Adult correctional services, operating expenditures for provincial, territorial and federal programs, provinces, territories and federal jurisdiction, five years of data.

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.

This international, interdisciplinary project provides new perspectives on the experience of prison for a range of end users. Using innovative mixed methods its aim is to critically analyze current developments in penal architecture, the design of carceral spaces and the impact of advanced technologies of communication, surveillance and monitoring of movement, with a view to providing a theoretically informed, empirically grounded and comparative account of prison architecture, design and technology (ADT) and their effects on prisoners, staff and prison visitors. Tracing the commission, design and construction of two UK prisons, the project explores: (i) the intentions behind the architecture, design and technologies of spatial management and control that characterize the recent penal estate, paying attention to external and internal spaces, and incorporating consideration of the introduction of Building Information Modelling (BIM) to the UK custodial sector; (ii) the impacts of the architecture, design and technologies of spatial management and control that characterize both the recent UK and northwest European penal estate.This research investigates developments in the design of prisons, exploring the propositions that punishment is manifested architecturally, that 'good' prison design need not cost any more than 'bad' design, that architecture, design and technology (ADT) may impact on prisoners' emotional and psychological reactions to incarceration, including their behaviour, their willingness to engage with regimes and their capacity to build positive relations with other prisoners and staff, and that ADT may significantly influence prisoners' prospects of rehabilitation and reintegration into society on release. One 'lifer' notes that many of the crises facing penal systems in the developed world (including overcrowding, violence, mental and physical illness, drug use, high levels of suicide, self-harm etc.) are intrinsically related to the 'fear-suffused environments' created by prison architects (Hassine, 2008: 8). This research critically interrogates this statement. Against that backdrop, a few new penal experiments in parts of northern and western Europe might be welcomed as 'humane' alternatives to the traditional architecture of incarceration. Equipped with state-of-the-art lighting imitating natural daylight, extensive use of glass, no bars on windows, different colour palettes creating varied atmospheres in each 'zone', displays of artwork, curved lines, rounded walls and uneven horizons, the design features being incorporated into some new prisons might be assumed to mitigate against the harms caused by imprisonment. But can aesthetic considerations make a difference to behaviour? If, as 19th century prison commissioners and designers believed, architecture can be used as a means of inflicting punishment, is it equally true that architecture can deliver rehabilitation? Should the briefs issued to those who design and plan new prisons include a requirement to build into their construction features that normalize carceral space and have potential to ease offenders' reintegration back into society? Or is it simply that 'a prison is a prison', regardless of the enlightened humanism that may underpin its design? Could it even be that these prisons have unintended outcomes and perverse consequences, or represent an extension of power and control orientated towards docile compliance and bring their own distinctive pains of imprisonment? Moreover, if the general public are as punitive in their attitudes to offenders, as is commonly thought, how do communities feel when prisons are built in their midst? How do architects of prisons balance the requirements that prisons should pass the 'public acceptability' test (which may include an expectation that they should 'look' and 'feel' like places of punishment) with the 'NIMBYism' which frequently greets the announcement of a new prison? This project will empirically investigate these issues and inform future debates about how prisons might be designed differently in order to fulfill the goal of rehabilitation as well as those of security, deterrence, retribution and punishment. Challenging conventional wisdom and taken-for-granted assumptions concerning the purposes and 'effectiveness' of prisons, the proposed project is innovative, significant and timely. No research currently exists on the impact and effects - on prison staff as well as on inmates - of penal architecture, spatial design and the implementation of advanced monitoring, surveillance and communication technologies. The study's intent is to move beyond the traditional, historical focus on penal architecture e.g. the legacy of Bentham's Panopticon and the 19th century 'separate' and 'silent' systems (in which the goals of discipline and reform were built in to the fabric of the carceral environment), and to inform knowledge and debates from a contemporary and future-oriented perspective. In doing this, the proposed project promises to deliver significant advances on previous research and extant knowledge. Interviews with male and female prisoners (semi-structured; walked interviews); interviews with prison staff (semi-structured; walked); focus groups; surveys; photo project.

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.

In 2014, the San Diego Association of Governments applied for and received funding from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to conduct a process and impact evaluation of the Veterans Moving Forward (VMF) program that was created by the San Diego County Sheriff's Department in partnership with the San Diego Veterans Administration (VA) in 2013. VMF is a veteran-only housing unit for male inmates who have served in the U.S. military. When the grant was written, experts in the field had noted that the population of veterans returning to the U.S. with numerous mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), and depression, were increasing and as a result, the number of veterans incarcerated in jails and prisons was also expected to increase. While numerous specialized courts for veterans had been implemented across the country at the time, veteran-specific housing units for those already sentenced to serve time in custody were rarer and no evaluations of these units had been published. Since this evaluation grant was awarded, the number of veteran-only housing units has increased, demonstrating the need for more evaluation information regarding lessons learned. A core goal when creating VMF was to structure an environment for veterans to draw upon the positive aspects of their shared military culture, create a safe place for healing and rehabilitation, and foster positive peer connections. There are several components that separate VMF from traditional housing with the general population that relate to the overall environment, the rehabilitative focus, and initiation of reentry planning as early as possible. These components include the selection of correctional staff with military backgrounds and an emphasis on building on their shared experience and connecting through it; a less restrictive and more welcoming environment that includes murals on the walls and open doors; no segregation of inmates by race/ethnicity; incentives including extended dayroom time and use of a microwave and coffee machine (under supervision); mandatory rehabilitative programming that focuses on criminogenic and other underlying risks and needs or that are quality of life focused, such as yoga, meditation, and art; a VMF Counselor who is located in the unit to provide one-on-one services to clients, as well as provide overall program management on a day-to-day basis; the regular availability of VA staff in the unit, including linkages to staff knowledgeable about benefits and other resources available upon reentry; and the guidance and assistance of a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) to support reentry transition for individuals needing additional assistance. The general criteria for housing in this veteran module includes: (1) not being at a classification level above a four, which requires a maximum level of custody; (2) not having less than 30 days to serve in custody; (3) no state or federal prison holds and/or prison commitments; (4) no fugitive holds; (5) no prior admittance to the psychiatric security unit or a current psychiatric hold; (6) not currently a Post-Release Community Supervision Offender serving a term of flash incarceration; (7) not in custody for a sex-related crime or requirement to register per Penal Code 290; (8) no specialized housing requirements including protective custody, administration segregation, or medical segregation; and (9) no known significant disciplinary incidents.