The prison boundary 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.

Original Data

Acknowlegement

Foto von Milad Fakurian auf Unsplash

The National Prisoner Statistics (NPS) data collection began in 1926 in response to a congressional mandate to gather information on persons incarcerated in state and federal prisons. Originally under the auspices of the U.S. Census Bureau, the collection moved to the Bureau of Prisons in 1950, and then in 1971 to the National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service, the precursor to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) which was established in 1979. From 1979 to 2013, the Census Bureau was the NPS data collection agent. In 2014, the collection was competitively bid in conjunction with the National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), since many of the respondents for NPS and NCRP are the same. The contract was awarded to Abt Associates, Inc. The NPS is administered to 51 respondents. Before 2001, the District of Columbia was also a respondent, but responsibility for housing the District of Columbia's sentenced prisoners was transferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and by yearend 2001 the District of Columbia no longer operated a prison system. The NPS provides an enumeration of persons in state and federal prisons and collects data on key characteristics of the nation's prison population. NPS has been adapted over time to keep pace with the changing information needs of the public, researchers, and federal, state, and local governments.

Context

In 1975, the United States set a new record with 240,593 prisoners incarcerated by state or federal agencies. The United States achieved new record totals during each of the next 34 years. Today, there are over 1,500,000 prisoners in the United States. Over one quarter of the world's entire population of prisoners is located in the United States.

The U.S. Education deparment reports state and local government expenditures on prisons (and jails - not reflected in this dataset) have increased about three times as fast as spending on elementary and secondary education during this time period. Does this significant investment into imprisonment improve public safety? This dataset brings together crime and incarceration statistics to help researchers explore this relationship.

Content

The Bureau of Justice Statistics administers the National Prisoners Statistics Program (NPS), an annual data collection effort that began in response to a 1926 congressional mandate. The population statistics reflect each state's prisoner population as of December 31 for the recorded year. Prisoners listed under federal jurisdiction are incarcerated by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.

The Uniform Crime Report (UCR) has served as the FBI's primary national data collection tool since a 1930 congressional mandate directed the Attorney General to "acquire, collect, classify, and preserve identification, criminal identification, crime, and other records." The FBI collects this information voluntarily submitted by local, state, and fedral law enforcement agencies. Some U.S. municipalities choose not to participate fully in the program. The crimes_estimated field indicates cases where the FBI estimated state totals due to lack of participation by some municipalities within a state. The crime_reporting_change field reflects instances when states' reporting standards change. For more information on the responsible use of this dataset, please see Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics: Their Proper Use

Acknowledgements

State and Federal prisoner population figures published by Bureau of Justice Statistics.

State crime and population statistics published by the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. https://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm

Banner Photo by Oscar Söderlund on Unsplash

Inspiration

What is the relationship between incarceration rates and crime rates? Does mass incarceration improve public safety? See below for some recent statements from U.S. politicians related to the relationship between crime and incarceration. Are the data consistent with any of these statements?

"There is no better way to reduce crime than to identify, target, and incapacitate those hardened criminals... we cannot incapacitate these criminals unless we build sufficient prison and jail space to house them. " - Nominee for 85th U.S. Attorney General William Barr, [October 28, 1992][13]

"Violent crime has declined since the 1980s because mandatory minimums adopted then locked up violent criminals." - Senator Tom Cotton, August 15, 2018

"You may assume mass incarceration exists because people are committing more crimes. But that is not true... The incredibly costly reality is that prisons in our nation continue to grow irrespective of crime rates. It is a bureaucracy that has been expanding independent of our security or safety." - Senator Cory Booker, Apr 28, 2015

"It is far from clear whether this dramatic increase in incarceration for drug crimes has had enough of an effect on property and violent crime rates to justify the human toll of more incarceration." - Senator Ted Cruz, Apr 27, 2015

"For several decades, tough laws and long sentences have created the illusion that public safety is best served when we treat all offenders the same way: arrest, convict, incarcerate..." - Senator Kamala Harris, [Apr 27, 2015][11]

"We've got some space to put some people! We need to reverse a trend that suggested that criminals won't be confronted seriously with their crimes" - 84th U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, [March 15, 2018][12]

...

