--- ### 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). ---

The purpose of this study was to conduct a national-scale evaluation of correctional facilities housing female offenders in order to assess the effectiveness of current programs, including alternative sanctions and treatment programs, and management practices. The goal was to gather information on "what works for which women" with respect to the program characteristics most related to positive outcomes. The first stage of the study consisted of gathering the opinions of administrators in state departments of corrections, including state-level administrators and administrators in institutions for women (Part 1). Administrators from jails that housed women were also interviewed (Part 2). Data collected for Parts 1 and 2 focused on attitudes toward the influx of women into jails and prisons, the needs of incarcerated women, and management and program approaches for meeting those needs. Respondents were asked to identify programs that in their view stood out as especially effective in meeting the needs of incarcerated women. From this list of nominated programs, researchers conducted 62 in-depth telephone interviews with administrators of programs located in jails, prisons, and the community (Part 3). A supplement to this study consisted of telephone interviews with 11 program directors who headed mental health programs that appeared to be "state of the art" for incarcerated women (Part 4). Variables in Parts 1-4 that concern the nominated programs include the underlying principles guiding the programs, whom the programs targeted, what types of staff were employed by the programs, the most positive effects of the programs, and whether program evaluations had been completed. Program effort variables found in Parts 1-4 cover whether the programs focused on trying to treat substance abuse, stop child abuse, provide women with nontraditional job skills, parenting skills, HIV/AIDS education, and life skills, change cognitive thinking, and/or promote self-esteem. Several variables common to Parts 1-3 include whether the programs provided women with follow-up/transitional help, helped to stimulate pre-release planning, allowed visits between women and children, or used ex-offenders, ex-substance users, volunteers, or outside community groups to work with the women. Variables focusing on the types of assessment tools used cover medical assessments, VD screening, reading/math ability screening, mental health screening, substance abuse screening, needs regarding children screening, and victim-spouse abuse screening. Variables pertaining to institution management include background knowledge needed to manage a facility, the types of management styles used for managing female offenders, security and other operational issues, problems with cross-sex supervision, and handling complaints. Similar variables across Parts 1, 2, and 4 deal with the impact of private or state funding, such as respondents' views on the positive and negative outcomes of privatization and of using state services. Both Parts 1 and 2 contain information on respondents' views regarding the unique needs of women offenders, which programs were especially for women, and which program needs were more serious than others. Planning variables in Parts 1 and 2 include whether there were plans to have institutions link with other state agencies, and which programs were most in need of expansion. Further common variables concerned the influx of women in prison, including how administrators were dealing with the increasing number of women offenders, whether the facilities were originally designed for women, how the facilities adapted for women, and the number of women currently in the facilities. In addition, Part 1 contains unique variables on alternative, intermediate sanction options for women, such as the percentage of women sent to day supervision/treatment and sent to work release centers, why it was possible to use intermediate sanctions, and how decisions were made to use intermediate sanctions. Variables dealing with funding and the provision of services to women include the type of private contractor or government agency that provided drug treatment, academic services, and vocational services to women, and the nature of the medical and food services provided to women. Variables unique to Part 2 pertain to the type of offender the jail housed, including whether the jurisdiction had a separate facility for pretrial or sentenced offenders, the total rated capacity of the jail, the average daily population of pretrial females, whether the jail was currently housing state inmates, and the impact on local inmates of being housed with state inmates. Variables concerning classification and assessment focused on the purpose of the classification process for female offenders, whether the classification process was different for male and female offenders, and a description of the process used. Variables specific to Part 3 deal with characteristics of the participants, such as whether program participants were involved in a case management system, the approximate number of women and men participating in the programs, whether offenders were tried and awaiting sentence or were on probation, and the number of hours a week that individuals participated in the program. Program structure variables include whether the program was culture- or gender-specific, restrictions on program participants, and who established the restrictions. Programming strategy variables cover identifying strategies used for meeting the needs of women offenders with short sentences, strategies for women with long sentences, and what stood in the way of greater use of intermediate sanctions. Part 4 contains variables on the size of the mental health program/unit, including the number of beds in the mental health unit, the number of beds set aside for different types of diagnoses, and the number of women served annually. Diagnosis variables provide information on who was responsible for screening women for mental health needs, whether women were re-evaluated at any time other than at intake, and the most common mental health problems of women in the unit. Variables on running the program include whether the program/unit worked with private or public hospitals, the factors that hindered coordination of services among local or state facilities, the types of services affected by budget constraints, and the strategies used to prevent women from harming themselves and others. Staffing variables cover the number of psychologists, social workers, nurses, and correctional officers that worked in the mental health unit. Demographic variables were similar for all four data files. These include the institution level, the type of respondent interviewed, respondents' gender and educational background, and the number of years they had been in their positions, were employed in corrections, and had worked in women's facilities.

