This survey of inmates in five California prisons was conducted by the RAND Corporation with a grant from the National Institute of Justice. Researchers distributed an anonymous self-administered questionnaire to groups of 10-20 inmates at a time. Using the self-report technique, the survey obtained detailed information about the crimes committed by these prisoners prior to their incarceration. Variables were calculated to examine the characteristics of repeatedly arrested or convicted offenders (recidivists) as well as offenders reporting the greatest number of serious crimes (habitual criminals). The variables include crimes committed leading to incarceration, rates of criminal activity, and social-psychological scales for analyzing motivations to commit crimes, as well as self-reports of age, race, education, marital status, employment, income, and drug use.

As of February 2025, El Salvador had the highest prisoner rate worldwide, with over 1,600 prisoners per 100,000 of the national population. Cuba, Rwanda, Turkmenistan, and the United States, rounded out the top five countries with the highest rate of incarceration. Homicides in El Salvador Interestingly, El Salvador, which long had the highest global homicide rates, has dropped out of the top 20 after a high number of gang members have been incarcerated. A high number of the countries with the highest homicide rate are located in Latin America. Prisoners in the United StatesThe United States is home to the largest number of prisoners worldwide. More than 1.8 million people were incarcerated in the U.S. at the beginning of 2025. In China, the estimated prison population totaled 1.69 million people that year. Other nations had far fewer prisoners. The largest share of the U.S. prisoners in federal correctional facilities were of African-American origin. As of 2020, there were 345,500 black, non-Hispanic prisoners, compared to 327,300 white, non-Hispanic inmates. The U.S. states with the largest number of prisoners in 2022 were Texas, California, and Florida. Over 160,000 prisoners in state facilities were sentenced for rape or sexual assault, which was the most common cause of imprisonment. The second most common was murder, followed by aggravated or simple assault.

As of December 2022, there was a total of 139,631 prisoners in the state of Texas, the most out of any state. California, Florida, Georgia, and Ohio rounded out the top five states with the most prisoners in the United States.

In 1980, the National Institute of Justice awarded a grant to the Cornell University College of Human Ecology for the establishment of the Center for the Study of Race, Crime, and Social Policy in Oakland, California. This center mounted a long-term research project that sought to explain the wide variation in crime statistics by race and ethnicity. Using information from eight ethnic communities in Oakland, California, representing working- and middle-class Black, White, Chinese, and Hispanic groups, as well as additional data from Oakland's justice systems and local organizations, the center conducted empirical research to describe the criminalization process and to explore the relationship between race and crime. The differences in observed patterns and levels of crime were analyzed in terms of: (1) the abilities of local ethnic communities to contribute to, resist, neutralize, or otherwise affect the criminalization of its members, (2) the impacts of criminal justice policies on ethnic communities and their members, and (3) the cumulative impacts of criminal justice agency decisions on the processing of individuals in the system. Administrative records data were gathered from two sources, the Alameda County Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) (Part 1) and the Oakland District Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) (Part 2). In addition to collecting administrative data, the researchers also surveyed residents (Part 3), police officers (Part 4), and public defenders and district attorneys (Part 5). The eight study areas included a middle- and low-income pair of census tracts for each of the four racial/ethnic groups: white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian. Part 1, Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) Data, contains information on offenders' most serious felony and misdemeanor arrests, dispositions, offense codes, bail arrangements, fines, jail terms, and pleas for both current and prior arrests in Alameda County. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and marital status. Variables in Part 2, District Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) Data, include current and prior charges, days from offense to charge, disposition, and arrest, plea agreement conditions, final results from both municipal court and superior court, sentence outcomes, date and outcome of arraignment, disposition, and sentence, number and type of enhancements, numbers of convictions, mistrials, acquittals, insanity pleas, and dismissals, and factors that determined the prison term. For Part 3, Oakland Community Crime Survey Data, researchers interviewed 1,930 Oakland residents from eight communities. Information was gathered from community residents on the quality of schools, shopping, and transportation in their neighborhoods, the neighborhood's racial composition, neighborhood problems, such as noise, abandoned buildings, and drugs, level of crime in the neighborhood, chances of being victimized, how respondents would describe certain types of criminals in terms of age, race, education, and work history, community involvement, crime prevention measures, the performance of the police, judges, and attorneys, victimization experiences, and fear of certain types of crimes. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and family status. For Part 4, Oakland Police Department Survey Data, Oakland County police officers were asked about why they joined the police force, how they perceived their role, aspects of a good and a bad police officer, why they believed crime was down, and how they would describe certain beats in terms of drug availability, crime rates, socioeconomic status, number of juveniles, potential for violence, residential versus commercial, and degree of danger. Officers were also asked about problems particular neighborhoods were experiencing, strategies for reducing crime, difficulties in doing police work well, and work conditions. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, level of education, and years on the force. In Part 5, Public Defender/District Attorney Survey Data, public defenders and district attorneys were queried regarding which offenses were increasing most rapidly in Oakland, and they were asked to rank certain offenses in terms of seriousness. Respondents were also asked about the public's influence on criminal justice agencies and on the performance of certain criminal justice agencies. Respondents were presented with a list of crimes and asked how typical these offenses were and what factors influenced their decisions about such cases (e.g., intent, motive, evidence, behavior, prior history, injury or loss, substance abuse, emotional trauma). Other variables measured how often and under what circumstances the public defender and client and the public defender and the district attorney agreed on the case, defendant characteristics in terms of who should not be put on the stand, the effects of Proposition 8, public defender and district attorney plea guidelines, attorney discretion, and advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of a defendant. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, religion, years of experience, and area of responsibility.

