DOI: 10.3886/icpsr06788
title: Availability and Use of Intermediate Sanctions by Judges and Corrections Professionals in the United States, 1994
title: Archival Version

description: This survey is part of a larger project designed to explore ways to increase the availability and use of intermediate sanctions (IS) on a national level without jeopardizing public safety. A model for an Intermediate Punishment System is suggested. The survey was undertaken to ascertain attitudes and practices concerning IS for three groups: state and federal judges (Part 3), correctional system administrators responsible for community corrections in their state or jurisdiction (Part 1), and program directors who actually operated community programs (Part 2). The units of analysis were intermediate sanctions/programs operating in jurisdictions across the United States. Data were collected on the availability and frequency of use of IS, as well as costs, client/staffing ratios, use of rehabilitative programming, respondents' opinions concerning the field's needs, and program eligibility criteria. Information was also gathered on how decisions were made to place offenders into the various programs, program outcome and whether the program was viewed as being successful (and how this was measured), and types of new programs needed.
description: The purpose of this survey was to ascertain the attitudes and practices of judges, system administrators, and program directors regarding intermediate sanctions with the further objective of exploring ways to increase the availability and use of intermediate sanctions on a national level.
description: Survey questionnaires were mailed to judges, program directors, and administrators to elicit information on attitudes and practices with respect to IS.
description: Data were collected on the availability and frequency of use of IS, as well as costs, client/staffing ratios, use of rehabilitative programming, respondents' opinions concerning the field's needs, and program eligibility criteria. Information was also gathered on how decisions were made to place offenders into the various programs, program outcome and whether the program was viewed as being successful (and how this was measured), and types of new programs needed.
description: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Created variable labels and/or value labels.; Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
description: Presence of Common Scales: None.
description: Response Rates: The survey of judges yielded a 32-percent response rate without follow-up. The survey of correctional administrators resulted in responses for 41 jurisdictions without follow-up. Regarding program directors, for whom follow-up contact was desired, responses were received from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons for 158 different sanctions programs.
description: Datasets: 
 
 DS0: Study-Level Files 
 DS1: Administrators Data File 
 DS2: Project Directors Data File 
 DS3: Judges Data File
description: The codebooks, user guide, and data collection instruments are provided as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided through the ICPSR Website on the Internet.
description: Intermediate sanctions/programs operating in jurisdictions across the United States.
description: A 10-percent random sample was used for the judges survey. Both federal and state jurisdictions were sampled -- federal district courts and state courts of general jurisdiction. Officials responsible for community corrections in each jurisdiction were selected from the "1993 Directory of Juvenile and Adult Correctional Departments, Agencies, and Paroling Authorities." System administrators were asked to identify personnel who actually operated their IS programs.