From the project page: https://github.com/jkbren/incarcerated-populations-data/

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Through combinations of structural biases in the criminal justice and police systems, we see even higher incarceration rates among Black and Hispanic people. During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of incarcerated people in the United States decreased by at least 17%---the largest, fastest reduction in prison population in American history. Using an original dataset curated from public sources on prison demographics across all 50 states and the District of Columbia, we show that incarcerated white people benefited disproportionately from this decrease in the U.S. prison population, and the fraction of incarcerated Black and Latino people sharply increased. This pattern persists across prison systems in nearly every state and deviates from a decade-long trend before 2020 and the onset of COVID-19, when the proportion of incarcerated white people was increasing amid declining numbers of Black people in prison. While a variety of mechanisms underlie these alarming trends, we explore why racial inequities in average sentence length are a likely major contributor. Ultimately, this study reveals how disruptions caused by COVID-19 exacerbated racial inequalities in the criminal legal system, and highlights key forces that drive mass incarceration.

Released under MIT license

Jails and Prisons (Correctional Institutions). The Jails and Prisons sub-layer is part of the Emergency Law Enforcement Sector and the Critical Infrastructure Category. A Jail or Prison consists of any facility or location where individuals are regularly and lawfully detained against their will. This includes Federal and State prisons, local jails, and juvenile detention facilities, as well as law enforcement temporary holding facilities. Work camps, including camps operated seasonally, are included if they otherwise meet the definition. A Federal Prison is a facility operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for the incarceration of individuals. A State Prison is a facility operated by a state, commonwealth, or territory of the US for the incarceration of individuals for a term usually longer than 1 year. A Juvenile Detention Facility is a facility for the incarceration of those who have not yet reached the age of majority (usually 18 years). A Local Jail is a locally administered facility that holds inmates beyond arraignment (usually 72 hours) and is staffed by municipal or county employees. A temporary holding facility, sometimes referred to as a "police lock up" or "drunk tank", is a facility used to detain people prior to arraignment. Locations that are administrative offices only are excluded from the dataset. This definition of Jails is consistent with that used by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in their "National Jail Census", with the exception of "temporary holding facilities", which the DOJ excludes. Locations which function primarily as law enforcement offices are included in this dataset if they have holding cells. If the facility is enclosed with a fence, wall, or structure with a gate around the buildings only, the locations were depicted as "on entity" at the center of the facility. If the facility's buildings are not enclosed, the locations were depicted as "on entity" on the main building or "block face" on the correct street segment. Personal homes, administrative offices, and temporary locations are intended to be excluded from this dataset; however, some personal homes of constables are included due to the fact that many constables work out of their homes. TGS has made a concerted effort to include all correctional institutions. This dataset includes non license restricted data from the following federal agencies: Bureau of Indian Affairs; Bureau of Reclamation; U.S. Park Police; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; U.S. Marshals Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; National Park Service; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This dataset is comprised completely of license free data. The Law Enforcement dataset and the Correctional Institutions dataset were merged into one working file. TGS processed as one file and then separated for delivery purposes. With the merge of the Law Enforcement and the Correctional Institutions datasets, NAICS Codes & Descriptions were assigned based on the facility's main function which was determined by the entity's name, facility type, web research, and state supplied data. In instances where the entity's primary function is both law enforcement and corrections, the NAICS Codes and Descriptions are assigned based on the dataset in which the record is located (i.e., a facility that serves as both a Sheriff's Office and as a jail is designated as [NAICSDESCR]="SHERIFFS' OFFICES (EXCEPT COURT FUNCTIONS ONLY)" in the Law Enforcement layer and as [NAICSDESCR]="JAILS (EXCEPT PRIVATE OPERATION OF)" in the Correctional Institutions layer). Records with "-DOD" appended to the end of the [NAME] value are located on a military base, as defined by the Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) military installations and military range boundaries. "#" and "*" characters were automatically removed from standard fields that TGS populated. Double spaces were replaced by sin

