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.

This open-access geospatial dataset (downloadable in csv or shapefile format) contains a total of 11 environmental indicators calculated for 1865 U.S. prisons. This consists of all active state- and federally-operated prisons according to the Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD), last updated June 2022. This dataset includes both raw values and percentiles for each indicator. Percentiles denote a way to rank prisons among each other, where the number represents the percentage of prisons that are equal to or have a lower ranking than that prison. Higher percentile values indicate higher vulnerability to that specific environmental burden compared to all the other prisons. Full descriptions of how each indicator was calculated and the datasets used can be found here: https://github.com/GeospatialCentroid/NASA-prison-EJ/blob/main/doc/indicator_metadata.md.

From these raw indicator values and percentiles, we also developed three individual component scores to summarize similar indicators, and to then create a single vulnerability index (methods based on other EJ screening tools such as Colorado Enviroscreen, CalEnviroScreen and EPA’s EJ Screen). The three component scores include climate vulnerability, environmental exposures and environmental effects. Climate vulnerability factors reflect climate change risks that have been associated with health impacts and includes flood risk, wildfire risk, heat exposure and canopy cover indicators. Environmental exposures reflect variables of different types of pollution people may come into contact with (but not a real-time exposure to pollution) and includes ozone, particulate matter (PM 2.5), traffic proximity and pesticide use. Environmental effects indicators are based on the proximity of toxic chemical facilities and includes proximity to risk management plan (RMP) facilities, National Priority List (NPL)/Superfund facilities, and hazardous waste facilities. Component scores were calculated by taking the geometric mean of the indicator percentiles. Using the geometric mean was most appropriate for our dataset since many values may be related (e.g., canopy cover and temperature are known to be correlated).

To calculate a final, standardized vulnerability score to compare overall environmental burdens at prisons across the U.S., we took the average of each component score and then converted those values to a percentile rank. While this index only compares environmental burdens among prisons and is not comparable to non-prison sites/communities, it will be able to heighten awareness of prisons most vulnerable to negative environmental impacts at county, state and national scales. As an open-access dataset it also provides new opportunities for other researchers, journalists, activists, government officials and others to further analyze the data for their needs and make comparisons between prisons and other communities. This is made even easier as we produced the methodology for this project as an open-source code base so that others can apply the code to calculate individual indicators for any spatial boundaries of interest. The codebase can be found on GitHub (https://github.com/GeospatialCentroid/NASA-prison-EJ) and is also published via Zenodo (https://zenodo.org/record/8306856).

This dataset displays the inmate populations for all the Federal Prisons throughout the United States on 7.2.08. This weekly Population Report can be found on the Bureau of Prisons website at bop.gov. These facilities are positioned by their lat/lon and this dataset is updated on a weekly basis.

NATIONAL JAIL CENSUS, 1988, is the fifth in a series of data collection efforts aimed at studying the nation's locally administered jails. For purposes of this data collection, a jail was defined as a confinement facility intended for holding adults (and in some cases juveniles) pending adjudication or having sentences of a year or less. Jails were further defined as being administered and staffed by municipal or county employees. Also included in this collection were six jails privately operated under contract for local governments. Excluded from the census were federal or state-administered facilities, including the combined jail-prison systems in Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The mailing list used for the census was derived from data gathered from the AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION DIRECTORY OF JUSTICE AGENCIES, publications such as AMERICAN JAILS, telephone calls to large metropolitan jail systems (e.g., New York City), state jail inspection bureaus, and newspaper articles. Following the initial mailout to 3,448 facilities, 44 jails were added and 176 deleted according to the criteria for inclusion, leaving a total of 3,316 facilities in 44 states. Variables include information on jail population by legal status, age and sex of prisoners, maximum sentence, admissions and releases, available services, structure and capacity, expenditure, and employment.

The purpose of this study was to gather data on prisoners entering and leaving the custody or supervision of state and federal authorities. Data refer to prisoners who were admitted to prison (Part 1), released from prison (Part 2), or released from parole (Part 3) in 2003. Variables include incarceration history, current offenses, and total time served. Background information on individuals includes year of birth, sex, age, race, Hispanic origin, and educational attainment.

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.

