AndreaBozzo/ceres-open-data-index huggingface dataset:
Annual Parole Survey, 2018

The 2018 Annual Parole Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised in the community on January 1 and December 31, 2018, and a count of the number entering and leaving supervision during the year. The survey also provides counts of the number of parolees by certain characteristics, such as gender, race and Hispanic or Latino origin, supervision status, and type of offense. This survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Federal System.
Annual Probation Survey, 2018

The 2018 Annual Probation Survey provides a count of the total number of persons supervised on probation on January 1 and December 31, 2018, and a count of the number of persons entering and exiting probation supervision during 2018. The survey also provides counts of the number of probationers by certain characteristics, such as sex, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, offense, and supervision status. The survey covers all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system.
National Corrections Reporting Program, 1991-2019: Selected Variables

The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) compiles offender-level data on admissions and releases from state and federal prisons and post-confinement community supervision. The data are used to monitor the nation's correctional population and address specific policy questions related to recidivism, prisoner reentry, and trends in demographic characteristics of the incarcerated and community supervision populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the NCRP since 1983. Abt Associates has served as the NCRP data collection agent since October 2010.
This version of the NCRP contains selected variables making it suitable for public release.
This version of the NCRP data contains data for term records, prison admissions, prison releases, and year-end prison population counts. The data files have selected variables making the data suitable for public release. The complete version of NCRP data is classified as restricted access. Please search for (ICPSR No. 38047) to find the analogous complete version of this file.
National Corrections Reporting Program, [United States], 2000-2019

The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) compiles offender-level data on admissions and releases from state and federal prisons and post-confinement community supervision. The data are used to monitor the nation's correctional population and address specific policy questions related to recidivism, prisoner reentry, and trends in demographic characteristics of the incarcerated and community supervision populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the NCRP since 1983. Abt Associates has served as the NCRP data collection agent since October 2010.
Mortality in Correctional Institutions: Jail Population Distributions, 2000-2019

The Mortality in Correctional Institutions series (MCI), formerly Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP), is an annual data collection conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The DCRP began in 2000 under the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-297). It is the only national statistical collection that obtains detailed information about deaths in adult correctional facilities. The MCI collects data on persons dying in state prisons, local jails and in the process of arrest. Each collection is a separate subcollection, but each is under the umbrella of the MCI collection. This deals with the local jails subcollection, which includes a jail populations file.
The jails portion of the Mortality in Correctional Institutions began in 2000 after the passage of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 in October of 2000. The original law lapsed at year-end 2006, but BJS continued to collect the data on a voluntary basis until the reauthorization of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act in December of 2014. The jails component of the MCI collects data on deaths of inmates occurring in local jail facilities while inmates are in the physical custody of jail facility officials, even if they are being held for other jurisdictions.
This longitudinal dataset includes year-end estimates of the demographic characteristics of all jail populations at the national level. It does not include death data. Users interested in that data should refer to Mortality in Correctional Institutions: Local Jails, 2000-2019 (ICPSR 38036).
Mortality in Correctional Institutions: Jail Populations, 2000-2019

Mortality in Correctional Institutions (MCI)(formerly, the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP)) is an annual data collection
conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The MCI began in 2000
under the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-297). It is the
only national statistical collection that obtains detailed information
about deaths in adult correctional facilities. The MCI collects data on
persons dying in state prisons, local jails and in the process of
arrest. Each collection is a separate subcollection, but each is under the
umbrella of the MCI collection. This collection deals with the jail subcollection, which includes a jail populations file.
The jail portion of Mortality in Correctional Institutions began in 2000
after the passage of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 in October
of 2000. The original law lapsed at year-end 2006, but BJS continued to collect the data on a voluntary basis until the reauthorization of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act in December of 2014. The jail component of the MCI collects data on the death of any inmate in his/her custody, even if the inmate was being held for another jurisdiction, such as the state department of corrections, another state or county, or the federal government. Jail deaths include the death of any inmate sent outside the jail facility for medical, mental health or substance abuse treatment services, or for work-release programs. Deaths that occur while an inmate is in transit to or from the jail facility are included. Deaths of jail inmates on temporary furloughs or who escaped from the jail facility are excluded.
This longitudinal dataset includes year-end collections of population and admissions data from all jail jurisdictions nationwide annually, from 2000 to 2019. The file does not include death data. Interested users should see Mortality in Correctional Institutions: Local Jails, 2000-2019 (ICPSR 38036).
Mortality in Correctional Institutions: Local Jails, 2000-2019