The National Prisoner Statistics (NPS) data collection began in 1926 in response to a congressional mandate to gather information on persons incarcerated in state and federal prisons. Originally under the auspices of the U.S. Census Bureau, the collection moved to the Bureau of Prisons in 1950, and then in 1971 to the National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service, the precursor to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) which was established in 1979. From 1979 to 2013, the Census Bureau was the NPS data collection agent. In 2014, the collection was competitively bid in conjunction with the National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP), since many of the respondents for NPS and NCRP are the same. The contract was awarded to Abt Associates, Inc. The NPS is administered to 51 respondents. Before 2001, the District of Columbia was also a respondent, but responsibility for housing the District of Columbia's sentenced prisoners was transferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and by yearend 2001 the District of Columbia no longer operated a prison system. The NPS provides an enumeration of persons in state and federal prisons and collects data on key characteristics of the nation's prison population. NPS has been adapted over time to keep pace with the changing information needs of the public, researchers, and federal, state, and local governments.

In 2011, a historic Supreme Court decision mandated that the state of California substantially reduce its prison population to alleviate overcrowding, which was deemed so severe as to preclude the provision of adequate healthcare. To comply, California passed the Public Safety Realignment Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 109), representing the largest ever court-ordered reduction of a prison population in U.S. history. AB109 was successful in reducing the state prison population; however, although the policy was precipitated by inadequate healthcare in state prisons, no studies have examined its effects on prisoner health. As other states grapple with overcrowded prisons and look to California’s experience with this landmark policy, understanding how it may have impacted prisoner health is critical. We sought to evaluate the effects of AB109 on prison mortality and assess the extent to which policy-induced changes in the age distribution of prisoners may have contributed to these effects. To do so, we used prison mortality data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the California Deaths in Custody reporting program and prison population data from the National Corrections Reporting Program to examine changes in overall prison mortality, the age distribution of prisoners, and age-adjusted prison mortality in California relative to other states before and after the implementation of AB109. Following AB109, California prisons experienced an increase in overall mortality relative to other states that attenuated within three years. Over the same period, California experienced a greater upward shift in the age distribution of its prisoners relative to other states, suggesting that the state’s increase in overall mortality may have been driven by this change in age distribution. Indeed, when accounting for this differential change in age distribution, mortality among California prisoners exhibited a greater reduction relative to other states in the third year after implementation. As other states seek to reduce their prison populations to address overcrowding, assessments of California’s experience with AB109 should consider this potential improvement in age-adjusted mortality.

This dataset integrates data from multiple publicly available sources to enhance the social and environmental analytical potential of the 2017 and 2020 HIFLD prison boundaries datasets. The HIFLD prison boundary 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. We have manually coded the corresponding EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS) ID number to every facility for which we could find a reasonable match (source: https://www.epa.gov/frs/frs-facilities-state-single-file-csv-download). This FRS ID number enables finding corresponding environmental permits, inspections, violations, and enforcement actions. We have additionally created additional socially significant categories: ICE facilities, private prisons. Purpose: This feature class contains secure detention facilities with EPA FRS ID and additional socially relevant variables for research on the environmental injustices of mass incarceration by Carceral Ecologies.

The data contain records of sentenced offenders released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) during fiscal year 1994. The data include commitments of United States District Court, violators of conditions of release (e.g., parole, probation, or supervised release violators), offenders convicted in other courts (e.g., military or District of Columbia courts), and persons admitted to prison as material witnesses or for purposes of treatment, examination, or transfer to another authority. Records of offenders who exit federal prison temporarily, such as for transit to another location, to serve a weekend sentence, or for health care, are not included in the exiting cohort. These data include variables that describe the offender, such as age, race, citizenship, as well as variables that describe the sentences and expected prison terms. The data file contains original variables from the Bureau of Prisons' SENTRY database, as well as "SAF" variables that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 7.9-7.16. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

The prison boundary 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. Changes from the previous version include 70 records added, 72 closed, and 37 removed.

Inmate admissions with attributes (race, gender, legal status, top charge). This data set excludes Sealed Cases. Resulting summaries may differ slightly from other published statistics.

