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.

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.

In 2022, the incarceration rate of African Americans in local jails in the United States was *** incarcerations per 100,000 of the population -- the highest rate of any race or ethnicity. The second-highest incarceration rate was among American Indians/Alaska Natives, at *** incarcerations per 100,000 of the population.

At the beginning of 2025, the United States had the highest number of incarcerated individuals worldwide, with around 1.8 million people in prison. China followed with around 100,000 fewer prisoners. Brazil followed in third. The incarceration problem in the U.S. The United States has an incredibly high number of incarcerated individuals. Therefore, the incarceration problem has become a widely contested issue, because it impacts disadvantaged people and minorities the most. Additionally, the prison system has become capitalized by outside corporations that fund prisons, but there is still a high cost to taxpayers. Furthermore, there has been an increase in the amount of private prisons that have been created. For-profit prison companies have come under scrutiny because of their lack of satisfactory staff and widespread lobbying. Violent offenses are the most common type of offense among prisoners in the U.S. Incarceration rates worldwide El Salvador had the highest rate of incarceration worldwide, at 1,659 prisoners per 100,000 residents as of February 2025. Cuba followed in second with 794 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants. The incarceration rate is a better measure to use when comparing countries than the total prison populations, which will naturally have the most populous countries topping the list.

Overview

The Marshall Project, the nonprofit investigative newsroom dedicated to the U.S. criminal justice system, has partnered with The Associated Press to compile data on the prevalence of COVID-19 infection in prisons across the country. The Associated Press is sharing this data as the most comprehensive current national source of COVID-19 outbreaks in state and federal prisons.

Lawyers, criminal justice reform advocates and families of the incarcerated have worried about what was happening in prisons across the nation as coronavirus began to take hold in the communities outside. Data collected by The Marshall Project and AP shows that hundreds of thousands of prisoners, workers, correctional officers and staff have caught the illness as prisons became the center of some of the country’s largest outbreaks. And thousands of people — most of them incarcerated — have died.

In December, as COVID-19 cases spiked across the U.S., the news organizations also shared cumulative rates of infection among prison populations, to better gauge the total effects of the pandemic on prison populations. The analysis found that by mid-December, one in five state and federal prisoners in the United States had tested positive for the coronavirus -- a rate more than four times higher than the general population.

This data, which is updated weekly, is an effort to track how those people have been affected and where the crisis has hit the hardest.

Methodology and Caveats

The data tracks the number of COVID-19 tests administered to people incarcerated in all state and federal prisons, as well as the staff in those facilities. It is collected on a weekly basis by Marshall Project and AP reporters who contact each prison agency directly and verify published figures with officials.

Each week, the reporters ask every prison agency for the total number of coronavirus tests administered to its staff members and prisoners, the cumulative number who tested positive among staff and prisoners, and the numbers of deaths for each group.

The time series data is aggregated to the system level; there is one record for each prison agency on each date of collection. Not all departments could provide data for the exact date requested, and the data indicates the date for the figures.

To estimate the rate of infection among prisoners, we collected population data for each prison system before the pandemic, roughly in mid-March, in April, June, July, August, September and October. Beginning the week of July 28, we updated all prisoner population numbers, reflecting the number of incarcerated adults in state or federal prisons. Prior to that, population figures may have included additional populations, such as prisoners housed in other facilities, which were not captured in our COVID-19 data. In states with unified prison and jail systems, we include both detainees awaiting trial and sentenced prisoners.

To estimate the rate of infection among prison employees, we collected staffing numbers for each system. Where current data was not publicly available, we acquired other numbers through our reporting, including calling agencies or from state budget documents. In six states, we were unable to find recent staffing figures: Alaska, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, Utah.

To calculate the cumulative COVID-19 impact on prisoner and prison worker populations, we aggregated prisoner and staff COVID case and death data up through Dec. 15. Because population snapshots do not account for movement in and out of prisons since March, and because many systems have significantly slowed the number of new people being sent to prison, it’s difficult to estimate the total number of people who have been held in a state system since March. To be conservative, we calculated our rates of infection using the largest prisoner population snapshots we had during this time period.

