Investigator(s): Bureau of Justice Statistics Conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, this survey is part of a series of data gathering efforts undertaken to assist policymakers in assessing and remedying deficiencies in the nation's correctional institutions. Its primary objective is to produce national statistics of the state and sentenced federal prison populations across a variety of domains. The survey gathered information on demographic, socioeconomic, and criminal history characteristics of prisoners. Also obtained were details of prisoner’ military service, current offense and sentence, incident characteristics, and firearm possession and sources. Other information includes age at time of interview, ethnicity, education, lifetime drug use and alcohol use and treatment, mental and physical health and treatment, and pre-arrest employment and income. Data on characteristics of victims, prison programs and services, and rule violations are provided as well. With the 2016 administration, the survey was renamed the Survey of Prison Inmates. NACJD has prepared a resource guide for the Survey of Prison Inmates Series.

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.

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.

The Fortune Society, a private not-for-profit organization located in New York City, provides a variety of services that are intended to support former prisoners in becoming stable and productive members of society. The purpose of this evaluation was to explore the extent to which receiving supportive services at the Fortune Society improved clients' prospects for law abiding behavior. More specifically, this study examined the extent to which receipt of these services reduced recidivism and homelessness following release. The research team adopted a quasi-experimental design that compared recidivism outcomes for persons enrolled at Fortune (clients) to persons released from New York State prisons and returning to New York City and, separately, inmates released from the New York City jails, none of whom went to Fortune (non-clients). All -- clients and non-clients alike -- were released after January 1, 2000, and before November 3, 2005 (for state prisoners), and March 3, 2005 (for city jail prisoners). Information about all prisoners released during these time frames was obtained from the New York State Department of Correctional Services for state prisoners and from the New York City Department of Correction for city prisoners. The research team also obtained records from the Fortune Society for its clients and arrest and conviction information for all released prisoners from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services' criminal history repository. These records were matched and merged, producing a 72,408 case dataset on 57,349 released state prisoners (Part 1) and a 68,614 case dataset on 64,049 city jail prisoners (Part 2). The research team obtained data from the Fortune Society for 15,685 persons formally registered as clients between 1989 and 2006 (Part 3) and data on 416,943 activities provided to clients at the Fortune Society between September 1999 and March 2006 (Part 4). Additionally, the research team obtained 97,665 records from the New York City Department of Homeless Services of all persons who sought shelter or other homeless services during the period from January 2000 to July 2006 (Part 5). Part 6 contains 96,009 cases and catalogs matches between a New York State criminal record identifier and a Fortune Society client identifier. The New York State Prisons Releases Data (Part 1) contain a total of 124 variables on released prison inmate characteristics including demographic information, criminal history variables, indicator variables, geographic variables, and service variables. The New York City Jails Releases Data (Part 2) contain a total of 92 variables on released jail inmate characteristics including demographic information, criminal history variables, indicator variables, and geographic variables. The Fortune Society Client Data (Part 3) contain 44 variables including demographic, criminal history, needs/issues, and other variables. The Fortune Society Client Activity Data (Part 4) contain seven variables including two identifiers, end date, Fortune service unit, duration in hours, activity type, and activity. The Homelessness Events Data (Part 5) contain four variables including two identifiers, change in homeless status, and date of change. The New York State Criminal Record/Fortune Society Client Match Data (Part 6) contain four variables including three identifiers and a variable that indicates the type of match between a New York State criminal record identifier and a Fortune Society client identifier.