Jails and Prisons (Correctional Institutions). The Jails and Prisons sub-layer is part of the Emergency Law Enforcement Sector and the Critical Infrastructure Category. A Jail or Prison consists of any facility or location where individuals are regularly and lawfully detained against their will. This includes Federal and State prisons, local jails, and juvenile detention facilities, as well as law enforcement temporary holding facilities. Work camps, including camps operated seasonally, are included if they otherwise meet the definition. A Federal Prison is a facility operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for the incarceration of individuals. A State Prison is a facility operated by a state, commonwealth, or territory of the US for the incarceration of individuals for a term usually longer than 1 year. A Juvenile Detention Facility is a facility for the incarceration of those who have not yet reached the age of majority (usually 18 years). A Local Jail is a locally administered facility that holds inmates beyond arraignment (usually 72 hours) and is staffed by municipal or county employees. A temporary holding facility, sometimes referred to as a "police lock up" or "drunk tank", is a facility used to detain people prior to arraignment. Locations that are administrative offices only are excluded from the dataset. This definition of Jails is consistent with that used by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in their "National Jail Census", with the exception of "temporary holding facilities", which the DOJ excludes. Locations which function primarily as law enforcement offices are included in this dataset if they have holding cells. If the facility is enclosed with a fence, wall, or structure with a gate around the buildings only, the locations were depicted as "on entity" at the center of the facility. If the facility's buildings are not enclosed, the locations were depicted as "on entity" on the main building or "block face" on the correct street segment. Personal homes, administrative offices, and temporary locations are intended to be excluded from this dataset; however, some personal homes of constables are included due to the fact that many constables work out of their homes. TGS has made a concerted effort to include all correctional institutions. This dataset includes non license restricted data from the following federal agencies: Bureau of Indian Affairs; Bureau of Reclamation; U.S. Park Police; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; U.S. Marshals Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; National Park Service; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This dataset is comprised completely of license free data. The Law Enforcement dataset and the Correctional Institutions dataset were merged into one working file. TGS processed as one file and then separated for delivery purposes. With the merge of the Law Enforcement and the Correctional Institutions datasets, NAICS Codes & Descriptions were assigned based on the facility's main function which was determined by the entity's name, facility type, web research, and state supplied data. In instances where the entity's primary function is both law enforcement and corrections, the NAICS Codes and Descriptions are assigned based on the dataset in which the record is located (i.e., a facility that serves as both a Sheriff's Office and as a jail is designated as [NAICSDESCR]="SHERIFFS' OFFICES (EXCEPT COURT FUNCTIONS ONLY)" in the Law Enforcement layer and as [NAICSDESCR]="JAILS (EXCEPT PRIVATE OPERATION OF)" in the Correctional Institutions layer). Records with "-DOD" appended to the end of the [NAME] value are located on a military base, as defined by the Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) military installations and military range boundaries. "#" and "*" characters were automatically removed from standard fields that TGS populated. Double spaces were replaced by single spaces in these same fields. Text fields in this dataset have been set to all upper case to facilitate consistent database engine search results. All diacritics (e.g., the German umlaut or the Spanish tilde) have been replaced with their closest equivalent English character to facilitate use with database systems that may not support diacritics. The currentness of this dataset is indicated by the [CONTDATE] field. Based on the values in this field, the oldest record dates from 04/26/2006 and the newest record dates from 10/19/2009