The Mortality in Correctional Institutions series (MCI), formerly Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP), is an annual data collection conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The MCI began in 2000 under the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-297). It is the only national statistical collection that obtains detailed information about deaths in adult correctional facilities. The local jail portion began in 2000 after the passage of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 in October of 2000. The jails component of MCI collects data on inmate deaths occurring in local jail facilities while inmates are in the physical custody of jail facility officials.
Monitoring of Federal Criminal Convictions and Sentences: Appeals Data, 2019

This collection contains appellate information from the 12 circuit courts of appeals of the United States. From the Clerk of the Court of each court of appeals, the United States Sentencing Commission compiled 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 even though they are 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.
Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance Mental Health Court Initiative at Seven Sites in the United States, 2003-2004

This study evaluated seven mental health courts that were
partially funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Data were
collected on 285 formal referrals to the seven courts between November
1, 2003, and January 31, 2004. For every referral, court staff completed
a one-page questionnaire that covered (1) identification of the
referring agent, (2) characteristics of the referred person, including
age, gender, race, criminal charges, and type of mental disorder, and
(3) the disposition decision.
Hospital-Based Victim Assistance for Physically Injured Crime Victims in Charleston, South Carolina, 1990-1991

The central purpose of this study was to provide
descriptive information about hospitalized crime victims. More
specifically, patients' knowledge of victim services, the legal
justice system, and victims' rights were explored through their use of
medical and dental services. From July 1, 1990, to June 30, 1991, the
project staff obtained daily reports from the Medical University of
South Carolina (MUSC) Admissions Office regarding new admissions to
specified units. If patients granted permission, the staff member
administered a Criminal Victimization Screening Schedule (CVSS) and
asked permission to review the relevant portion of their medical
charts. Patients were also asked if they would be willing to
participate in interviews about their victimization. If so, they were
given the Criminal Victimization Interview (CVI), a structured
interview schedule developed for this study that included items on
demographics, victim and assault characteristics, knowledge of
victims' rights, and a post-traumatic stress disorder checklist. This
information is contained in Part 1, Interview Data File. At the
conclusion of the personal interviews, patients were referred to the
Model Hospital Victim Assistance Program (MHVAP), which was developed
for this project and which provided information, advocacy, crisis
counseling, and post-discharge referral services to hospitalized crime
victims and their families. The Follow-Up Criminal Victimization
Interview (FUCVI) was administered to 30 crime victims who had
participated in the study and who were successfully located 3 months
after discharge from the hospital. The FUCVI included questions on
health status, victim services utilization and satisfaction, and
satisfaction with the criminal justice system. These data are found in
Part 2, Follow-Up Data File.
Drug Offender Treatment in Local Corrections in California and New York, 1991-1993

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.
Management of Sex Offenders by Probation and Parole Agencies in the United States, 1994

