (1) more detailed offense and offender characteristics identified by the United States Sentencing Commission but coded by federal probation officers, (2) actual time served in prison from the SENTRY data file of the United States Bureau of Prisons, and (3) information necessary to estimate prospective release dates from the hearing files of the United States Parole Commission. The unit of analysis is the defendant.

The purpose of this study was to provide a current listing of all felony courts in this country and to provide a universe from which a sample of courts could be selected based on felony caseload. The study includes information on all state felony courts in the United States, including the number of cases filed and disposed by conviction, acquittal, dismissal, or other means. Court administrators were asked to indicate the manner in which cases filed and disposed were counted, such as by defendant, charge, or indictment information. The total number of cases disposed during the period was also collected for juvenile delinquents and for traffic offenses (moving violations) where applicable. Finally, data were gathered on whether felonies reduced to misdemeanors were included in the felony count and whether lower courts in the jurisdiction accepted guilty pleas to felonies.

Investigator(s): Bureau of Justice Statistics Formerly Survey of Jail Inmates.This collection provides nationally representative data on persons held prior to trial and on those convicted offenders serving sentences in local jails or awaiting transfer to state prisons. Data were collected on individual characteristics of jail inmates (sex, race, ethnicity, Hispanic origin, employment), current offenses and sentences, characteristics of victims, criminal histories, jail activities and programs, prior drug and alcohol use and treatment, and health care services provided while in jail. Years Produced: Every 6 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).

The purpose of the study was to facilitate an understanding of the sanctioning of parolees in California. The central databases used in the study were the Offender Based Information System (OBIS), the Revocation Scheduling and Tracking System (RSTS), and the Statewide Parolee Database (SPDB). These three central databases provided information for the outcome variables of the study as well as information about parolees' personal characteristics, aspects of their supervision, and criminal histories. For the Parole Violations Data (Part 1), these data were combined with data extracted from several California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) data systems and connected to other pieces of data using administrative and geographic identifiers to construct measures of parole agent and community characteristics. Parole agent and parole policy measures were drawn from the California State Personnel Board Parole Agent Database (PACD) and California parole policies. Measures of community conditions were drawn from the 2000 United States Census, the United States Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the California Secretary of State, and the Religious Congregations and Membership Study, 2000. A total of 13,070 parolees were observed for a maximum of 106 weeks during 2003-2004, yielding a total of 1,376,820 parolee-week observations for Part 1. The Parole Revocations Data (Part 2) include every parole violation case that went through a county court or a parole board hearing in 2003 and 2004 -- a total of 151,586 cases. Individual, organizational, and community-level data were merged into the Part 2 dataset using administrative and geographic identifiers. Information about each parolee was extracted from several CDCR data systems. Similar to Part 1, the central databases used in Part 2 of the study were the OBIS and the RSTS. Organizational measures were drawn from CDCR Annual Population Reports, California Corrections Standards Authority Jail Profile Surveys, and Judicial Council of California Court Statistics Reports. Measures of community conditions were drawn from the 2000 United States Census, the SAMHSA, and the California Secretary of State. The Parole Violations Data (Part 1) contain a total of 50 variables including past and present offense history variables, parolee characteristics, supervision characteristics, and community environment variables. The Parole Revocations Data (Part 2) contain a total of 42 variables including case characteristics, individual characteristics, organizational factors, and community factors.

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.