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

This dataset documents the records of mainly Black people incarcerated in the Tennessee State Penitentiary in the period directly before, during, and after the Civil War, from 1850-1870. It includes a staggering amount of formerly enslaved Civil War soldiers and veterans who had enlisted in the segregated regiments of the United States Military, the U.S.C.T. This demographic information of over 1,400 inmates incarcerated in an occupied border state allows us to examine trends, patterns, and relationships that speak to the historic ties between the US military and the TN State Penitentiary, and more broadly, the role of enslavement’s legacies in the development of punitive federal systems. Further analysis of this dataset reveals the genesis of many modern trends in incarceration and law. The dataset of this article and its historiographical implications will be of interest to scholars who study the regional dynamics of antebellum and post-Civil War prison systems, convict leasing and the development of the modern carceral state, Black resistance in the forms of fugitivity and participation in the Civil War, and pre-war era incarceration of free Black men and women and non-Black people convicted of crimes related to enslavement.

The data files submitted here are related to the research, in which we compared psychosocial and biodemographic indicators of life history strategies of incarcerated offenders (N=84) and men in dangerous professions (N=117) working as firefighters (N =85, the first 85 items in the dataset) and soldiers (N =32, the last 32 items in the dataset).

We hypothesized that there would be differences in life history strategies employed by these two groups of subjects and we also expected that biodemographic and psychosocial life history indicators used in the study would correlate with each other as, according to life history theory, they are reflections of one consistent life history strategy.

We used two questionnaires: the Mini-K used to assess psychosocial aspects of life history strategy and the questionnaire we created to measure biodemographic life history variables such as age of the subjects’ parents at the appearance of their first child, number of biological siblings and step-siblings, intervals between subsequent mother’s births, age at sexual onset, having children, age of becoming a father, number of offspring, number of women with whom the subjects have children and life expectancy. The research on the inmates took place in medium-security correctional institution. Firefighters and soldiers participated in the study in their workplaces. All subjects were completing questionnaires in a paper-and-pencil version. Participation was voluntary and anonymous.

The results showed that the inmates tended to employ faster life history strategies than men in dangerous professions, but this regularity only emerged in relation to biodemographic variables. There were no intergroup differences in the context of psychosocial indicators of LH strategy measured by the Mini-K. Moreover, the overall correlation between the biodemographic and psychosocial LH indicators used in this study was weak. Thus, in our study biodemographic indicators seemed to reliably reflect life history strategies of the subjects, in contrast to psychosocial variables.

All statistical analysis was performed using SPSS and Statistica. Raw data as well as encoded data in SPSS format are attached.

The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) funded agencies to develop programs to improve criminal justice, employment, education, health, and housing outcomes for released prisoners. SVORI was a goal-oriented initiative that specified outcomes that should be achieved by programs that were developed locally. The original Multi-site Evaluation of SVORI funded under NIJ grant 2004-RE-CX-0002 included a quasi-experimental impact evaluation to determine the effectiveness of programming. Specifically, the purpose of the impact evaluation was to determine whether individuals who participated in enhanced reentry programming, as measured by their enrollment in SVORI programs, had improved post-release outcomes than comparable individuals who did not participate in SVORI programming. Impact evaluation data collection for both SVORI and non-SVORI participants consisted of four waves of in-person, computer-assisted interviews and oral swab drug tests conducted in conjunction with two of the follow-up interviews. The research team collected data on a total of 2,391 individuals including 1,697 adult males (Part 1), 357 adult females (Part 2), and 337 juvenile males (Part 3). As part of the impact evaluation, experienced RTI field interviewers conducted pre-release interviews with offenders approximately 30 days before release from prison and a series of follow-up interviews at 3, 9, and 15 months post-release. These data provided information on criminal history and recidivism occurring by December 31, 2007. The Adult Males Data (Part 1), Adult Females Data (Part 2), and the Juvenile Males Data (Part 3) each contain the same 5,566 variables from the 3 waves of offender interviews, 10 drug test lab results variables, and 3 weight variables. (Note: Some interview questions were only asked of adults, and other questions were only asked of juveniles.) Offender interview variables include demographics, housing, employment, education, military experience, family background, peer relationships, program operations and services, physical and mental health, substance abuse, crime and delinquency, and attitudes toward those topics. Under NIJ Grant 2009-IJ-CX-0010, the original Multi-site Evaluation of SVORI data were updated in order to examine the questions of, "What works, for whom, and for how long?" This included follow-up interview questions of those previously (and currently still) incarcerated. New variables derived from data collected under the original SVORI impact evaluation between 2004 and 2007 were also added to Part 3. Part one included an additional 100 variables, part two an additional 102 variables and part 3 an additional 99 variables.