As with all COVID-19 data, our understanding of the spread and impact of the virus is limited by the availability of testing. Epidemiology and public health experts say that aside from a few states that have recently begun aggressively testing in prisons, it is likely that there are more cases of COVID-19 circulating undetected in facilities. Sixteen prison systems, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, would not release information about how many prisoners they are testing.

Corrections departments in Indiana, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota and Wisconsin report coronavirus testing and case data for juvenile facilities; West Virginia reports figures for juvenile facilities and jails. For consistency of comparison with other state prison systems, we removed those facilities from our data that had been included prior to July 28. For these states we have also removed staff data. Similarly, Pennsylvania’s coronavirus data includes testing and cases for those who have been released on parole. We removed these tests and cases for prisoners from the data prior to July 28. The staff cases remain.

About the Data

There are four tables in this data:

• covid_prison_cases.csv contains weekly time series data on tests, infections and deaths in prisons. The first dates in the table are on March 26. Any questions that a prison agency could not or would not answer are left blank.

• prison_populations.csv contains snapshots of the population of people incarcerated in each of these prison systems for whom data on COVID testing and cases are available. This varies by state and may not always be the entire number of people incarcerated in each system. In some states, it may include other populations, such as those on parole or held in state-run jails. This data is primarily for use in calculating rates of testing and infection, and we would not recommend using these numbers to compare the change in how many people are being held in each prison system.

• staff_populations.csv contains a one-time, recent snapshot of the headcount of workers for each prison agency, collected as close to April 15 as possible.

• covid_prison_rates.csv contains the rates of cases and deaths for prisoners. There is one row for every state and federal prison system and an additional row with the National totals.

Queries

The Associated Press and The Marshall Project have created several queries to help you use this data:

Get your state's prison COVID data: Provides each week's data from just your state and calculates a cases-per-100000-prisoners rate, a deaths-per-100000-prisoners rate, a cases-per-100000-workers rate and a deaths-per-100000-workers rate here

Rank all systems' most recent data by cases per 100,000 prisoners here

Find what percentage of your state's total cases and deaths -- as reported by Johns Hopkins University -- occurred within the prison system here

Attribution

In stories, attribute this data to: “According to an analysis of state prison cases by The Marshall Project, a nonprofit investigative newsroom dedicated to the U.S. criminal justice system, and The Associated Press.”

Contributors

Many reporters and editors at The Marshall Project and The Associated Press contributed to this data, including: Katie Park, Tom Meagher, Weihua Li, Gabe Isman, Cary Aspinwall, Keri Blakinger, Jake Bleiberg, Andrew R. Calderón, Maurice Chammah, Andrew DeMillo, Eli Hager, Jamiles Lartey, Claudia Lauer, Nicole Lewis, Humera Lodhi, Colleen Long, Joseph Neff, Michelle Pitcher, Alysia Santo, Beth Schwartzapfel, Damini Sharma, Colleen Slevin, Christie Thompson, Abbie VanSickle, Adria Watson, Andrew Welsh-Huggins.

Questions

If you have questions about the data, please email The Marshall Project at info+covidtracker@themarshallproject.org or file a Github issue.

To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.

In 2022, about *** people per 100,000 inhabitants were imprisoned in the state of Mississippi, the most out of any state. The imprisonment rate stood at *** people per 100,000 inhabitants in the United States in that year.

Private Prison Service Market Outlook

The global private prison service market size was valued at approximately USD 8 billion in 2023 and is forecasted to reach USD 12.5 billion by 2032, expanding at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of around 4.5% during the forecast period. The growth of this market is driven by several factors, including increasing prison populations, government policies favoring privatization, and a focus on cost-efficiency and specialized services provided by private entities.

One of the primary growth factors of the private prison service market is the escalating prison population globally. Over the years, many countries have experienced a steady rise in incarceration rates due to stricter law enforcement policies and an increase in crime rates. This surge has led to overcrowded public prison facilities, prompting governments to seek alternatives to manage the burgeoning inmate numbers. Private prisons have emerged as a viable solution to this issue, providing additional capacity and thus driving market demand.

Another significant factor contributing to the growth of the private prison service market is the cost-efficiency and specialized services offered by private operators. Governments are increasingly outsourcing prison management to private entities to reduce operational costs and improve service quality. Private prisons often employ advanced technologies and management practices that lead to better resource utilization, enhanced security measures, and improved inmate rehabilitation programs. These factors make private prisons an attractive option for governments looking to manage prisons more effectively.

