Princeton University Data and Statistical 
Services Princeton University Library

Search DSS





Finding Data Analyzing Data About Us

DSS lab consultation schedule
(Monday-Friday)
Sep 1-Nov 2By appt.
Nov 4-Dec 13Walk-in, 2-5 pm*
Dec 14-Jan 5By appt.
Jan 6-Feb 2Walk-in, 2-5 pm*
Feb 3-May 4Walk-in, 1-5 pm*
May 5-May 13Walk-in, 2-5 pm*
May 14-Aug 31By appt.
For quick questions email data@princeton.edu.
*No appts. necessary during walk-in hrs.
Note: the DSS lab is open as long as Firestone is open, no appointments necessary to use the lab computers for your own analysis.

Follow DssData on Twitter
See DSS on Facebook

Finding Data: Data on Incarcerated

ACCESS TO THESE DATA FILES ARE RESTRICTED TO CURRENTLY ENROLLED/EMPLOYED MEMBERS OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY.

  • Selected Resources for:

    Incarcerated - Europe ::

  • Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey Series (1994-2011)
    Provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision. Also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as gender, race and Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. Covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.

  • Annual Survey of Jails (1985+)
    Only data collection effort that provides an annual source of data on local jails and jail inmates. As of 2008, title changed to Annual Survey of Jails: Jail-Level Data, previously Annual Survey of Jails: Jurisdiction-Level Data.

  • Annual Survey of Jails in Indian Country (1998+)
    Purpose was to gather data on all adult and juvenile jail facilities and detention centers in Indian reservations, pueblos, rancherias, and other Native American and Alaska Native communities throughout the United States. Provides data on the number of inmates, staffing, and facility characteristics and needs of all confinement facilities operated by tribal authorities or the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

  • Annual Survey of Jails: Individual Reporting-Level Data
    The Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ) is the only data collection effort that provides an annual source of data on local jails and jail inmates. Data on the size of the jail population and selected inmate characteristics are obtained every 5 to 6 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. The ASJ supplies data on characteristics of jails such as 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. Also provides information on changes in the demographics of the jail population, supervision status of persons held, and a count of non-citizens in custody. Used to track growth in the number of jails and the capacities nationally, changes in the demographics of the jail population and supervision status of persons held, the prevalence of crowding issues, and a count of non-United States citizens within the jail population.

  • Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program/Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) (1987+)
    Designed to estimate the prevalence of drug use among persons in the United States who are arrested and booked, and to detect changes in trends in drug use among this population. Data is restricted. Procedures can be found through the site. Also see the nonrestricted Monitoring Drug Epidemics and the Markets That Sustain Them, Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) and ADAM II Data, 2000-2003 and 2007-2010.

  • Assessing the Practical and Monetary Efficacy of New Jersey's Megan's Law, 1972-2007
    Investigated New Jersey's Megan's Law and its specific deterrence effect on re-offending, including the level of general and sexual offense recidivism, the nature of sexual re-offenses, and time to first re-arrest for sexual and non-sexual re-offenses (i.e., community tenure). Data were collected on 550 sexual offenders released during the years 1990 to 2000.

  • Building Strong Families (BSF) Project Data Collection, 2005-2008, United States
    Examined the effectiveness of programs designed to improve child well-being and strengthen the relationships of low-income couples through relationship skills education. Surveyed couples 15 months after having applied and having been accepted into a BSF program at one of 8 locations offering services to unwed couples expecting, or having recently had a baby. The 1st major focus of the study was family structure. Question topics included information on recently born children, as well as the parents and their relationship status. If the parents were still together, respondents were asked whether they were currently married or planned to marry in the future. If no longer together, reasons for the relationship ending were explored. The 2nd major focus queried respondents about parental involvement with their child or children. They were then asked to rate their perceived quality as parents, their communication skills, and cooperation between parental responsibilities. Respondents were also questioned regarding the amount of time spent by each parent with their child, including playing games, feeding, and changing diapers. The 3rd major focus asked respondents about their relationships. They were asked to give their opinions of marriage and their level of satisfaction in their current relationship. Respondents were also asked to list the frequency, if applicable, of various occurrences within their relationship. Subjects included communication, enjoyment of each others' company, partner reliability, infidelity, and domestic violence. The 4th major focus queried respondents on their well-being. They were asked whether they attended religious services, how they felt in the past month about being a parent, and their feelings and behavior during the past week. Respondents were further asked if these feelings or problems made it difficult for them to work or communicate with other people. They were also asked about consumption of alcoholic beverages in the past year, and if alcohol use created problems with employment. The 5th major focus questioned respondents about the utilization of various services. They were asked if they participated in any programs such as classes, workshops, or group sessions in order to help their relationship. They were also asked if they had met with someone, such as a social worker or a priest, to help them work on their relationship. Respondents were asked if they participated in programs to improve parenting skills, learn job skills, increase education, or find employment. They were also asked if they participated in any programs to help with anger management or domestic violence. The 6th major focus dealt with paternity and child support. Respondents were asked if they voluntarily signed a birth certificate or document identifying them as the mother or father. They were asked if they were legally required to provide child support, the amount of that support, and if they gave money in addition to child support to help with the cost of raising the child or children. The 7th major focus dealt with family self-sufficiency. Respondents were asked if they or their partner performed any work for pay during the past year, the past month, and their earnings during those times. They were then asked if they received any additional sources of income such as welfare, disability insurance, and unemployment. Respondents were then asked if they and their partner combined some, all, or none of their money. They were asked how the responsibility for bill payment was divided between partners and if, at any point, they had difficulty paying bills. Respondents were also asked if they owned a car, rented or owned a home, and whether they were covered by health insurance. Lastly they were asked about their health and who they could count on in an emergency. The final major focus explored parental well-being. Respondents were asked if they were currently in prison or jail, had ever been arrested, had served a jail or prison sentence in the past and, if so, how long they were incarcerated. Additional information collected included country of origin of the respondent and the respondent's parents, who they spent most of their life with prior to age 18, whether they lived with both of their biological parents at the same time, and if their parents were married. Respondents were also asked about their previous sexual experience. Demographic data includes race, education level, age, income, and marital status.

  • Capital Punishment in the United States
    Annual data on prisoners under a sentence of death and on those whose offense sentences were commuted or vacated during the years indicated. Information is supplied for basic sociodemographic characteristics such as age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status at time of imprisonment, level of education, and state of incarceration. Criminal history data include prior felony convictions for criminal homicide and legal status at the time of the capital offense. Additional information is available for inmates removed from death row by yearend of the last year indicated and for inmates who were executed.

    Sample Size: All inmates on death row since 1972 in the United States.

  • Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) (1997+)
    Administered every other year, in odd-numbered years. Replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census, which had been conducted since the early 1970s.

  • Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities (1971+)
    Information on the population and characteristics of public (through 1984-1985) or public and private (1986-1987 and beyond) juvenile facilities in operation in the United States each February. Annual data for the previous calendar year are included as well. Residential programs and group homes were included in the census if they housed three or more residents, if at least 50% of the residents were juveniles, and if accused or adjudicated delinquents and status offenders were at least 1% of their average daily population. In California, however, all California Youth Authority Facilities were included in the census. Juvenile facilities operated as part of adult jails were excluded, as were nonresidential facilities, facilities exclusively for drug or alcohol abusers or nonoffenders, and federal juvenile correctional facilities.

  • Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities (1979+)
    Descriptive analysis of federal and state-operated adult confinement and correctional facilities nationwide. Includes 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. Produced every 5 years.

  • Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS)
    Provides a comprehensive inquiry into the nature of programs & services provided to adult & juvenile offenders involved in the justice system in the United States. Participants included key criminal justice administrators, operations managers, and staff. The goals were to describe current drug treatment practices, policies, and delivery systems for offenders on probation or parole supervision, and in jails, prisons, and youth institutions; to examine agency structures, resources, and other organizational factors that may affect service delivery, including mission, leadership, climate, culture, and beliefs about rehabilitation versus punishment; and to assess coordination and integration across criminal justice agencies and between corrections and treatment systems. Items in the survey included: respondent characteristics, organizational characteristics, correctional programs characteristics (e.g., size, nature, etc.), substance abuse treatment programs characteristics, social networks/agencies collaboration, integration of services with other agencies, attitudes toward punishment and rehabilitation (personal values), organizational needs assessment, organizational culture and climate for treatment, cynicism toward change, organizational commitment to treatment, and perspectives on intradepartmental coordination.

  • Effectiveness of Prisoner Reentry Services as Crime Control for Inmates Released in New York, 2000-2005
    The Fortune Society, a private not-for-profit organization, provides a variety of services that are intended to support former prisoners in becoming stable and productive members of society. The purpose of this evaluation was to explore the extent to which receiving supportive services at the Fortune Society improved clients' prospects for law abiding behavior. More specifically, this study examined the extent to which receipt of these services reduced recidivism and homelessness following release.

  • Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO), New York City
    10-year study that evaluated innovative strategies aimed at improving employment and other outcomes for groups who faced serious barriers to employment. 1st comprehensive attempt to understand the diverse low-income population and to test interventions aimed at the most common barriers that are encountered in this population's employment. Designed to evaluate a variety of innovative ways to boost employment, reduce welfare receipt, and promote well-being in low-income populations. Evaluated the effectiveness of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO), which is an employment program for former prisoners based in New York City. The CEO evaluation aimed to determine whether CEO's transitional jobs and other services are more effective than basic job search assistance. Enrollment for this study was conducted between January 2004 and October 2005 and resulted in a sample of 977 former prisoners (568 in the program group and 409 in the control group). Individuals assigned to the program group were eligible for all of CEO's services, including the pre-employment class, the transitional job, job coaching, job development, a fatherhood program, and post-placement services. Individuals assigned to the control group began with a shorter version of the pre-employment class and were given access to a resource room with basic job search equipment such as computers and fax machines. Respondents were asked about their employment history, recidivism history, time spent on parole, parole violations, and arrest history, including prior convictions, types of convictions, and length of incarceration. Information was collected about respondents' work experience with and without the assistance of the CEO; this information included whether respondents participated in group or individual job searches, vocational or educational training, received referrals to job openings, help with their resumes, advice about filing out job applications, job interviews, or how to behave on the job, help with child support issues and whether they participated in father discussion groups or parenting programs. Respondents were also asked about their current living situation, work schedule, hourly wage, job benefits, health coverage, whether they had a mentor, how often they saw their children, and the type of relationship they had with their children. Demographic information includes age, race, marital status, education, employment status, and home ownership status.

  • Federal Justice Statistics Program Data (1978+)
    Examines the processing of federal offenders, arrests by Drug Enforcement Administration agents, criminal appeals cases filed in Courts of Appeals, defendants in federal criminal cases filed or terminated in District Court, suspects in federal criminal matters concluded, offenders admitted to prison, offenders released from prison, offenders in prison, statutes for counts of conviction and guideline computations for defendants sentenced under the Sentencing Reform Act.

  • Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study
    Follows a cohort of nearly 5,000 children born in large U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000 (roughly 3/4 of whom were born to unmarried parents). Refers to unmarried parents and their children as fragile families to underscore that they are families and that they are at greater risk of breaking up and living in poverty than more traditional families. Designed to primarily address 4 questions: (1) What are the conditions and capabilities of unmarried parents, especially fathers?; (2) What is the nature of the relationships between unmarried parents?; (3) How do children born into these families fare?; and (4) How do policies and environmental conditions affect families and children?

  • Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) Series
    Collects basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. Also provides information on the use of bed space in the facility to indicate whether the facility is experiencing crowding. Includes questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information is complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. Uses 4 modules to collect information on the health care, education, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These 4 modules are not always collected each year. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathers important information about the youth the services are directed toward and how the services are provided. The census indicates the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examines prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collects information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date is the 4th Wednesday in October. The inclusion criteria for facilities are: (1) the facility must house persons under the age of 21, (2) who were charged with or adjudicated for an offense, and (3) were present in the facility on the reference date because of that offense. JRFC does not capture data on adult prisons or jails, nor does it include facilities that are used exclusively for mental health or substance abuse treatment or for dependent children.

  • Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (LAFANS)
    Longitudinal study of families in Los Angeles County, California, and of the neighborhoods in which they live. Designed to answer key research and policy questions in 3 areas:
    • Neighborhood, family, and peer effects on children's development
    • Effects of welfare reform at the neighborhood level
    • Residential mobility and neighborhood change
    Also available through ICPSR.

    Sample Size: Includes 65 neighborhoods with approximately 40-50 households in each neighborhood. Wave 1 includes approximately 3200 children and teens ages 0 to 17.