Jails and Prisons (Correctional Institutions). The Jails and Prisons sub-layer is part of the Emergency Law Enforcement Sector and the Critical Infrastructure Category. A Jail or Prison consists of any facility or _location where individuals are regularly and lawfully detained against their will. This includes Federal and State prisons, local jails, and juvenile detention facilities, as well as law enforcement temporary holding facilities. Work camps, including camps operated seasonally, are included if they otherwise meet the definition. A Federal Prison is a facility operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for the incarceration of individuals. A State Prison is a facility operated by a state, commonwealth, or territory of the US for the incarceration of individuals for a term usually longer than 1 year. A Juvenile Detention Facility is a facility for the incarceration of those who have not yet reached the age of majority (usually 18 years). A Local Jail is a locally administered facility that holds inmates beyond arraignment (usually 72 hours) and is staffed by municipal or county employees. A temporary holding facility, sometimes referred to as a "police lock up" or "drunk tank", is a facility used to detain people prior to arraignment. Locations that are administrative offices only are excluded from the dataset. This definition of Jails is consistent with that used by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in their "National Jail Census", with the exception of "temporary holding facilities", which the DOJ excludes. Locations which function primarily as law enforcement offices are included in this dataset if they have holding cells. If the facility is enclosed with a fence, wall, or structure with a gate around the buildings only, the locations were depicted as "on entity" at the center of the facility. If the facility's buildings are not enclosed, the locations were depicted as "on entity" on the main building or "block face" on the correct street segment. Personal homes, administrative offices, and temporary locations are intended to be excluded from this dataset. TGS has made a concerted effort to include all correctional institutions. This dataset includes non license restricted data from the following federal agencies: Bureau of Indian Affairs; Bureau of Reclamation; U.S. Park Police; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; U.S. Marshals Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; National Park Service; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This dataset is comprised completely of license free data. The Law Enforcement dataset and the Correctional Institutions dataset were merged into one working file. TGS processed as one file and then separated for delivery purposes. With the merge of the Law Enforcement and the Correctional Institutions datasets, NAICS Codes & Descriptions were assigned based on the facility's main function which was determined by the entity's name, facility type, web research, and state supplied data. In instances where the entity's primary function is both law enforcement and corrections, the NAICS Codes and Descriptions are assigned based on the dataset in which the record is located (i.e., a facility that serves as both a Sheriff's Office and as a jail is designated as [NAICSDESCR]="SHERIFFS' OFFICES (EXCEPT COURT FUNCTIONS ONLY)" in the Law Enforcement layer and as [NAICSDESCR]="JAILS (EXCEPT PRIVATE OPERATION OF)" in the Correctional Institutions layer). Records with "-DOD" appended to the end of the [NAME] value are located on a military base, as defined by the Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) military installations and military range boundaries. "#" and "*" characters were automatically removed from standard fields that TGS populated. Double spaces were replaced by single spaces in these same fields. Text fields in this dataset have been set to all upper case to facilitate consistent database engine search results. All diacritics (e.g., the German umlaut or the Spanish tilde) have been replaced with their closest equivalent English character to facilitate use with database systems that may not support diacritics. The currentness of this dataset is indicated by the [CONTDATE] field. Based on the values in this field, the oldest record dates from 12/27/2004 and the newest record dates from 09/08/2009