The increasing focus on rehabilitation and reintegration of inmates is also bolstering the private prison service market. Unlike traditional public prisons, many private facilities emphasize rehabilitation and education programs aimed at reducing recidivism rates. Private prison operators often provide comprehensive healthcare, vocational training, and educational programs tailored to the needs of inmates. These initiatives not only help in the personal development of inmates but also contribute to a safer society, which, in turn, drives the demand for private prison services.

From a regional perspective, North America holds the largest share in the global private prison service market, primarily driven by the United States, which has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Government policies favoring privatization and the presence of major private prison operators further strengthen the market in this region. However, other regions such as Asia Pacific and Europe are also showing significant potential due to increasing crime rates and shifting governmental policies towards privatization.

Service Type Analysis

The private prison service market is segmented by service type into security, rehabilitation, healthcare, education, and others. The security segment holds the largest market share due to its critical role in maintaining order and safety within prison facilities. Private prison operators invest heavily in advanced security technologies such as surveillance systems, biometric access controls, and perimeter security solutions. These investments ensure a secure environment for both inmates and staff, thereby making security services a pivotal component of the private prison market.

The rehabilitation segment is gaining traction as governments and private operators recognize the importance of reducing recidivism rates. Rehabilitation services include a range of programs such as behavioral therapy, substance abuse treatment, and vocational training designed to help inmates reintegrate into society. With growing awareness about the social and economic benefits of rehabilitation, this segment is expected to see substantial growth in the coming years.

Healthcare services are another critical component of private prison services. Inmates often have complex health needs that require specialized medical care. Private prison operators provide comprehensive healthcare services, including primary care, mental health services, and emergency medical treatment. The healthcare segment is expected to grow significantly due to the increasing prevalence of chronic conditions and mental health issues among the incarcerated population.

Educational services are also an essential part of the private prison service market. These services aim to equip inmates with the knowledge and skills needed to secure employment upon release. Educational programs range

Introduction

Prison Statistics: Prisons serve as critical institutions within global justice systems, reflecting societal approaches to punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. As of 2024, approximately 11.5 million individuals are incarcerated worldwide, with about 10.8 million men and 700,000 women. This represents a 5.5% increase since 2012, indicating a persistent reliance on incarceration.

Incarceration rates vary significantly across regions. North America has the highest rate, with 489 prisoners per 100,000 people in 2022, down from 647 in 2012. In contrast, Southern Asia reported rates below 100 per 100,000 population. El Salvador leads globally with 1,086 prisoners per 100,000 people, followed by Cuba at 794 and Rwanda at 637.

The female prison population has surged by 57% since 2000, outpacing the 22% increase in the male prison population. This rise is often linked to factors such as poverty, discriminatory laws, and limited access to legal resources. Notably, one in three incarcerated individuals globally is held in pre-trial detention, highlighting concerns about legal processes and the presumption of innocence.

Understanding these demographics is essential for evaluating the effectiveness of incarceration as a tool for justice and rehabilitation. It also underscores the need for reforms that address systemic issues contributing to high incarceration rates. Let's explore some intriguing statistics about prisoners in the United States.

This data collection provides information about topics and issues of concern in research and policy within the field of corrections. Chief among these are the characteristics of persons confined to state prisons, their current and past offenses, and the circumstances or conditions of their confinement. Also included is extensive information on inmates' drug and alcohol use, program participation, and the victims of the inmates' most recent offenses. This information, which is not available on a national basis from any other source, is intended to assist the criminal justice community and other researchers in analysis and evaluation of correctional issues.

As of 2022, Black people were more likely than those of other races to be imprisoned in the United States. In that year, the rate of imprisonment for Black men stood at 1,826 per 100,000 of the population. For Black women, this rate stood at 64 per 100,000 of the population.