This data collection, conducted in a federal penitentiary and prison camp in Terre Haute, Indiana, between September 1986 and July 1988, was undertaken to examine the reliability and validity of psychological classification systems for adult male inmates. The classification systems tested were Warren's Interpersonal Maturity Level (I-level), Quay Adult Internal Management Systems (AIMS), Jesness Inventory, Megargee's MMPI-Based Prison Typology, and Hunt's Conceptual Level. The study sought to answer the following questions: (a) Which psychological classification systems or combination of systems could be used most effectively with adult populations? (b) What procedures (e.g., interview, paper-and-pencil test, staff assessment, or combination) would assure maximum efficiency without compromising psychometric precision? (c) What could the commonalities and differences among the systems reveal about the specific systems and about general classification issues pertinent to this population? and (d) How could the systems better portray the prison experience? The penitentiary was a low-maximum-security facility and the prison camp was a minimum-security one. A total of 179 penitentiary inmates and 190 camp inmates participated. The study employed both a pre-post and a correlational design. At intake, project staff members interviewed inmates, obtained social, demographic, and criminal history background data from administrative records and test scores, and then classified the inmates by means of an I-level diagnosis. Social and demographic data collected at intake included date of entry into the prison, age, race, marital status, number of dependents, education, recorded psychological diagnoses, occupation and social economic status, military service, evidence of problems in the military, ability to hold a job, and residential stability. Criminal history data provided include age at first nontraffic arrest, arrests and convictions, prison or jail sentences, alcohol or drug use, total number and kinds of charges for current offense, types of weapon and victims involved, co-offender involvement, victim-offender relationship, if the criminal activity required complex skills, type of conviction, and sentence length. T-scores for social maladjustment, immaturity, autism, alienation, manifest aggression, withdrawal, social anxiety, repression, and denial were also gathered via the Jesness Inventory and the MMPI. Interview data cover the inmates' interactions within the prison, their concerns about prison life, their primary difficulties and strategies for coping with them, evidence of guilt or empathy, orientation to the criminal label, relationships with family and friends, handling problems and affectivity, use of alcohol and drugs, and experiences with work and school. For the follow-up, the various types of assessment activities were periodically conducted for six months or until the inmate's release date, if the inmate was required to serve less than six months. Data collected at follow-up came from surveys of inmates, official reports of disciplinary infractions or victimizations, and prison staff assessments of inmates' prison adjustment and work performance. The follow-up surveys collected information on inmates' participation in treatment and educational programs, work absenteeism, health, victimization experiences and threats, awards, participation in aggressive, threatening, or other illegal activities, contact with family and friends, communication strategies, stress, sources of stress, and attitudes and beliefs about crime and imprisonment. Follow-up ratings by prison staff characterized the inmates on several clinical scales, according to each rater's global assessment of the interviewee. These characteristics included concern for others, role-taking abilities, assertiveness, inmate's relations with other inmates, authorities, and staff, verbal and physical aggressiveness, emotional control under stress, cooperativeness, need for supervision, response to supervision, maturity, behavior toward other inmates, and behavior toward staff.

This data collection focused on problems in the women's correctional system over a 135-year period. More specifically, it examined the origins and development of prisoner and sentencing characteristics in three states. Demographic data on female inmates cover age, race, parents' place of birth, prisoner's occupation, religion, and marital status. Other variables include correctional facilities, offenses, minimum and maximum sentences, prior commitments, method of release from prison, and presence of crime partners.

This dataset includes people released to Philadelphia from the Philadelphia Department of Prisons (PDP) and the Pennsylvania Department of Correction (PA DOC). Individual-level data for releases from Federal (BOP) incarceration was not available, and makes up less than 2% of people released to Philadelphia in the year analyzed. The dataset also only includes people released to Philadelphia who have been charged with a criminal non-summary type offense in the Philadelphia adult criminal justice system.

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

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

--- ### Context This dataset contains the complete detail about the Prison and various characteristics of inmates. This will help to understand better about prison system in India. ### Content 1. Details of Jail wise population of prison inmates 1. Details about the list of jails in India at the end of year 2015. 1. Jail category wise population of inmates. 1. Capacity of jails by inmate population. 1. Age group, nationality and gender wise population of inmates. 1. Religion and gender wise population of inmates. 1. Caste and gender wise population of inmates. 1. Education standards of inmates. 1. Domicile of inmates. 1. Incidence of recidivism. 1. Rehabilitation of prisoners. 1. Distribution of sentence periods of convicts in various jails by sex and age-groups. 1. Details of under trial prisoners by the type of IPC (Indian Penal Code) offences. 1. Details of convicts by the type of IPC (Indian Penal Code) offences. 1. Details of SLL (special & local law) Crime headwise distribution of inmates who convicted 1. Details of SLL (special & local law) Crime head wise distribution of inmates under trial 1. Details of educational facilities provided to prisoners. 1. Details of Jail breaks, group clashes and firing in jail (Tranquility). 1. Details of wages per day to convicts. 1. Details of Prison inmates trained under different vocational training. 1. Details of capital punishment (death sentence) and life imprisonment. 1. Details of prison inmates escaped. 1. Details of prison inmates released. 1. Details of Strength of officials 1. Details of Total Budget and Actual Expenditure during the year 2015-16. 1. Details of Budget 1. Details of Expenditure 1. Details of Expenditure on inmates 1. Details of Inmates suffering from mental ilness 1. Details of Period of detention of undertrials 1. Details of Number of women prisoners with children 1. Details of Details of inmates parole during the year 1. Details of Value of goods produced by inmates 1. Details of Number of vehicles available 1. Details of Training of Jail Officers 1. Details of Movements outside jail premises 1. Details of Details of electronic equipment used in prison ### Inspiration There are many questions about Indian prison with this dataset. Some of the interesting questions are 1. Percentage of jails over crowded. Is there any change in percentage over time? 1. How many percentage of inmates re-arrested? 1. Which state/u.t pay more wages to the inmates? 1. Which state/u.t has more capital punishment/life imprisonment inmates? 1. Inmates gender ratio per state ### Acknowledgements National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Govt of India has shared this [dataset](https://data.gov.in/dataset-group-name/prison-statistics) under [Govt. Open Data License - India](https://data.gov.in/government-open-data-license-india). NCRB has also shared prison data on their [website](http://ncrb.nic.in/StatPublications/PSI/PrevPublications.htm). ---