Summary Since 2017, GEO shares have fallen sharply from $30 to ~$8.50 per share, at one point below even the book value of $8.19 per share. President Biden recently signed an executive order that banned the renewal of Department of Justice contracts with private prisons, but the effect on GEO is way way less than the market thinks. The border crisis renders ICE dependent on GEO for capacity, making it near impossible for ICE to cut ties in the near future. With a market cap of just $1.02 Billion, GEO has the potential to increase 2-3x in the next 6-12 months. cropped image of african american prisoner reading book LightFieldStudios/iStock via Getty Images Thesis GEO Group (GEO) is a deeply mispriced provider of privately-owned prisons, falling from a price of $30+ in early 2017 to the current price of $8.50 per share. GEO has fallen primarily as a result of concerns about legislation regarding private prisons, a canceled dividend, the likely shift away from a REIT structure, and high levels of debt. These overblown concerns have created a pretty solid structural opportunity. kmosby1992@gmail.com password kmosby1992@gmail.com Subscribe Company overview GEO operates in several segments, such as GEO care, International services, and U.S. Secure Services. Source: Annual report 1 - U.S. Secure Services U.S. Secure services account for the majority of their revenue, 67%, and includes their correctional facilities and processing centers. Secure services manage 74,000 beds across 58 facilities as of the 2020 annual report. GEO transport is included in U.S. secure services, but we felt it warranted its own paragraph. GEO transport provides secure transportation services to government agencies. With 400 customized, U.S. Department of Transportation compliant vehicles, GEO transport drove more than 14 million miles in 2020. 2 - GEO Care GEO care is a series of programs designed to reintegrate inmates and troubled youth into society. They operate through reentry centers, non-residential reentry programs, and youth treatment programs. GEO care operates approximately 4-dozen reentry centers, which provide housing, employment assistance, rehabilitation, substance abuse counseling, and vocational and education programs to current and former inmates. Through their reentry segment, they operate more than 70 non-residential reentry programs that provide behavioral assessments, treatment, supervision, and education. GEO care made up 23% of total 2020 revenue. Geo monitoring is included in GEO care. Through a wholly-owned subsidiary, BI Inc., GEO offers monitoring technology for parolees, probationers, pretrial defendants, and individuals involved in the immigration process. As of the 2020 annual report, BI helps monitor ~155,000 individuals across all 50 states. 3 - International operations International operations made up only 10% of revenue in 2020, but it is showing signs of growth. GEO recently landed a 10-year contract with the United kingdom, which they expect to total $760 million in revenue over the course of the contract. They also landed an 8-year contract with the Scottish Prison Service, which grants an annualized revenue of $39 million and has a 4-year renewal period. Why is GEO Mispriced? While there are several reasons for the dramatic reduction in share price over the last 4 years, the main reason was the looming fear of legislation destroying privately owned prisons. To a degree, this fear materialized on January 26th, 2021, when President Biden signed an Executive Order ordering the Attorney General not to renew any Department of Justice contracts with "privately operated criminal detention facilities." At face value, this order seems as though it would have a devastating impact on GEO. However, only ~25% of total revenue is impacted in any form by this order. The executive order only concerns branches of the Department of Justice. Only 2 DOJ branches have business connections with GEO, the US Marshals (USMS), and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Source: Annual report It is imperative to note that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is not a branch of the DOJ and is therefore unaffected by this order. Individual states, as well as other countries, are unaffected by this order Bureau of Prisons GEO currently holds several agreements with the BOP relating to operations of prisons across the country. As of year-end 2020, agreements involving the BOP accounted for 14% of total revenue. All revenue from the BOP will not disappear, as the executive order does not impact reentry facilities. In 2Q21, after the executive order was made, GEO renewed 5 BOP reentry contracts. GEO even scored a new contract with the BOP, regarding the construction and operation of a new facility in Tampa. United States Marshal Service The United States Marshal Service does not own o... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/sha256%3A900514e651e0d2c774ad90f358c9db90884c2baf98c068f470b290b3c4b3103a for complete metadata about this dataset.

Daily inmates in custody with attributes (custody level, mental health designation, race, gender, age, leagal status, sealed status, security risk group membership, top charge, and infraction flag). This data set excludes Sealed Cases. Resulting summaries may differ slightly from other published statistics.

Inmate discharges with attributes (race, gender, legal status, top charge). This data set excludes Sealed Cases. Resulting summaries may differ slightly from other published statistics.

Investigator(s): Bureau of Justice Statistics These data collections provide annual data on prisoners under a sentence of death and on those whose offense sentences were commuted or vacated during the years indicated. Information is supplied for basic sociodemographic characteristics such as age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status at time of imprisonment, level of education, and state of incarceration. Criminal history data include prior felony convictions for criminal homicide and legal status at the time of the capital offense. Additional information is available for inmates removed from death row by yearend of the last year indicated and for inmates who were executed. The universe is all inmates on death row since 1972 in the United States. The inmate identification numbers were assigned by the Bureau of the Census and have no purpose outside these data collections.Years Produced: Annually (latest release contains all years)NACJD has produced a resource guide on the Capital Punishment in the United States Series.

This is a dataset of prisoner mugshots and associated data (height, weight, etc). The copyright status is public domain, since it's produced by the government, the photographs do not have sufficient artistic merit, and a mere collection of facts aren't copyrightable.

The source is the Illinois Dept. of Corrections. In total, there are 68149 entries, of which a few hundred have shoddy data.

It's useful for neural network training, since it has pictures from both front and side, and they're (manually) labeled with date of birth, name (useful for clustering), weight, height, hair color, eye color, sex, race, and some various goodies such as sentence duration and whether they're sex offenders.