Investigator(s): Bureau of Justice Statistics This series of studies contains a descriptive analysis of federal and state-operated adult confinement and correctional facilities nationwide. The census included 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. The Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities is produced every 5 years.

This data set provides access to counts of COVID-19 cases by CDCR institution and case status by day. It also provides testing volume data. It includes the CDCR institution name, the total confirmed cases at a reporting date, total active cases in custody at a reporting date, total released while active, total resolved, total deaths, and distinct patients tested. Data is open and accessible to the public

Created for the 2023-2025 State of Black Los Angeles County (SBLA) interactive report. To learn more about this effort, please visit the report home page at https://ceo.lacounty.gov/ardi/sbla/. For more information about the purpose of this data, please contact CEO-ARDI. For more information about the configuration of this data, please contact ISD-Enterprise GIS. table name indicator name Universe source race notes timeframe source url

traffic_stops Traffic stops Traffic violation stops; ORI CA019xxxx (LA County Law Enforcement Agencies) CA DOJ Race is perceived by officer; any one race is alone or in combination with another race 2019 Annual Download from LAC Open Data

perceived_neighborhood_safe_2018 Perceived Their Neighborhood to Be Safe from Crime Estimate (%) Adults (Ages 18 Years and Older) LAC Health Survey

2018 https://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/ha/LACHSDataTopics2018.htm

jail_pop_per100k_2016jail_pop_per100k_2019jail_pop_per100k_2021 Jail population rate per 100k population Average daily number of people held in jail in a given year; population denominator is ages 15 - 64 Vera Institute

2016 2019 2021 https://github.com/vera-institute/incarceration-trends/blob/master/README.mdhttps://trends.vera.org/state/CA/county/los_angeles_county

prison_pop_per100k_2016 Prison population rate per 100k population Point in time count of people in prison on December 31 of a given year; population denominator is ages 15 - 64 Vera Institute

2016 https://github.com/vera-institute/incarceration-trends/blob/master/README.md

arrests_adult_felony Total Felony Arrests - Adult Los Angeles County Arrests CA DOJ The subjectivity of the classification and labeling process must be considered in the analysis of race/ethnic group data. 2017-2021 https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/data

arrests_adult_misdemeanor Total Misdemeanor Arrests - Adult Los Angeles County Arrests CA DOJ The subjectivity of the classification and labeling process must be considered in the analysis of race/ethnic group data. 2017-2021 https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/data

domestic_violencedv_maledv_female Percent of Adults (Ages 18 Years and Older) Who Reported Ever Experiencing Physical and/or Sexual Violence by an Intimate Partner.
Adults/td> Los Angeles County Health Survey Overall and broken down by gender 2018 https://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/ha/HA_DATA_TRENDS.htm

This study was designed to assess the needs and characteristics of the female juvenile offender population in California and to evaluate the existing program structure. The main focus was to conduct a pilot study to test an instrument the researchers had designed for profiling the needs of youthful female offenders in developing a protocol for use by other jurisdictions and agencies working with delinquent female youths. To study the needs and program demands of young female offenders, the researchers conducted a profile survey of 162 randomly-selected women at the Ventura School in the California Youth Authority (CYA) in the summer of 1996. The data are the result of personal interviews using a modified version of the instrument used for a 1995 study of adult female offenders in the California Department of Corrections by the principal investigators. Information was collected on demographics, social and economic background, criminal history, and correctional experiences. Demographic variables include age, race and ethnicity, marital status, and parents' marital status. Variables on social and economic background include religious preference, living situation, education, work history, family relationships, pregnancy history while incarcerated, and family and juvenile history. Criminal history variables cover gang involvement, arrest and sentence information, offense profile, reasons for committing the offense, weapon use, substance abuse history, and personal abuse. Variables on correctional experiences include abuse counseling, HIV testing, correctional programming participation, work experience during incarceration, and California Youth Authority housing assignment.

Jail incarceration rates are measured by the number of incarcerated individuals in jail per 100,000 population aged 18-69. This Indicator is measured for Alameda County, and the most recently available data is from 2015.

Adult correctional services, custodial and community supervision, average counts of adults in provincial and territorial programs, five years of data.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General annually releases data on the segregation, restrictive confinement, and deaths in custody of inmates in Ontario’s adult correctional system. Data Source: Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) Segregation is defined in Ontario Regulation 778 as any type of custody where an inmate is in highly restricted conditions for 22 to 24 hours or does not receive a minimum of two hours of meaningful social interaction each day, excluding circumstances of an unscheduled lockdown. A record is created each time an inmate meets the conditions of segregation and closed when the inmate no longer meets those conditions. A break in a segregation placement is defined as occurring when an individual is out of segregation conditions for 24 or more continuous hours. The Ministry of the Solicitor General defines restrictive confinement as any type of confinement that is more restrictive than the general population but less restrictive than segregation. As a result, the ministry is reporting on any case within the fiscal year reporting period where an individual was held in a unit regularly scheduled to be locked down for 17 hours or more per day. This timeframe is considered more restrictive than that of the general population based on an assessment of provincewide lockdown times. Regularly scheduled lockdowns are daily routine times where movement out of a cell is restricted, such as during meal times and overnight. The Ministry of the Solicitor General is committed to providing greater transparency by releasing data on all custodial-related deaths that occurred within the calendar year reporting period. The datasets in this category include information on gender, race, age, religion or spiritual affiliation, and alerts for mental health concerns and suicide risk. To simplify the provision of data, several data tables include information on both individuals in segregation conditions and individuals in restrictive confinement. Due to the differences in the way that the data on segregation conditions and restrictive confinement have been collected, and the differences in the definitions of these concepts, these numbers should not be compared to each other. Some individuals may have both placements in restrictive confinement and segregation conditions, within the reporting period. Therefore, these numbers should not be added together when calculating proportions out of the total. Please refer to https://www.ontario.ca/page/jahn-settlement-data-inmates-ontario for additional information on the data release, including written overviews of the data and disclosure on data collection methods.

The prison boundaries feature class contains secure detention facilities. These facilities range in jurisdiction from federal(excluding military) to local governments. Polygon geometry is used to describe the extent of where the incarcerated population is located (fence lines or building footprints). This feature class’s attribution describes many physical and social characteristics of detention facilities in the United States and some of its territories. The attribution for this feature class was populated by open source search methodologies of authoritative sources.This feature class contains secure detention facilities for the Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) database (https://gii.dhs.gov/HIFLD).

Adult correctional services, custodial and community supervision, average counts of offenders in federal programs, Canada and regions, five years of data.

This B.C. Corrections has ten adult custody centres. This extract provides the number of clients in custody in provincial custody centres on the first day of each month by centre, gender, ethnicity, marital status, age group, and month for the fiscal years 2008-09 to 2023-24. This data cannot be aggregated on a month by month bases; rather, it is a point in time snapshot giving a count of the provincial adult corrections population on the first of each month.