This study examined various ways states approach and
 sanction sex crimes (i.e., child sexual abuse, incest, and sexual
 assault) and sex offenders. The aim of the study was to obtain basic
 information about policies and procedures of probation and parole
 agencies with respect to adult sex offender case management.  State
 corrections administrators in 49 states and the District of Columbia
 were contacted to supply information on their states' probation and
 parole offices and the corresponding jurisdictions. From these
 offices, probation and parole supervisors at the office-management
 level were selected as survey respondents because of their familiarity
 with the day-to-day office operations. Respondents were asked about
 the usage of various supervision methods, such as electronic
 monitoring, requiring offenders on probation or parole to register
 with law enforcement agencies, and polygraph testing. Sanctions such
 as requiring the offenders to seek treatment and forbidding contact
 with the victim were discussed, as were various queries about the
 handling of the victim in the case (whether a written statement by the
 victim was routinely included in the offender's file, whether officers
 usually had contact with the victim, and whether there was a system
 for advising victims of status changes for the offender). Other
 questions focused on whether the office used specialized assessments,
 caseloads, programs, and policies for sex offenders that differed from
 those used for other offenders. Various issues regarding treatment for
 offenders were also examined: who chooses and pays the treatment
 provider, whether the agency or the court approves treatment
 providers, what criteria are involved in approval, and whether the
office had an in-house sex offender treatment program.
Phoenix [Arizona] Use of Force Project, June 1994

In 1994, the Phoenix Police Department, in conjunction with
 Rutgers University and Arizona State University, designed and
 implemented a study on the use of force by and against Phoenix police
 officers. This study was concerned with describing the amount of force
 used in different arrest situations and determining the extent to
 which officer, suspect, offense, and arrest situation characteristics
 can predict the amount of force used. Data were collected primarily
 through a one-page, two-sided survey instrument given to police
 officers. In addition, screening interviews regarding the use of force
 during the arrest were conducted with both officers and suspects to
 assess the reliability of the officer surveys. During the screening
 interviews, officers and suspects were asked brief questions about the
 use and extent of force by officers and suspects. In the officer
 survey form, six potential areas of force were identified: voice,
 motion, restraints, tactics, weapons, and injuries. Three dimensions
 of weapons use--possession, threatened use, and actual use--were also
 recorded. Basic demographic information on officers and suspects,
 descriptions of the arrest, and information regarding injuries were
also collected.
Cost of Mental Health Care for Victims of Crime in the United States, 1991

The main objective of this survey was to determine the
 number of crime victims receiving mental health counseling, by type of
 crime, and the annual cost of treatment for each type of crime
 victim. Multiplying these two figures would yield an estimate of the
 annual financial cost of mental health care for crime victims. For
 this survey, mental health professionals were sampled from eight
 professional organizations and were asked questions about their
 clients during 1991. Respondents were instructed to count only those
 clients whose primary reason for being treated was because they were
 previously crime victims, regardless of whether the criminal
 victimization was the presenting issue at the time the client was
 first treated. Interviews were structured to first elicit information
 about the number of victims served for each type of crime. Respondents
 were then asked for details about the type and length of treatment for
 the crime type most frequently encountered by the respondent. Similar
 information was obtained for each additional crime type mentioned by
 the respondent, in descending order of frequency. Variables include
the number of adults, youths, and children served
Extended National Assessment Survey of Law Enforcement Anti-Gang Information Resources, 1993-1994

This survey extended a 1992 survey (NATIONAL ASSESSMENT
SURVEY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ANTI-GANG INFORMATION RESOURCES, 1990-1992
[ICPSR 6237]) in two ways: (1) by updating the information on the 122
municipalities included in the 1992 survey, and (2) by including data
on all cities in the United States ranging in population from 150,000
to 200,000 and including a random sample of 284 municipalities ranging
in population from 25,000 to 150,000. Gang crime problems were defined
in the same manner as in the 1992 survey, i.e., a gang (1) was
identified by the police as a "gang," (2) participated in criminal
activity, and (3) involved youth in its membership. As in the 1992
survey, a letter was sent to the senior law enforcement departmental
administrator of each agency describing the nature of the survey. For
jurisdictions included in the 1992 survey, the letter listed the
specific information that had been provided in the 1992 survey and
identified the departmental representative who provided the 1992 data.
The senior law enforcement administrator was asked to report whether a
gang crime problem existed within the jurisdiction in 1994. If a
problem was reported, the administrator was asked to identify a
representative of the department to provide gang crime statistics and
a representative who was most knowledgeable on anti-gang field
operations. Annual statistics on gang-related crime were then
solicited from the departmental statistical representative. Variables
include city, state, ZIP code, and population category of the police
department, and whether the department reported a gang problem in
1994. Data on the number of gangs, gang members, and gang-related
incidents reported by the police department are also provided. If
actual numbers were not provided by the police department, estimates
of the number of gangs, gang members, and gang-related incidents were
calculated by sampling category.
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Project in Rural Nebraska, 1998