Private prisons, also referred to as for-profit prisons, have become a dominant sector of society in the United States and are now implemented in many states around the country. As of 2022, the state of Florida had the highest number of prisoners held in private prisons in the United States, with a total of ****** prisoners, followed by Texas, Arizona, and Georgia, and Tennessee. ** states did not have any prisoners held in private prisoners in that year. Private prisons in the U.S. The United States is home to the highest prison population per capita of all OECD countries, resulting in a consistent overcrowding of prisons which has negatively affected the criminal justice system for decades. The privatization of prison facilities was initially proposed as a solution to a lack of funding and an increasing demand for more jail space, leading to around *** percent of the U.S. prison population currently behind bars in private prisons. In 2021, ****** prisoners were held in in-state private prison facilities in the United States, compared to ****** prisoners held in out-of-state private prisons. Arguments on private prisons Advocates of private prisons proposed that privatization could lead to cost reductions, suggesting that allowing the private industry to operate prison facilities would save taxpayers money. However, the increasing reliance on private prison facilities has been criticized politically in the U.S. for catering to profit-seeking corporations as well as for the tendency to hold people in immigrant detention in these privately run facilities. In 2021, the highest share of revenue reported by the two largest for-profit prison companies in the U.S. was from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In addition, Republican Senator Marco Rubio from Florida, who is well-known for his positive stance on strengthening border security, was also found to receive the most money from the private prison industry than any other federal politician in the 2022 election cycle.

The dataset contains outcome variables, control variables, and policy variables. The outcome variables pertain to the change and growth in state-level incarceration rates between 1975 and 2002. Control variables include violent crime rate, property crime rate, percent population between ages of 18-24, percent population between ages of 25-34, percent population African American, percent population of Hispanic origin, percent population living in urban areas, percent adherents to "fundamentalist" religion, income per capita, unemployment rate, percent population below poverty level, GINI income distribution coefficient, state revenues per 100,000 residents, public welfare per 100,000 residents, police officers per 100,000 residents, drug arrest rate, corrections expenditures per 100,000 residents, citizen political ideology, government political ideology, governor's party affiliation, and region. Policy variables capture information regarding sentencing structure, drug policy, time served requirements, habitual offender laws (HOL), and mandatory sentences. Specifically, sentencing structure variables include information on determinate sentencing, structured sentencing, presumptive sentencing guidelines, voluntary sentencing guidelines, and presumptive sentencing. Drug policy variables include sentencing enhancement score (cocaine, heroin, and marijuana), severity levels for possession and sale (cocaine, heroin, and marijuana), minimum sentence for 28 grams of cocaine (sale), maximum sentence for the lowest quantity of cocaine (possession), minimum sentence for 28 grams of heroin (sale), maximum sentence for the lowest quantity of heroin (possession), minimum sentence for 500 grams of marijuana (sale), and minimum sentence for the lowest quantity of marijuana (possession). Variables regarding time served requirements include both time served (all offenses) and time served (violent offenses). The habitual offender laws variables capture information regarding the two-strikes law, three-strikes law, HOL targeted for violent offenses, and HOL targeted for drug offenses. Lastly, variables pertaining to mandatory sentences include number of mandatory minimums for weapons use, number of mandatory minimums for violent offenses, number of mandatory minimums for offenses against protected individuals, number of mandatory minimums for offenses committed while in state custody, and mandatory score. The study consisted of two phases completed between November 2002 and March 2004. The first phase of the research involved building a framework for understanding the types of state-level sentencing and corrections policies in use between 1975 and 2002. To do this, researchers reviewed prior analyses of policies to construct an initial outline of policies or general areas and their characteristics. Next, members of the Vera Institute of Justice's National Associates Program on State Sentencing and Corrections (SSC) reviewed the outline, suggested minor changes in the characteristics detailed, and constructed an initial data collection instrument (DCI). This initial DCI microdatabase was pilot-tested by collecting data on three states, refined, and then a finalized version of the DCI was developed for use in the second stage of the study. Phase two of the project consisted of state-level data collection for all 50 states for all study years, 1975 to 2002. The year 1975 was chosen as the cut-off year since, according to most criminologists and practitioners, most of the dramatic changes in state-level sentencing and corrections policies have occurred post-1975. The principal investigators and six research assistants began by analyzing microfiche versions of state codes as amended in 1975. Microfiche versions of superseded state codes (including supplements) and state sessions laws were then used to collect data on changes to each state's code for each year between 1975 and 2002. Data collection generally involved reading the entire criminal law and criminal procedure sections of each state's 1975 code, locating the relevant policy, and recording information about the provisions of the policy into the DCI. Annual code supplements were then analyzed to note changes to each state's code. When a revised version of the entire code was published, data collection then involved reviewing the entire criminal law and criminal procedure sections of each state's code again. Where changes to policies were unclear from annual supplements, microfiche versions of state sessions laws were consulted, which provided the actual legislation altering the code. This process continued until data collection reached 2002, and analysis turned to the bound versions of state codes as amended in 2002. In order to assess the impacts of state-level sentencing and corrections policies in the United States implemented between 1975 and 2002 on state incarceration rates during that same time period, researchers conducted a two-phase study between November 2002 a...