  • Monitoring of Federal Criminal Convictions and Sentences: Appeals Data (1993+)
    Appellate information from the 12 circuit courts of appeals of the United States. The United States Sentencing Commission compiled from the Clerk of the Court of each court of appeals the final opinions and orders, both published and unpublished, in all criminal appeals for the time period surveyed. The Commission also collected habeas corpus decisions (although technically civil matters), because such cases often involve sentencing issues. Both the "case" and the "defendant" are used in this collection as units of analysis. Each "case" comprises individual records representing all codefendants participating in a consolidated appeal. Each defendant's record comprises the sentencing-related issues corresponding to that particular defendant.

  • Monitoring of Federal Criminal Sentences (1987+)
    Information on federal criminal cases sentenced under the Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. The data files include all cases received by the United States Sentencing Commission that had sentencing dates between November 1, 1987, and September 30, 1995, and were assessed as constitutional. Constitutionality compares each case's sentencing date, circuit, district, and judge to provide uniformity in reporting the cases. The cases are categorized either as New Law, with all offenses occurring after the November 1, 1987, guidelines, or as Mixed Law, with at least one count occurring after the guideline effectiveness date and other counts prior to the guidelines.

  • National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) at ICPSR
    Preserves and distributes computerized crime and justice data from Federal agencies, state agencies, and investigator initiated research projects. Has a collection of online Resource Guides that highlight popular criminal justice research topics.

  • National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) (1983+)
    In 1983, the National Prisoners Statistics program, which compiled data on prisoner admissions and releases, and the Uniform Parole Reports were combined into one reporting system, the National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP). The NCRP evolved from the need to improve and consolidate data on corrections at the national level. Its objective was to provide a consistent and comprehensive description of prisoners entering and leaving the custody or supervision of state and federal authorities. In addition to the state prisons, the Federal Prison System and the California Youth Authority also began reporting data in 1984.

  • National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) (2001-2002, 2004-2005)
    Primary source for information and data on the U.S. population for: alcohol and drug use; alcohol and drug abuse and dependence; and associated psychiatric and other medical comorbidities. Data is restricted. Contact Aaron White, Ph.D.; Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; (301) 451-5943; Whitea4@mail.nih.gov

    Sample Size: Representative sample of the United States population and 43,093 Americans participated in the first Wave of the survey. During Wave 2, reinterviewed 34,653 of those respondents interviewed in Wave 1.

  • National Evaluation of Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP), 1996-2003 [United States]
    National empirical assessment of post-release employment and recidivism effects based on legislative intent for inmates participating in Prison Industries Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP) as compared to participants in traditional industries (TI) and those involved in other than work (OTW) activities. The inmates were matched using 6 criteria. Exact matches were made on race, gender, crime type, and category matches on age, time served, and number of disciplinary reports. A cluster sampling strategy was used for site selection. This strategy resulted in a selection of five states which were not identified in the study. The researchers then collected data on 6,464 individuals by completing record reviews of outcomes for the 3 matched samples, each of approximately 2,200 inmates released from 46 prisons across 5 PIECP states between January 1, 1996, and June 30, 2001. Variables include demographic information, time incarcerated, number of disciplinary reports, crime type, number of major disciplinary reports reviewed, group type, number of quarters from release to employment, censored variables, number of quarters from employed to job loss, time from release variables, number of possible follow-up quarters, proportion of follow-up time worked, wage variables, number of quarters worked variables, no work ever, and cluster number of case.

  • National Former Prisoner Survey (NFPS) (2008)
    Part of the Bureau of Justice Statistics National Prison Rape Statistics Program, which gathers mandated data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual assault in correctional facilities under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. The Act requires the collection of information from former inmates on any experiences of sexual assault while incarcerated. The sample includes more than 18,500 interviews with former inmates on active parole supervision in over 330 parole offices. Also includes questions on education.

  • National Jail Census (1970+)
    Excluded from the census were federal- or state-administered facilities, including the combined jail-prison systems in Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Data include jail population by reason being held, age (juvenile or adult) and sex, maximum sentence that can be served in the facility, available services, type of security available, facility capacity, age, construction and renovation of the facility, employment, and operating expenditures. Also know as the Census of Jail Inmates.

  • National Judicial Reporting Program (1986+)
    Tabulates the number of persons convicted of felonies in state courts and describes their sentences. Data were collected from state courts and state prosecutors in 100 counties of the United States. The collection contains socio-demographic information such as age, race, and sex of the felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Adjudication variables referring to the process between arrest and sentencing are also included. Data can be analyzed at the national level or by the individual counties.

  • National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 and 1997
    Designed to document the transition from school to work and into adulthood. Collects extensive information about youths' labor market behavior and educational experiences over time. Also included is a survey of the biological children of women in the NLSY79. Documentation is available at the NLS site. See the NLS Investigator guide. For comparisons of National Longitudinal Surveys, Survey of Income and Program Participation, and Panel Study of Income Dynamics, see the comparison chart. Also see Finke and Huston. A separate file "Recidivism in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 - Standalone Data (Rounds 1 to 13)" contains recidivism data.

    Sample Size: The 1979 survey began with over 12,000 participants, while the 1997 survey began with approx. 9,000.

    Citation:
    National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 and 1997 (Electronic File)
    Principal investigator: Ohio State University. Center for Human Resource Research.
    Producer: Ohio State University, Center for Human Resource Research and U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    Distributor: Ohio State University. Center for Human Resource Research.

  • National Prisoner Statistics, 1978-2011
    Provides an enumeration of persons in state and federal prisons and collects data on key characteristics of the nation's prison population.

  • National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) Series (1979+)
    Formerly titled National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Strives to provide accurate data on the level and patterns of licit and illicit drug use, track trends in the use of alcohol and various types of drugs, assess the consequences of drug use and abuse, and identify groups with a high risk for drug abuse to assess and monitor the nature of drug and alcohol use and the consequences of abuse. Primarily measures drug and alcohol use incidence and prevalence among the general civilian population aged 12 and older in the United States. Questions include age at first use, as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drugs: alcohol, marijuana, cocaine (including crack), hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, tobacco, pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives. Covers substance abuse treatment history and perceived need for treatment, and includes questions from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders that allow diagnostic criteria to be applied. Respondents were also asked about personal and family income sources and amounts, health care access and coverage, illegal activities and arrest record, problems resulting from the use of drugs, perceptions of risks, and needle-sharing. Demographic data include gender, race, age, ethnicity, educational level, job status, income level, veteran status, household composition, and population density. Using R-DAS one can get crosstabs from the restricted data including the state identifier.

  • Offender Based Transaction Statistics (OBTS) (1979-1990)
    Information tracking adult offenders from the point of entry into the criminal justice system (typically by arrest), through final disposition, regardless of whether the offender is convicted or acquitted. Collected by individual states from existing data, the datasets include all cases that reached disposition during the calendar year. Using the individual adult offender as the unit for analysis, selected information is provided about the offender and his or her arrest, prosecution, and court disposition. Examples of variables included are arrest and level of arrest charge, date of arrest, charge filed by the prosecutor, prosecutor or grand jury disposition, type of counsel, type of trial, court disposition, sentence type, and minimum and maximum sentence length. Dates of disposition of each stage of the process allow for tracking of time spent at each stage.

  • Prison Rape Elimination Act Data Series
    The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) collects and analyzes data on the incidence and effects of sexual violence in prisons and jails. The data, in various datasets, are collected from individuals currently and formerly in federal, state, county, and municipal facilities. Data sets in this series include surveys and other statistical studies, including the National Inmate Survey (NIS), the Former Prisoner Survey (FPS), and the National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC).

  • Prisoner Recidivism Analysis Tool
    This analysis tool allows users to calculate recidivism rates for persons released from state prisons. Recidivism rates may be generated for the entire sample of released prisoners or for released prisoners with specific demographic, criminal history, and sentence attributes. The tool uses data collected by BJS on a sample of persons released from state prisons in 1994 and followed for a 3-year period. These are the most recent recidivism data available until a new BJS study on the recidivism of state prisoners released in 2005 is published in 2012.

  • Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods. 1994+
    Large-scale, interdisciplinary study of how families, schools, and neighborhoods affect child and adolescent development. It was designed to advance the understanding of the developmental pathways of both positive and negative human social behaviors. In particular, the project examined the causes and pathways of juvenile delinquency, adult crime, substance abuse, and violence. Also provides a detailed look at the environments in which these social behaviors take place by collecting substantial amounts of data about urban Chicago, including its people, institutions, and resources.

  • Research on Pathways to Desistance Series
    Multi-site, longitudinal study of serious adolescent offenders as they transition from adolescence into early adulthood. Between November, 2000 and January, 2003, 1,354 adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N = 654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N = 700) were enrolled into the study. The enrolled youth were 14 to 18 years old at the time of their committing offense and were found guilty of a serious offense (predominantly felonies, with a few exceptions for some misdemeanor property offenses, sexual assault, or weapons offenses). Each study participant was followed for 7 years past enrollment, with the end result a comprehensive picture of life changes in a wide array of areas over the course of this time. The study sought to inform the ongoing debate in the juvenile justice system regarding the treatment and processing of serious adolescent offenders. The larger aim of the series is to improve decision-making by court and social service personnel and to clarify policy debates about alternatives for serious adolescent offenders.

  • State Court Processing Statistics (1990-2006)
    Undertaken to determine whether accurate and comprehensive pretrial data can be collected at the local level and subsequently aggregated at the state and federal levels. The data contained in this collection provide a picture of felony defendants' movements through the criminal courts. Offenses were recoded into 14 broad categories that conform to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' crime definitions. Other variables include sex, race, age, prior record, relationship to criminal justice system at the time of the offense, pretrial release, detention decisions, court appearances, pretrial rearrest, adjudication, and sentencing. The unit of analysis is the defendant. Formerly National Pretrial Reporting Program (1988-1993).

  • Survey of Inmates in Local Jails. 1972+
    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.

  • Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities
    Nationally representative sample of state federal inmates. Gathered extensive information on demographic, socioeconomic, and criminal history characteristics. Also obtained were details of inmates' military service records such as time of service and branch of service, eligibility for benefits, type of discharge, and contact with veterans' groups. Other variables include age, ethnicity, education, gun possession and use, lifetime drug use and alcohol use and treatment, prior incarceration record, and prearrest annual income. Data on characteristics of victims and on prison activities, programs and services are provided as well.

    Surveys of State prison inmates have been conducted in 1974, 1979, 1986, 1991, 1997, and 2004. Sentenced Federal prison inmates were first interviewed in the 1991 survey. Surveys are conducted every approximately every 5 years.

  • Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) 2003
    Only national survey that gathers data directly from youth in the juvenile justice system. Surveyed offender youth between the ages of 10 and 20. SYRP asks the youth about their backgrounds, offense histories and problems; the facility environment; experiences in the facility; experiences with alcohol and drugs; experiences of victimization in placement; medical needs and services received; and their expectations for the future.

  • Time, Love, and Cash in Couples With Children Study (TLC3) [United States], 2000-2005
    Consists of complete transcriptions of 4 waves of individual and couple interviews with parents who experienced a birth in 2000, with over-sampling for nonmarital births. Both mothers and fathers participated in semi-structured, in-depth interviews both individually and as a couple in each of the four waves.

    Sample Size: 756 interviews. Sample is embedded in the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Participants were chosen based on a stratified, random sampling scheme from Chicago, New York, and Milwaukee. Nonmarital births were oversampled.

  • Unintended Impacts of Sentencing Reforms and Incarceration on Family Structure in the United States, 1984-1998
    Sought to investigate a possible relationship between sentencing guidelines and family structure in the United States.

  • Welfare, Children, and Families: A Three-City Study (1999+)
    Intensive study in Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio to assess the well-being of low-income children and families in the post-welfare reform era. Investigates the strategies families have used to respond to reform, in terms of employment, schooling or other forms of training, residential mobility, and fertility. Central to this project is a focus on how these strategies affect children's lives, with an emphasis on their health and development as well as their need for, and use of, social services.

  • Women in Prison in the 1990s: A Temporal and Institutional Comparison
    Explores the attitudes, perceptions and experiences of women in 2 prisons in California. Includes both a temporal component comparing women's experiences in one prison in the early 1960s and the mid-1990s, and a comparative institutional component, comparing women's experiences in 2 different prisons operating in the social and policy milieu of the mid-1990s. Analyzes surveys of inmates and secondary data collected from official records, archives, and an earlier study of women in prison in California. Portrayed women's reactions to prison as a function of (1) inmates' pre-prison characteristics, (2) characteristics of inmates' prison careers, (3) institutional structures and processes, (4) crime control ideologies and policies, (5) public attitudes toward crime and criminals, and (6) women's roles, opportunities, and lifestyles in the wider society. Closed-ended questions were developed for the survey designed to measure (1) the most difficult aspects of doing time, (2) the specific problems of prison life, (3) the various types of inmates and inmate relations, and (4) the nature of inmate-staff relations. The survey also included questions based on measures and scales used in penology research and the survey initially administered by Ward and Kassebaum to women prisoners in the 1960s. Demographic questions included age, ethnicity, if born in the United States, length of residence in the United States, marital status, and education.

This page last updated: October 21, 2009