This dataset lists the total population 18 years and older by census block in Connecticut before and after population adjustments were made pursuant to Public Act 21-13. PA 21-13 creates a process to adjust the U.S. Census Bureau population data to allow for most individuals who are incarcerated to be counted at their address before incarceration. Prior to enactment of the act, these inmates were counted at their correctional facility address. The act requires the CT Office of Policy and Management (OPM) to prepare and publish the adjusted and unadjusted data by July 1 in the year after the U.S. census is taken or 30 days after the U.S. Census Bureau’s publication of the state’s data. A report documenting the population adjustment process was prepared by a team at OPM composed of the Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division (OPM CJPPD) and the Data and Policy Analytics (DAPA) unit. The report is available here: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/OPM/CJPPD/CjAbout/SAC-Documents-from-2021-2022/PA21-13_OPM_Summary_Report_20210921.pdf Note: On September 21, 2021, following the initial publication of the report, OPM and DOC revised the count of juveniles, reallocating 65 eighteen-year-old individuals who were incorrectly designated as being under age 18. After the DOC released the updated data to OPM, the report and this dataset were updated to reflect the revision.

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

These data assess the effects of the risk of local jail incarceration and of police aggressiveness in patrol style on rates of violent offending. The collection includes arrest rates for public order offenses, size of county jail populations, and numbers of new prison admissions as they relate to arrest rates for index (serious) crimes. Data were collected from seven sources for each city. CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1980 [UNITED STATES]: SUMMARY TAPE FILE 1A (ICPSR 7941), provided county-level data on number of persons by race, age, and age by race, number of persons in households, and types of households within each county. CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1980 [UNITED STATES]: SUMMARY TAPE FILE 3A (ICPSR 8071), measured at the city level, provided data on total population, race, age, marital status by sex, persons in household, number of households, housing, children, and families above and below the poverty level by race, employment by race, and income by race within each city. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 1980 data provided variables on total offenses and offense rates per 100,000 persons for homicides, rapes, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle offenses, and arson. Data from the FBI for 1980-1982, averaged per 100,000, provided variables for the above offenses by sex, age, and race, and the Uniform Crime Report arrest rates for index crimes within each city. The NATIONAL JAIL CENSUS for 1978 and 1983 (ICPSR 7737 and ICPSR 8203), aggregated to the county level, provided variables on jail capacity, number of inmates being held by sex, race, and status of inmate's case (awaiting trial, awaiting sentence, serving sentence, and technical violations), average daily jail populations, number of staff by full-time and part-time, number of volunteers, and number of correctional officers. The JUVENILE DETENTION AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY CENSUS for 1979 and 1982-1983 (ICPSR 7846 and 8205), aggregated to the county level, provided data on the number of individuals being held by type of crime and sex, as well as age of juvenile offenders by sex, average daily prison population, and payroll and other expenditures for the institutions.

Chinese Job Skills Dataset for Former Prisoners

This dataset contains simplified Chinese descriptions of skills that can be used in CVs and job applications by individuals who were formerly incarcerated. Originally created in Arabic, translated to English and then Chinese using Hugging Face models.

  Fields

Input_ZH: The raw skill or task in Chinese Description_ZH: Professional wording for job search

  License

CC BY 4.0 — you are free to use and remix with… See the full description on the dataset page: https://huggingface.co/datasets/xanyang1020/Chinese_job_skills_dataset_for_former_prisoners.

The Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies 2 (CJ-DATS 2) was launched in 2008 with a focus on conducting implementation research in criminal justice settings. NIDA's ultimate goal for CJ-DATS 2 was to identify implementation strategies that maximize the likelihood of sustained delivery of evidence-based practices to improve offender drug abuse and HIV outcomes, and to decrease their risk of incarceration. CJ-DATS 2 HIV Services Treatment Implementation in Corrections focused on implementing interventions to address the HIV continuum of care in correctional settings. There are 5 datasets associated with this study. -Dataset 1 (DS1) contains data aggregated at the correction facility level that examines delivery of HIV services in the experimental and control study groups (215 cases). -Dataset 2 (DS2) and Dataset 3 (DS3) detail survey responses from correctional staff about how the HIV services were changed and/or implemented at their facilities (DS2 has 68 cases and DS3 has 85 cases). -Dataset 4 (DS4) contains survey responses from inmates about their perceptions of the HIV services provided at facilities in which they are incarcerated (2,301 cases). -Dataset 5 (DS5) contains data merged together by the principal investigator from several surveys given to treatment staff, treatment directors, correctional officers and correctional directors. This dataset includes demographic information, staff perceptions of their work environment, perceptions of HIV infected individuals, evaluations of HIV workshops and perceptions of the delivery of HIV services at their facility (385 cases). These 5 datasets contain a total of 889 variables.

This dataset shows the number of people that are in prison by state in 2006 and 2007. These numbers are then compared to show the difference between the two years and a percentage of change is given as well. This data was brought to our attention by the Pew Charitable Trusts in their report titled, One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008."" The main emphasis of the article emphasizes the point that in 2007 1 in every 100 Americans were in prison. To note: Many states have not completed their data verification process. Final published figures may differ slightly. The District of Columbia is not included. D.C. prisoners were transferred to federal custody in 2001

This dataset shows the total amount of State Prison Expenditures for Medical Care, Food expenses, and Utilities in the year 2001. Over a quarter of prison operating costs are for basic living expenses. Prisoner medical care, food service, utilities, and contract housing totaled $7.3 billion, or about 26% of State prison current operating expenses. Inmate medical care totaled $3.3 billion, or about 12% of operating expenditures. Supplies and services of government staff and full-time and part-time managed care and fee-for service providers averaged $2,625 per inmate, or $7.19 per day. By comparison, the average annual health care expenditure of U.S. residents, including all sources in FY 2001, was $4,370, or $11.97 per day. Factors beyond the scope of this report contributed to the variation in spending levels for prisoner medical care. Lacking economies of scale, some States had significantly higher than average medical costs for everyone, and some had higher proportions of inmates whose abuse of drugs or alcohol had led to disease. Also influencing variations in expenditures were staffing and funding of prisoner health care and distribution of specialized medical equipment for prisoner treatment. Food service in FY 2001 cost $1.2 billion, or approximately 4% of State prison operating expenditures. On average nationwide, State departments of correction spent $2.62 to feed inmates each day. Utility services for electricity, natural gas, heating oil, water, sewerage, trash removal, and telephone in State prisons totaled $996 million in FY 2001. Utilities accounted for about 3.5% of State prison operating expenditure. For more information see the url source of this dataset.

This dataset shows the total amount of expenditures and operating costs that states spent on inmates in the fiscal year of 2001. Correctional authorities spent $38.2 billion to maintain the Nation's State correctional systems in fiscal year 2001, including $29.5 billion specifically for adult correctional facilities. Day-today operating expenses totaled $28.4 billion, and capital outlays for land, new building, and renovations, $1.1 billion. The average annual operating cost per State inmate in 2001 was $22,650, or $62.05 per day. Among facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, it was $22,632 per inmate, or $62.01 per day. In a followup to a study based on FY 1996 data, this report presents unique statistics on the cost of operating State prisons in FY 2001. Information was obtained by extracting corrections data from each State's responses to the U.S. Census Bureau's annual Survey of Government Finances. Item categories were standardized across jurisdictions, and reported figures were verified with State budget officials. For more information please see source url.

This dataset shows the amount of money that each state spent on their Corrections program both in percentage of the Overall amount of money spent in the State and as a total amount of money. This data was brought to our attention by the Pew Charitable Trusts in their report titled, One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008. The main emphasis of the article emphasizes the point that in 2007 1 in every 100 Americans were in prison. To note: The District of Columbia is not included. D.C. prisoners were transferred to federal custody in 2001.

This dataset shows the comparison between the amount of spending that was spent on higher education and corrections by each state in the United States from 1987 to 2007. This data was brought to our attention by the Pew Charitable Trusts in their report titled, "One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008." The main emphasis of the article emphasizes the point that in 2007 1 in every 100 Americans were in prison. To note: Many states have not completed their data verification process. Final published figures may differ slightly. The District of Columbia is not included. D.C. prisoners were transferred to federal custody in 2001

This dataset shows the percentage of State Employees that work in Corrections by state in the year 2006. This data was brought to our attention by the Pew Charitable Trusts in their report titled, One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008. The main emphasis of the article emphasizes the point that in 2007 1 in every 100 Americans were in prison. To note: The District of Columbia is not included. D.C. prisoners were transferred to federal custody in 2001

This dataset displays the locations of all the Adult Correctional Facilities in the state of New York as of 3.2008. This includes both female and male institutions.

This dataset displays the locations of all the Adult Correctional Facilities in the state of New Mexico as of 3.2008. This includes both female and male institutions.

This dataset displays the locations of all the Adult Correctional Facilities in the state of California as of 3.2008. This includes both female and male institutions.