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This study is a secondary analysis of data from ICPSR Study Number 27101, Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) Multi-site Impact Evaluation, 2004-2011 [United States]- specifically the adult male dataset -to examine the associations among child support obligations, employment and reentry outcomes. The study addressed the following research questions: Are the demographic, criminal justice and employment-related characteristics of incarcerated men with child support orders significantly different in any important way from incarcerated males without child support orders? Did SVORI clients receive more support and services related to child support orders and modification of debt after release from prison compared to non-SVORI participants? Does having legal child support obligations decrease the likelihood of employment in later waves, net of key demographic and criminal justice history factors? How does employment influence the relationship between child support debt and recidivism? and Is family instrumental support a significant predictor of reduced recidivism or increased employment in models assessing the relationship between child support obligations, employment and recidivism? The study includes one document (Syntax_ChildSupport_Reentry_forICPSR_2012-IJ-CX-0012.docx) which contains SPSS and Stata syntax used to create research variables.

The dataset provides detailed, standardised records of prisoners, including demographic, physical, and judicial information such as age, height, offence, birthplace, residence, occupation, religion, and literacy.

The dataset offers a comprehensive resource for studying social, economic, demographic, and anthropometric history of Ireland under British rule. Prisoners' names are anonymised to comply with data-sharing agreements. Recidivists are only included in this dataset the first time they are entered into the prison register.

Year of conviction ranges from 1858 to 1910, and the year of birth is from 1840 to 1859. The average age of the prison population is 34, and ages range from 16 to 70.

Data are described in more detail in E. McLaughlin, C. L. Colvin and M. Blum, 'Anthropometric History: Revisiting What’s in it for Ireland', Irish Economic and Social History (2021).

Occupations are classified into five categories using the Armstrong scale: W. A. Armstrong, ‘The use of information about occupation, part I: a basis for social stratification’, in E. A. Wrigley (ed.), Nineteenth-century society: essays in the use of quantitative methods for the study of social data (Cambridge, 1972).

Famine-era mortality is appended to this dataset, denoting excess mortality in a prisoner's county of birth during the Great Irish Famine. This is calculated by comparing the 1841 and 1851 censuses, as calculated by Joel Mokyr, Why Ireland starved (2nd ed., London, 1985).

This project presents a hand-collected dataset of over 18,620 individuals incarcerated in Kilmainham Gaol (1837–1910) or Clonmel Gaol (1848–1929), derived from surviving General Prison Registers for these two prisons held at the National Archives of Ireland in Dublin (NAI/Pris1/3 and NAI/Pris1/33).

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

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

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This study addresses changes to state correctional systems and policies in response to correctional spending limits brought on by the worsening economic climate beginning in late 2007. These changes include institutional changes, such as closing prisons and reducing staffing, "back-end" strategies, such as reductions in sentence lengths and reduced parolee supervision, and "front-end" measures, such as funding trade-offs between other governmental and social services. A survey of the 50 state correctional administrators addressed fiscal stress, including size and characteristics of the prison population, prison crowding, prison expenditures, institutional safety, staff morale, public safety and other justice spending. Additionally, six states were selected for in depth case studies, which included interviews with facility personnel and site visits by research staff in order to thoroughly understand the challenges faced and the resulting decisions made. Additionally, each state's demographic, correctional spending, and overall financial information was collected from census and other publicly available reports. Information on the overall health and safety of the inmates was examined through an econometric comparison of funding levels and statistics as to prisoner mortality, crime and incarceration rates.