The purpose of this study was to examine the crime of identity theft from the offenders' perspectives. The study employed a purposive sampling strategy. Researchers identified potential interview subjects by examining newspapers (using Lexis-Nexis), legal documents (using Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw), and United States Attorneys' Web sites for individuals charged with, indicted, and/or sentenced to prison for identity theft. Once this list was generated, researchers used the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Inmate Locator to determine if the individuals were currently housed in federal facilities. Researchers visited the facilities that housed the largest number of inmates on the list in each of the six regions in the United States as defined by the BOP (Western, North Central, South Central, North Eastern, Mid-Atlantic, and South Eastern) and solicited the inmates housed in these prisons. A total of 14 correctional facilities were visited and 65 individuals incarcerated for identity theft or identity theft related crimes were interviewed between March 2006 and February 2007. Researchers used semi-structured interviews to explore the offenders' decision-making processes. When possible, interviews were audio recorded and then transcribed verbatim. Part 1 (Quantitative Data) includes the demographic variables age, race, gender, number of children, highest level of education, and socioeconomic class while growing up. Other variables include prior arrests or convictions and offense type, prior drug use and if drug use contributed to identity theft, if employment facilitated identity theft, if they went to trial or plead to charges, and sentence length. Part 2 (Qualitative Data), includes demographic questions such as family situation while growing up, highest level of education, marital status, number of children, and employment status while committing identity theft crimes. Subjects were asked about prior criminal activity and drug use. Questions specific to identity theft include the age at which the person became involved in identity theft, how many identities he or she had stolen, if they had worked with other people to steal identities, why they had become involved in identity theft, the skills necessary to steal identities, and the perceived risks involved in identity theft.

This study assessed the effects of male inmate religiosity on post-release community adjustment and investigated the circumstances under which these effects were most likely to take place. The researcher carried out this study by adding Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal history information to an existing database (Clear et al.) that studied the relationship between an inmate's religiousness and his adjustment to the correctional setting. Four types of information were used in this study. The first three types were obtained by the original research team and included an inmate values and religiousness instrument, a pre-release questionnaire, and a three-month post-release follow-up phone survey. The fourth type of information, official criminal history reports, was later added to the original dataset by the principal investigator for this study. The prisoner values survey collected information on what the respondent would do if a friend sold drugs from the cell or if inmates of his race attacked others. Respondents were also asked if they thought God was revealed in the scriptures, if they shared their faith with others, and if they took active part in religious services. Information collected from the pre-release questionnaire included whether the respondent attended group therapy, religious groups with whom he would live, types of treatment programs he would participate in after prison, employment plans, how often he would go to church, whether he would be angry more in prison or in the free world, and whether he would be more afraid of being attacked in prison or in the free world. Each inmate also described his criminal history and indicated whether he thought he was able to do things as well as most others, whether he was satisfied with himself on the whole or felt that he was a failure, whether religion was talked about in the home, how often he attended religious services, whether he had friends who were religious while growing up, whether he had friends who were religious while in prison, and how often he participated in religious inmate counseling, religious services, in-prison religious seminars, and community service projects. The three-month post-release follow-up phone survey collected information on whether the respondent was involved with a church group, if the respondent was working for pay, if the respondent and his household received public assistance, if he attended religious services since his release, with whom the respondent was living, and types of treatment programs attended. Official post-release criminal records include information on the offenses the respondent was arrested and incarcerated for, prior arrests and incarcerations, rearrests, outcomes of offenses of rearrests, follow-up period to first rearrest, prison adjustment indicator, self-esteem indicator, time served, and measurements of the respondent's level of religious belief and personal identity. Demographic variables include respondent's faith, race, marital status, education, age at first arrest and incarceration, and age at incarceration for rearrest.

