The main goal of this study was to construct and test a statistically based system of classifying inmates for one or more types of Substance Abuse Intervention Division (SAID) sponsored treatment programs within the New York Department of Corrections (DOC) system. The sample used for the prediction models was a sample of recent jail inmates identified as eligible for admission to SAID. DOC provided data from its Inmate Information System (IIS) database on each of the cases. Researchers collected two sets of data: one that employed only DOC data (Part 1) and another that included supplementary data from the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and the New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) (Part 2). The DOC data (Part 1) fall into four main categories: demographic characteristics, information on the current case, prior criminal record information, and SAID eligibility information. Part 2, DOC and Supplementary Data, includes all the DOC items from Part 1 along with other data collected from DCJS and the New York City CJA.

National Prisoner Statistics (NPS) on inmates under the jurisdiction of both federal and state correctional authorities.

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.

The National Assessment Program (NAP) Survey was conducted to determine the needs and problems of state and local criminal justice agencies. At the local level in each sampled county, survey questionnaires were distributed to police chiefs of the largest city, sheriffs, jail administrators, prosecutors, public defenders, chief trial court judges, trial court administrators (where applicable), and probation and parole agency heads. Data were collected at the state level through surveys sent to attorneys general, commissioners of corrections, prison wardens, state court administrators, and directors of probation and parole. For the 1992-1994 survey, 13 separate questionnaires were used. Police chiefs and sheriffs received the same survey instruments, with a screening procedure employed to identify sheriffs who handled law enforcement responsibilities. Of the 411 counties selected, 264 counties also employed trial court administrators. Judges and trial court administrators received identical survey instruments. A total of 546 surveys were mailed to probation and parole agencies, with the same questions asked of state and local officers. Counties that had separate agencies for probation and parole were sent two surveys. All survey instruments were divided into sections on workload (except that the wardens, jail administrators, and corrections commissioners were sent a section on jail use and crowding instead), staffing, operations and procedures, and background. The staffing section of each survey queried respondents on recruitment, retention, training, and number of staff. The other sections varied from instrument to instrument, with questions tailored to the responsibilities of the particular agency. Most of the questionnaires asked about use of automated information systems, programs, policies, or aspects of the facility or security needing improvement, agency responsibilities and jurisdictions, factors contributing to workload increases, budget, number of fulltime employees and other staff, and contracted services. Questions specific to police chiefs and sheriffs included activities aimed at drug problems and whether they anticipated increases in authorized strength in officers. Jail administrators, corrections commissioners, and wardens were asked about factors contributing to jail crowding, alternatives to jail, medical services offered, drug testing and drug-related admissions, and inmate classification. Topics covered by the surveys for prosecutors, public defenders, judges, and state and trial court administrators included types of cases handled, case timeliness, diversion and sentencing alternatives, and court and jury management. State and local probation and parole agency directors were asked about diagnostic tools, contracted services, and drug testing. Attorneys general were queried about operational issues, statutory authority, and legal services and support provided to state and local criminal justice agencies.

These data were gathered to investigate the usefulness of statistical methods, particularly multiple-regression analysis, in predicting repeat criminal activity subsequent to an individual's release from prison. The data collection consists of follow-up information, collected in 1988, on a sample of males released from California prisons. The follow-up study identified criminal activity subsequent to individuals' release from prison through 1988. Predictor variables include age, prior periods of arrest, history of drug use, seriousness of original offense, and number of arrests for nuisance, person, property, and fraud offenses.

This study sought to identify and examine current policies and strategies for controlling prison gangs and to determine the ways in which correctional facilities were dealing with gangs in their institutions. Respondents to the mail survey included 55 local jail systems and 52 state prison systems (the 50 state Departments of Corrections, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons). The survey question text used the term "security threat group" (STG), which was defined as "two or more inmates, acting together, who pose a threat to the security or safety of staff/inmates and/or are disruptive to programs and/or to the orderly management of the facility/system," rather than the generic term "gang." Data contain information on total inmate population, number of STGs, number of inmates identified as confirmed, suspected, associate, and drop-out members of STGs, total incidents of violence, number of violent incidents by STG members, management strategies to deal with gangs, and names of STGs known to be present within the system.

The study developed and tested the Brief Mental Health Screening Tool to enhance the identification of psychiatric disorders among adult detainees. Participants were randomly recruited within 24 to 72 hours of entering State-run jails in Connecticut. In the first phase, participants completed a 25-minute screening interview, after which 20 percent of the participants were asked to complete a longer interview 1 week later to establish a more detailed account of Axis I and Axis II psychiatric disorders and psychosocial functioning. In a second phase, the new Brief Mental Health Screening Tool was tested and validated on a new sample of participants.

The purpose of this study was to apply the latest version of a typological system for rapists (MTC:R3) developed at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons (MTC) to a large sample of offenders currently or previously incarcerated at MTC and to examine the system's reliability and concurrent and predictive validity. Data are available from two of the project's components. In the first component, 201 rapists who were committed to MTC between 1958 and 1981 were classified. This sample was used to revise the previous classification system (R2), upon which the development of the current system rests. Of these 201 men, 94 were in residence at the time of the study and 107 had been released. The second component classified a sample of 54 rapists who were committed after 1981. This sample was not used to develop the criteria for the typology. As an overview, this project had two missions: (1) to subtype about 250 rapists using MTC:R3 criteria, and (2) to utilize an archivally-derived database to examine the concurrent and predictive validity of the system. In addition to the subtype assignments, the primary source of data was the detailed institutional files that were used to code a 1,500-variable questionnaire.