Here is the readme file:

---BEGIN README---
Scraped from the Illinois DOC.

https://www.idoc.state.il.us/subsections/search/inms_print.asp?idoc=
https://www.idoc.state.il.us/subsections/search/pub_showfront.asp?idoc=
https://www.idoc.state.il.us/subsections/search/pub_showside.asp?idoc=

paste <(cat ids.txt | sed 's/^/http:\/\/www.idoc.state.il.us\/subsections\/search\/pub_showside.asp\?idoc=/g') <(cat ids.txt| sed 's/^/ out=/g' | sed 's/$/.jpg/g') -d ' ' > showside.txt
paste <(cat ids.txt | sed 's/^/http:\/\/www.idoc.state.il.us\/subsections\/search\/pub_showfront.asp\?idoc=/g') <(cat ids.txt| sed 's/^/ out=/g' | sed 's/$/.jpg/g') -d ' ' > showfront.txt
paste <(cat ids.txt | sed 's/^/http:\/\/www.idoc.state.il.us\/subsections\/search\/inms_print.asp\?idoc=/g') <(cat ids.txt| sed 's/^/ out=/g' | sed 's/$/.html/g') -d ' ' > inmates_print.txt

aria2c -i ../inmates_print.txt -j4 -x4 -l ../log-$(pwd|rev|cut -d/ -f 1|rev)-$(date +%s).txt

Then use htmltocsv.py to get the csv. Note that the script is very poorly written and may have errors. It also doesn't do anything with the warrant-related info, although there are some commented-out lines which may be relevant.
Also note that it assumes all the HTML files are located in the inmates directory., and overwrites any csv files in csv if there are any.

front.7z contains mugshots from the front
side.7z contains mugshots from the side
inmates.7z contains all the html files
csv contains the html files converted to CSV

The reason for packaging the images is that many torrent clients would otherwise crash if attempting to load the torrent.

All CSV files contain headers describing the nature of the columns. For person.csv, the id is unique. For marks.csv and sentencing.csv, it is not.
Note that the CSV files use semicolons as delimiters and also end with a trailing semicolon. If this is unsuitable, edit the arr2csvR function in htmltocsv.py.

There are 68149 inmates in total, although some (a few hundred) are marked as "Unknown"/"N/A"/"" in one or more fields.

The "height" column has been processed to contain the height in inches, rather than the height in feet and inches expressed as "X ft YY in."
Some inmates were marked "Not Available", this has been replaced with "N/A".
Likewise, the "weight" column has been altered "XXX lbs." -> "XXX". Again, some are marked "N/A".

The "date of birth" column has some inmates marked as "Not Available" and others as "". There doesn't appear to be any pattern. It may be related to the institution they are kept in. Otherwise, the format is MM/DD/YYYY.

The "weight" column is often rounded to the nearest 5 lbs.

Statistics for hair:
43305 Black
17371 Brown
2887 Blonde or Strawberry
2539 Gray or Partially Gray
740 Red or Auburn
624 Bald
396 Not Available
209 Salt and Pepper
70 White
7 Sandy
1 Unknown

Statistics for sex:
63409 Male
4740 Female

Statistics for race:
37991 Black
20992 White
8637 Hispanic
235 Asian
104 Amer Indian
94 Unknown
92 Bi-Racial
4

Statistics for eyes:
51714 Brown
7808 Blue
4259 Hazel
2469 Green
1382 Black
420 Not Available
87 Gray
9 Maroon
1 Unknown
---END README---

Here is a formal summary:

---BEGIN SUMMARY---
Documentation:

1. Title: Illinois DOC dataset

2. Source Information
   -- Creators: Illinois DOC
   -- Illinois Department of Corrections
   1301 Concordia Court
   P.O. Box 19277
   Springfield, IL 62794-9277
   (217) 558-2200 x 2008
   -- Donor: Anonymous
   -- Date: 2019

3. Past Usage:
   -- None

4. Relevant Information:
   -- All CSV files contain headers describing the nature of the columns. For person.csv, the id is unique. For marks.csv and sentencing.csv, it is not.
   -- Note that the CSV files use semicolons as delimiters and also end with a trailing semicolon. If this is unsuitable, edit the arr2csvR function in htmltocsv...