This study of prison rapes used an ethnographic, culturally relativistic methodology and was conducted between April 2004 and September 2005. The study was conducted in 30 correctional institutions, 23 men's and 7 women's, in 10 states. All 23 men's institutions were the highest-security level men's prison available in each state. When women's institutions were multi-security level and housed minimum, medium, and high-security inmates, they were selected from the highest-security level housing units within the institution. A total of 564 (409 male and 155 female) inmates were interviewed. The inmates to be interviewed were selected from the general prison population using a probability sample design. Average interview length was just under an hour. The sole mode of data collection was an open-ended, semistructured inmate interview. To ensure comparability of answers, surveys were designed with each query resting on a particular concept or variable. The same interview instrument was used for both male and female inmates. Questions were asked about inmate prison history, mental health, rape, social process, domestic violence and relationships, staff, institutional factors, and perception of social roles, and demographic information. Also included are lexical responses and free list questions such as "Why do inmates have sex with other inmates?"

The U.S. government does not release jail by jail mortality data, keeping the public and policy makers in the dark about facilities with high rates of death. In a first-of-its-kind accounting, Reuters obtained and is releasing that data to the public.

What if the jail in your community had an outsized death rate, but no one knew? For decades, communities across the country have faced that quandary. The Justice Department collects jail death data, but locks the information away, leaving policymakers, investigators and activists unaware of problem facilities.

Reuters journalists filed more than 1,500 public records requests to gain death data from 2008 to 2019 in the nation’s biggest jails. Today, jail by jail and state by state, it is making that information available to the public. Reuters examined every large jail in the United States, those with 750 or more inmates. And, to ensure it examined deaths across the country, it obtained data for the 10 largest jails in each state. The data covers 523 jails or jail systems.

Original Data

Acknowlegement

Foto von Hasan Almasi auf Unsplash

As of 2021, **** percent of California's prison population were non-U.S. citizens, the highest share of any state in that year. Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, and Arizona rounded out the top five states with the highest share of non-U.S. citizens in prison in that year.

The objectives of this study were (1) to compare long-term patterns of violent crime for mentally disordered patients and for prison inmates, and (2) to evaluate the predictive validity of a diagnosis of schizophrenia for subsequent arrests for violent crimes. For purposes of this data collection, violent crimes were defined as including murder, manslaughter, rape, assault, kidnapping, and sodomy. The study analyzed individual state mental hospital patients and inmates of state prisons in New York State over a 20-year span. In the process of obtaining information regarding the individuals, three different areas were focused on: hospital, incarceration, and arrest histories. Variables for hospital histories include inpatient hospitalizations, admission and discharge dates, legal status for all state hospitals through 1988, primary diagnosis for target and most recent admissions, and placements in New York State Department of Correctional Services mental hospitals. Incarceration history variables include time spent in adult state prisons, incarcerations through 1988, and dates of release (including re-entry to community on parole, outright release, or escape). Arrest histories include information on the subject's first adult arrest through 1988 (only the most serious charge for each incident is recorded) and out-of-state arrests, when available. Demographic variables include age, race, and date of birth.