This study examined women correctional officers working in the 11 institutions for men operated by the California Department of Corrections in 1979. For Part 1, Census, researchers conducted a census of all 386 female correctional officers working in these institutions to collect demographic characteristics and baseline data. For Parts 2 (Staff) and 3 (Inmate), a survey was administered to staff and inmates asking their opinions about differences in performance between male and female correctional officers. Part 4, Profile, contains demographic and background data for the officers participating in the Part 2 survey. For Parts 5 (Female) and 6 (Male), researchers gathered job performance data for female correctional officers in 7 of the 11 institutions, as well as a matched sample of male correctional officers. Variables in Parts 1 and 4-6 include demographic information such as age, ethnicity, marital status, number of children, and educational and occupational history. Other variables measure attributes such as age, weight, and height, and record career information such as date and _location of permanent assignment as a correctional officer, any breaks in service, and other criminal justice work experience. Additional variables in Parts 5 and 6 include job performance measures, such as ratings on skills, knowledge, work habits, learning ability, overall work habits, quality and quantity of work, and commendations. Parts 2 and 3 present information on staff and inmate evaluations of male and female correctional officers performing specific roles, such as control work officer, yard officer, or security squad officer. Additional variables include opinions on how well male and female officers handled emergency situations, maintained control under stress, and used firearms when necessary. Questions were also asked about whether inmates' or officers' safety was endangered with female officers, whether women should be hired as correctional officers, and whether female officers were gaining acceptance in correctional facilities.

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.

BackgroundCarceral facilities are high-risk settings for COVID-19 transmission. Little is known about the hidden burden of infection or practical barriers to infection control in these settings, especially in jails. There is also limited research on the mental health impacts of the pandemic among people living and working in carceral facilities.MethodsBetween July 8, 2020 and April 30, 2021, we performed SARS-CoV-2 rapid antibody testing and administered a questionnaire among residents and staff of four Northern California jails. We utilized multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for demographic and carceral characteristics, to analyze factors associated with prior infection, including perceived likelihood of prior infection and access to new masks. We additionally assessed the implementation of, perceptions toward, and impacts of COVID-19 policies in practice. We engaged stakeholder representatives, including incarcerated individuals, to guide study design, procedures, and results interpretation.ResultsWe enrolled 788 jail residents and 380 jail staff. Nearly half of residents and two-thirds of staff who were antibody-positive had not previously tested positive for COVID-19. Among residents without a prior COVID-19 diagnosis, antibody positivity was significantly associated with perceived likelihood of prior infection (adjusted OR = 8.9; 95% CI, 3.6–22.0). Residents who had flu-like illness in jail cited inadequate responses to reported illness and deterrents to symptom reporting, including fears of medical isolation and perceptions of medical neglect. Residents also disclosed deficient access to face masks, which was associated with antibody positivity (adjusted OR = 13.8, 95% CI, 1.8–107.0). Worsened mental health was pervasive among residents, attributed not only to fear of COVID-19 and unsanitary jail conditions but also to intensified isolation and deprivation due to pandemic restrictions on in-person visitation, programs, and recreation time.ConclusionCarceral settings present significant challenges to maintaining infection control and human rights. Custody officials should work diligently to transform the conditions of medical isolation, which could mitigate deterrents to symptom reporting. Furthermore, they should minimize use of restrictive measures like lockdowns and suspension of visitation that exacerbate the mental health harms of incarceration. Instead, custody officials should ensure comprehensive implementation of other preventive strategies like masking, testing, and vaccination, in conjunction with multisector efforts to advance decarceration.

This study was conducted to provide a consistent and comprehensive description of convicted persons' entrance into and departure from correctional custody and correctional supervision. To accomplish this goal, data were gathered from official state prison records on topics such as race, sex, and age of inmates, length of time in jail, length of time in prison, and type of offense committed. The data were collected from the state prison systems of 35 states, as well as the Federal Prison System and the California Youth Authority, and the District of Columbia.

Historical population data captured daily. Two figures are shown those in custody and those in outside custody but are still under the responsibility of Sonoma County Sheriff. Examples of outside custody include home confinement, state prison, hospital stays, weekend custody, and supervised by other agencies.

This study is a follow-up to the National Jail Census, 1970. In addition to gathering more information concerning jails, the survey also collected demographic data, incarceration history, and legal status data from a sample of the inmates of local jails. The study includes basic demographic data, income and employment data, reason for incarceration, bail status, dates of admission and sentencing, length and type of sentence and previous incarceration history.