A. SUMMARY To confirm the completeness of this dataset please contact the Sheriff's Office at sheriff.tech.services@sfgov.org The dataset provides summary information on individuals booked into the San Francisco City and County Jail since 2012, categorized by Male/Female. The table provides a breakdown of the total number of bookings by month and Male/Female. The unit of measure is the jail booking number. The data is collected by the Sheriff's Office and includes self-reported and assigned data. The booking process refers to the procedure that occurs after an individual has been arrested and is taken into custody. The process begins with the arrest of an individual by law enforcement officers. The arrest can take place on the scene or at a later time if a warrant is issued. Once the individual has been arrested, and statutory law requires incarceration, they would be transported to the jail for booking. The arresting officer will record the reason for the arrest, along with any other relevant information. The sheriff’s deputies will then book the individual into jail, which involves taking their fingerprints, photograph, and recording personal information. The jail will assign a booking number, which is used to identify the individual throughout their time in custody. Once the booking process is complete, the individual will be incarcerated and will remain in custody until they are released per court order. Disclaimer: The San Francisco Sheriff's Office does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the information as the data is subject to change as modifications and updates are completed. B. HOW THE DATASET IS CREATED When an arrest is presented to the Sheriff’s Office, relevant data is manually entered into the Sheriff Office's jail management system. Data reports are pulled from this system on a semi-regular basis, and added to Open Data. C. UPDATE PROCESS This dataset is scheduled to update monthly D. HOW TO USE THIS DATASET This data can be used to identify trends and patterns in the jail population over time. The date in this dataset is based on the date the suspect was booked into county jail for the arresting incident. The unit of measurement for this dataset is the booking number. A jail booking number is a unique identifier assigned to each individual who is booked into a jail facility. It is used to track the individual throughout their time in custody and to link their records to other relevant information, such as court appearances and medical records. E. RELATED DATASETS • Bookings by Age • Bookings by Race • Bookings by Ethnicity

The National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) compiles offender-level data on admissions and releases from state prison, post-confinement community supervision and year-end prison custody records. The data are used to monitor the nation's correctional population and address specific policy questions related to recidivism, prisoner reentry, and trends in demographic characteristics of the incarcerated and community supervision populations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has administered the NCRP since 1983. Abt Associates has served as the NCRP data collection agent since October 2010. As with all other BJS data collections, participation is voluntary, and not all states submit NCRP data each year. This version of the NCRP data contains data for term records, prison admissions, prison releases, and year-end prison population counts. The data files have selected variables making the data suitable for public release. The complete version of NCRP data is classified as restricted access. Please search for ICPSR No. 37608 to find the analogous complete version of this file.

Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, Congress mandated that the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) investigate former prisoners' experiences in prison to assist in understanding the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization within the prison setting. BJS and its subcontractor, NORC at the University of Chicago, led a national data collection effort focusing on prison sexual assault as reported by former state prisoners. The focus of the National Former Prisoner Survey (NFPS) was sexual victimization among former state prisoners. The survey was divided into 6 sections. The first two sections were administered using a computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) method and focused on demographic and criminal history information. The remaining sections, covering more sensitive information, were administered using a touch-screen-audio-assisted-computer-self-interviewing (TACASI) method. Sections A and B of the instrument collected demographic and criminal history information, as well as information on placements during the last continuous incarceration. Sections C and D captured detailed inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization during the last continuous incarceration, including the type of sexual activity, identification of facilities at which such incidents occurred, frequency of occurrences, and other specifics regarding sexual victimization. Section E addressed staff-on-inmate sexual victimization and misconduct, whether considered willing or unwilling, and gathered specifics of activity indicated. The last section, F, focused on the impacts of sexual assault on victimized respondents, as well as parole supervision characteristics for all respondents. The National Former Prisoner Survey (NFPS) began in January 2008 and concluded in October 2008, and involved the random selection of approximately 250 parole offices across the country using probability proportional-to-size (PPS) sampling procedures. Completed interviews were obtained for 17,738 respondents; supplemental data was collected on all former prisoners sampled in order to develop weights for national estimations.

In order to develop a better understanding of the factors that influence whether a male prisoner's family stays involved in his life during incarceration, researchers conducted face-to-face interviews with inmates from two New Jersey prisons and their family members between May 2005 and July 2006. A total of 35 (25 from one prison and 10 from the other) inmates and 15 family members were interviewed, comprising 13 inmate and family dyads, 1 inmate and family triad, and an additional 21 inmate interviews. The data include variables that explore the family's relationship with the incarcerated individual in the following areas: the inmate's relationship with the family prior to the incarceration, the strain (emotional, economic, stigma) that the incarceration has placed on the family, the economic resources available to the family to maintain the inmate, the family's social support system, and the inmate's efforts to improve or rehabilitate himself while incarcerated.

This dataset contains survey data for the publication "The Invisible Women: The Costs of Prison and the Indirect Effects on Women" (Related publication only available in Spanish). The study seeks to draw attention to the families of people who are detained in the local Mexican prison system. The results of this study are divided into two parts: the first part shows the socio-demographic characteristics of those who visit the Centers for Social Rehabilitation including information about their education, work, and economic status, among others. The second part provides quantitative information on the economic, social and health costs that are imposed by a criminal model that fails to recognize its existence, and by a prison system that frequently fails to comply with the obligation to pay the expenses of those that have been put in seclusion.