This is an Annotation for Transparent Inquiry (ATI) data project. The annotated article can be viewed on the publisher's website here. Project Summary Scholarship on human rights diplomacy (HRD)—efforts by government officials to engage publicly and privately with their foreign counterparts—often focuses on actions taken to “name and shame” target countries, because private diplomatic activities are unobservable. To understand how HRD works in practice, we explore a campaign coordinated by the US government to free twenty female political prisoners. We compare release rates of the featured women to two comparable groups: a longer list of women considered by the State Department for the campaign; and other women imprisoned simultaneously in countries targeted by the campaign. Both approaches suggest that the campaign was highly effective. We consider two possible mechanisms through which expressive public HRD works: by imposing reputational costs and by mobilizing foreign actors. However, in-depth interviews with US officials and an analysis of media coverage find little evidence of these mechanisms. Instead, we argue that public pressure resolved deadlock within the foreign policy bureaucracy, enabling private diplomacy and specific inducements to secure the release of political prisoners. Entrepreneurial bureaucrats leveraged the spotlight on human rights abuses to overcome competing equities that prevent government-led coercive diplomacy on these issues. Our research highlights the importance of understanding the intersection of public and private diplomacy before drawing inferences about the effectiveness of HRD. Data Generation We generated four sources of data for this project: 1. A dataset of political prisoners from 13 countries based on Amnesty International Urgent Action reports between 2000 and 2015. 2. Arrest and release information for a dataset of female political prisoners 3. A dataset on media attention based on both news articles from LexisNexis and online search trends from Google Trends 4. Interviews conducted with U.S. government officials and other human rights advocates involved in the #Freethe20 campaign to free political prisoners launched in September 2015 We used two sources of data for each of our two research questions. Our first research question was: Did the #Freethe20 campaign have an impact on the release rate of political prisoners? In an ideal world, we would have a comprehensive set of female political prisoners to compare with #Freethe20 prisoners. However, as we explain in the manuscript, in countries with more dire human rights situations, arrests often go unreported. In some cases, the sheer volume of political prisoners makes chronicling information about them challenging, if not impossible. Therefore, in order to construct a comparable set of cases, one strategy we used was to collect information from Amnesty International’s “Urgent Action” campaigns. To our knowledge, Amnesty International has the most comprehensive, publicly available list of contemporary political prisoners globally. Their records are public and searchable, which allowed us to construct a population of political prisoners from the countries targeted by the #Freethe20 campaign. We began our data collection with a base set of Urgent Actions metadata generated by Judith Kelley and Dan Nielson via webscraping from the Amnesty International website. Using a list of URLs that linked to each Urgent Action Report, we coded the name and sex of individuals featured in each Urgent Action Report from 2000 through September 2015 (the start of the #Freethe20 campaign) in the 13 countries featured in the campaign (Azerbaijan, Burma, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, and Vietnam). Instructions about how we coded this information and sample documents are available in the QDR repository (QDR: MyrickWeinstein_codebook_urgentaction.pdf). After compiling a base dataset of individuals featured in Urgent Action reports, we identified the women in the dataset (~17% of entries) and conducted additional research about (1) whether these women could be classified as political prisoners, and (2) whether and when these women were released from prison, detention, or house arrest. Here, we relied on both follow-up reporting from Amnesty International as well as a variety of online news sources. We deposited the coding instructions for this process (MyrickWeinstein_codebook_releaseinfo.pdf) and also include documentation on additional online news sources that we used to make a judgment on a particular case. Our second question was: How and under what conditions did #Freethe20 affect the release rate of female political prisoners? To answer this question, we look at strategies of both public pressure and private, coercive diplomacy. For the former, we collected data on media attention and online search trends. We searched for newspapers and news articles that featured...

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 1973-2022 provides annual data on prisoners under a sentence of death, as well as those who had their sentences commuted or vacated and prisoners who were executed. This study examines basic sociodemographic classifications including age, sex, race and ethnicity, marital status at time of imprisonment, level of education, and state and region of incarceration. Criminal history information includes prior felony convictions and prior convictions for criminal homicide and the legal status at the time of the capital offense. Additional information is provided on those inmates removed from death row by year-end 2022. The dataset consists of one part which contains 9,675 cases and 33 variables. The file provides information on inmates whose death sentences were removed in addition to information on those inmates who were executed. The file also gives information about inmates who received a second death sentence by year-end 2022 as well as inmates who were already on death row.