A pilot outreach project of the National Intstitute of Justice's Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program, the rural Nebraska ADAM program examined the prevalence and type of arrestee drug use in four rural Nebraska counties and compared the results to those found in Omaha, Nebraska, an established ADAM site. The data were collected in Madison (n=78), Dawson (n=50), Hall (n=53), and Scotts Bluff (n=149) counties, and Omaha, Nebraska, (n=202) in October and November of 1998. The catchment area for Omaha was the central city. The ADAM interview provided demographic and descriptive data, including race, age, marital status, source of income, screens of substance abuse and dependency, treatment history, arrest and incarceration experiences, and participation in local drug markets. At the conclusion of the interview, respondents were asked to provide a urine specimen. The current study included a supplemental questionnaire about methamphetamine use. The methamphetamine addendum included variables on why the respondent began and continued the use of methamphetamines, how often and how much methamphetamine was used, if and why the respondent had ever sought and completed treatment, source of the methamphetamine, and if the respondent had ever made or sold methamphetamine.
Monitoring Drug Markets in Manhattan [New York City], With the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, 1998-2002

The purpose of the study was to determine how much Manhattan (New York City) arrestees surveyed by the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program spend on drug expenses.  The program obtained both self-report and urinalysis data from a total of 5,210 Manhattan arrestees surveyed by the ADAM program from 1998 to 2002.  The principal investigators developed a formula for an episodic estimator of a respondent's drug expense for cash, noncash, and cash-combination transactions.  The dataset contains a total of 267 variables relating to Manhattan arrestees' demographics, interview information, criminal history, urinalysis test results, drug use, drug market transactions, and drug expenses.
Hair Assays for Drugs of Abuse in a Probation Population:  Pilot Study in a Florida Correctional Field Setting, 1993

The major objectives of this research project were: (1) to
 evaluate the effectiveness of the combination of hair and urine assays
 in determining drug use among probationers, (2) to examine the
 concordance patterns of hair and urine specimens, (3) to explore the
 perceptions and attitudes of probation officers regarding the use of hair
 assays for drug testing, and (4) to assess the feasibility of
 implementing hair analysis in a probationary field setting. The 22
 correctional officers who participated in this study were recruited
 from the Florida Department of Corrections Probation Field Services
 Divisions, and worked within Pinellas and Pasco counties. Each
 officer was requested to solicit from his or her caseload eight to ten
 probationers who would be eligible for the project because they would
 be undergoing at least monthly urinalysis or urine testing.
 Approximately 150 probationers participated in the project and were
 subject to hair assays for illicit drug use, along with standard urine
 testing. Specimens were collected and analyzed on 90
 probationers over a six-month period and on 101 probationers for five
 consecutive months, as well as fewer numbers of samples for the other
 probationers. The drugs for which the hair and urine specimens were
 analyzed included cocaine, opiates, cannabinoids such as marijuana,
 PCP, and methadone. Survey questions asked of the probation officers
 (Part 1) covered personal information (gender, ethnicity, education
 level, years of experience in corrections, and satisfaction with job)
 and attitudes and opinions about their jobs and drug testing
 (estimated percentage of caseload using drugs, whether all clients
 should be tested, and whether knowing drug quantities is helpful).
 Data in Part 2 cover probationers' drug test results and self-reported
 drug use, personal information (gender, age,
 weight, ethnicity, and criminal charge), a variety of hair questions
 (color, texture, style, length, how often shampooed, and if dyed,
 tinted, bleached, relaxed, or jeried), and use of medications, along
with the medication name and amount.