Data in this collection examine the processing of federal offenders. The Cases Terminated files (Parts 1-3 and 25-28) contain information about defendants in criminal cases filed in the United States Federal District Court and terminated in the calendar years indicated. Defendants in criminal cases may either be individuals or corporations, and there is one record for each defendant in each case terminated. Information on court proceedings, date the case was filed, date the case was terminated, most serious charge, and reason for termination is included. The Docket and Reporting System files (Parts 4-7, 31-34, and 42) include information on suspects in investigative matters that took an hour or more of a United States Attorney's time with one of the following outcomes: (1) the United States Attorney declined to prosecute, (2) the case was filed in Federal District Court, or (3) the matter was disposed by a United States magistrate. Codes for each disposition and change of status are also provided. The Pretrial Services data (Parts 8, 22, 43, and 47) present variables on the circuit, district, and office where the defendant was charged, type of action, year of birth and sex of the defendant, major offense charge, and results of initial and detention hearings. The Parole Decisions data (Part 9) contain information from various parole hearings such as court date, appeal action, reopening decision, sentence, severity of sentence, offense, and race and ethnicity of the defendant. The Offenders Under Supervision files (Parts 15-16 and 37-40) focus on convicted offenders sentenced to probation supervision and federal prisoners released to parole supervision. The Federal Prisoner files (Parts 18 and 20) supply data on when an offender entered and was released from confinement, as well as the amount of time served for any given offense. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts data files (Parts 44, 52, and 53) contain records of defendants in criminal cases filed in Federal District Court and terminated in the calendar years indicated. There is one record for each defendant in each case. Variables include the date the case was filed, offense level, AO (Administrative Office) codes, and disposition date. The Bureau of Prisons data (both the Master and Detail files, Parts 45, 46, and 54-57 -- formerly known as the Federal Prisoner files) contain records of sentenced prisoners admitted to or released from federal prison during 1992-1994. These files consist of separate records for each prisoner's commitment to federal prison, and for each sentence imposed on a prisoner for a given commitment to federal prison. The Central System (CS) and Central Charge (CC) files of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) include information about suspects in criminal matters and defendants in criminal cases in 1993-1994. Each defendant in a criminal matter has a master Central System record (Parts 50 and 51) and may have one or more Central Charge records (Parts 48 and 49). The Federal Probation/Supervision Data files (Parts 58 and 59) provide information on supervision procedures and the sequence of events and proceedings in 1992-1994 from the time a case was opened for supervision until the case was terminated. These include reports of parole violations, transfers of supervision to other districts, and case removals due to, for example, rearrest or hospitalization. The Sentencing Commission data (Parts 60 and 61) contain information on federal criminal cases sentenced in 1992-1994 under the Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

Abstract (en): RECIDIVISM OF PRISONERS RELEASED IN 1994 is a database containing information on each of 38,624 sampled prisoners released from prisons in 15 states in 1994 and tracked for three years following their release. The majority of the database consists of information on each released prisoner's entire officially recorded criminal history (before and after the 1994 release). Sources for criminal history information are state and FBI automated RAP ("Records of Arrests and Prosecutions") sheets, which contain records of arrests, adjudications, and sentences. The study is the second major recidivism study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The first study, RECIDIVISM AMONG RELEASED PRISONERS, 1983: UNITED STATES, tracked over 16,000 prisoners released in 11 states in 1983 for three years. These two studies are the closest approximation to "national" recidivism studies in the United States. They are distinguished by their large sample size (over 16,000 released prisoners in the first study, 38,624 in the second), geographic breadth of coverage (11 states in the first study, 15 in the second), length of prospective tracking (three years from date of release in both studies), ability to track the movement of released prisoners across state boundaries (both studies), and multiple measures of recidivism (both studies). Demographic data include race, ethnicity, sex, and date of birth. 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.; Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Prisoners released during 1994 in the 15 states that the study covered. The 15 states account for about two-thirds of releases in the United States in a given year. Smallest Geographic Unit: state The following 15 state Departments of Corrections participated in the study: Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia. These departments supplied Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) with information on each person released from prison in the state in 1994 (Note: Illinois releases are for fiscal year 1994 rather than calendar year 1994). These 15 states were chosen as a purposive sample, based on willingness to participate, the state's relative contribution to the overall national prison population, and the state's inclusion in the earlier study of recidivism conducted by BJS in 1983 (see ICPSR 8875). The 15 states supplied BJS with release records on 302,309 prisoners released in 1994, approximately two-thirds of all prisoners released in the nation. Using these records, the researchers drew a representative sample from each state, totaling 38,624 out of the 302,309 released prisoners, stratified by most serious conviction offense. More detailed information regarding sampling procedures can be found in the codebook that accompanies this data collection. 2014-12-05 A minor change is made to the codebook.2012-01-12 For variable POTST, values for the state of New York were adjusted per the principal investigator.2011-03-08 All parts are being moved to restricted access and will be available only using the restricted access procedures.2009-02-09 Missing value codes were edited to correct for rounding and data entry errors.2007-03-02 The principal investigator revised the data so that there are 4,834 cases instead of 4,824 for values that are less than or equal to 90 for variable DCDV.2006-12-01 The principal investigator revised the description for variables RPRSD and RPRSITV in the codebook.2003-08-27 The principal investigator recoded some values in variables DCDV, RPRSD, RPRSITV, and RELTYP.2002-10-04 The principal investigator recoded some values (child victim age) in variable DCDV for 89 releases in the state of Virginia. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics.