These data were collected in the Illinois prison system where, in response to a prison overcrowding crisis, approximately two-thirds of the inmates released by the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) were discharged prior to serving their expected sentences. This study was designed to evaluate the effects of an early release program on prisoners, prison populations, offense rates, local criminal justice systems, and the general public. The files contain extensive Federal Bureau of Investigation arrest history information and other personal and social indicators describing inmates released from the state prison system. Data are available for three comparison groups: (1) a sample of prisoners who served their regular sentences prior to the "forced release" program, (2) a group that served regular sentences after implementation of the program, and (3) a group of inmates who were released early under the program (i.e., before serving their full sentences). The "inmate jacket file," which is the comprehensive institutional file maintained for all inmates, contains variables for each inmate on social and personal characteristics, criminal history, risk scales, court decisions for each offense, institutional conduct, prior release and return records, method of release, condition of supervision, and parole violation records. The arrest file includes variables that describe the type and number of charges at arrest, case disposition of each charge, probation length, incarceration length, admission and release dates, and release type.

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

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

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

Here is the readme file:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statistics for sex:
63409 Male
4740 Female

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

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

Here is a formal summary:

---BEGIN SUMMARY---
Documentation:

1. Title: Illinois DOC dataset

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

3. Past Usage:
   -- None

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

This study analyzes shock incarceration (boot camp) programs in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. In each state, offenders who participated in boot camps were compared with demographically similar offenders who were sentenced to prison, probation, or parole. The impact of shock incarceration on offenders was assessed in two major areas: (1) changes in offenders' attitudes, expectations, and outlook during incarceration (self-report/attitude data), and (2) performance during and adjustment to community supervision after incarceration (community supervision data). The self-report/attitude data include variables measuring criminal history, drinking and drug abuse, and attitudes toward the shock incarceration program, as well as demographic variables, such as age, race, employment, income, education, and military experience. The community supervision data contain information on offenders' behaviors during community supervision, such as arrests, absconding incidents, jail time, drug use, education and employment experiences, financial and residential stability, and contacts with community supervision officers, along with demographic variables, such as age and race. In addition to these key areas, more detailed data were collected in Louisiana, including a psychological assessment, a risk and needs assessment, and a community supervision follow-up at two different time periods (Parts 11-18). For most states, the subjects sampled in the self-report/attitude survey were different from those who were surveyed in the community supervision phase of data collection. Data collection practices and sample structures differed by state, and therefore the data files are organized to explore the impact of shock incarceration at the state level. For each state, the unit of analysis is the offender.

Violence committed by and against juveniles was the focus of this study. Two groups were examined: incarcerated (criminally active) juveniles and students in inner-city high schools, since these youths are popularly considered to engage in and experience violence (especially gun-related violence), to belong to urban street gangs, and to participate in the drug trafficking thought to lead to excessive gun violence. Self-administered questionnaires were completed by 835 male inmates in six correctional facilities and 1,663 male and female students from ten inner-city high schools in California, Illinois, Louisiana, and New Jersey. Data collection took place during January through April of 1991. To maximize response rates, inducements of five dollars were offered to the inmates, Spanish-language versions of the questionnaire were provided to inmates who preferred them, and personal interviews were conducted with inmates whose reading skills were less than sufficient to complete the questionnaire on their own. In four schools, principals permitted the inducements to be offered to students to participate in the study. As with the inmate survey, a Spanish-language version of the questionnaire was provided to students who preferred it. The questionnaires covered roughly the same core topics for both inmates and students. Items included questions on sociodemographic characteristics, school experiences, gun ownership, gun use for several types of firearms, gun acquisition patterns, gun-carrying habits, use of other weapons, gang membership and gang activities, self-reported criminal histories, victimization patterns, drug use, alcohol use, and attitudes concerning guns, crime, and violence. In both questionnaires, the majority of the items covered firearms knowledge, acquisition, and use. The remaining items in the inmate survey primarily covered criminal behavior and, secondarily, victimization histories. In the student survey, these priorities were reversed.

This data collection examines the effects of determinant sentencing on prison climate and administration. Three data collection periods are covered in the dataset. Parts 1-3 contain data taken from a total random sample of offenders housed at five prisons over all three data collection periods. Part 4 is an additional sample from the state of Connecticut of inmates serving determinate sentences, collected during the third period of data collection. Parts 5 and 6 comprise indeterminate sample data from all three data collection periods, while Parts 7-9 contain determinate panel sample data from all three collection periods. There were six questionnaires used in collecting these data, covering inmates' feelings about their arrest, court case, and conviction, their feelings about the law, physical problems developed during their prison term, how their time was spent in prison, family contacts outside prison, relationships with other prisoners and guards, involvement in prison programs, and criminal history.

Abstract (en): RECIDIVISM OF PRISONERS RELEASED IN 1994 is a database containing information on each of 38,624 sampled prisoners released from prisons in 15 states in 1994 and tracked for three years following their release. The majority of the database consists of information on each released prisoner's entire officially recorded criminal history (before and after the 1994 release). Sources for criminal history information are state and FBI automated RAP ("Records of Arrests and Prosecutions") sheets, which contain records of arrests, adjudications, and sentences. The study is the second major recidivism study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The first study, RECIDIVISM AMONG RELEASED PRISONERS, 1983: UNITED STATES, tracked over 16,000 prisoners released in 11 states in 1983 for three years. These two studies are the closest approximation to "national" recidivism studies in the United States. They are distinguished by their large sample size (over 16,000 released prisoners in the first study, 38,624 in the second), geographic breadth of coverage (11 states in the first study, 15 in the second), length of prospective tracking (three years from date of release in both studies), ability to track the movement of released prisoners across state boundaries (both studies), and multiple measures of recidivism (both studies). Demographic data include race, ethnicity, sex, and date of birth. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Created variable labels and/or value labels.; Standardized missing values.; Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Prisoners released during 1994 in the 15 states that the study covered. The 15 states account for about two-thirds of releases in the United States in a given year. Smallest Geographic Unit: state The following 15 state Departments of Corrections participated in the study: Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia. These departments supplied Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) with information on each person released from prison in the state in 1994 (Note: Illinois releases are for fiscal year 1994 rather than calendar year 1994). These 15 states were chosen as a purposive sample, based on willingness to participate, the state's relative contribution to the overall national prison population, and the state's inclusion in the earlier study of recidivism conducted by BJS in 1983 (see ICPSR 8875). The 15 states supplied BJS with release records on 302,309 prisoners released in 1994, approximately two-thirds of all prisoners released in the nation. Using these records, the researchers drew a representative sample from each state, totaling 38,624 out of the 302,309 released prisoners, stratified by most serious conviction offense. More detailed information regarding sampling procedures can be found in the codebook that accompanies this data collection. 2014-12-05 A minor change is made to the codebook.2012-01-12 For variable POTST, values for the state of New York were adjusted per the principal investigator.2011-03-08 All parts are being moved to restricted access and will be available only using the restricted access procedures.2009-02-09 Missing value codes were edited to correct for rounding and data entry errors.2007-03-02 The principal investigator revised the data so that there are 4,834 cases instead of 4,824 for values that are less than or equal to 90 for variable DCDV.2006-12-01 The principal investigator revised the description for variables RPRSD and RPRSITV in the codebook.2003-08-27 The principal investigator recoded some values in variables DCDV, RPRSD, RPRSITV, and RELTYP.2002-10-04 The principal investigator recoded some values (child victim age) in variable DCDV for 89 releases in the state of Virginia. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Violence committed by and against juveniles was the focus of this study. Two groups were examined: incarcerated (criminally active) juveniles and students in inner-city high schools, since these youths are popularly considered to engage in and experience violence (especially gun-related violence), to belong to urban street gangs, and to participate in the drug trafficking thought to lead to excessive gun violence. Self-administered questionnaires were completed by 835 male inmates in six correctional facilities and 1,663 male and female students from ten inner-city high schools in California, Illinois, Louisiana, and New Jersey. Data collection took place during January through April of 1991. To maximize response rates, inducements of five dollars were offered to the inmates, Spanish-language versions of the questionnaire were provided to inmates who preferred them, and personal interviews were conducted with inmates whose reading skills were less than sufficient to complete the questionnaire on their own. In four schools, principals permitted the inducements to be offered to students to participate in the study. As with the inmate survey, a Spanish-language version of the questionnaire was provided to students who preferred it. The questionnaires covered roughly the same core topics for both inmates and students. Items included questions on sociodemographic characteristics, school experiences, gun ownership, gun use for several types of firearms, gun acquisition patterns, gun-carrying habits, use of other weapons, gang membership and gang activities, self-reported criminal histories, victimization patterns, drug use, alcohol use, and attitudes concerning guns, crime, and violence. In both questionnaires, the majority of the items covered firearms knowledge, acquisition, and use. The remaining items in the inmate survey primarily covered criminal behavior and, secondarily, victimization histories. In the student survey, these priorities were reversed.

With state courts facing record-breaking caseloads and tightening budgets, jurisdictions around the country have begun to seek alternatives to traditional case processing as early as possible in the criminal justice process. One existing alternative is prosecutor-led diversion, a model which allows jurisdictions to reroute low-level offenders from traditional case-processing at the front-end of the justice process, in many cases prior to formal charge or arraignment. Although prosecutor-led diversion programs (PDPs) have been a part of the American legal landscape for several decades, there is little to no descriptive literature of the model and only sporadic impact evaluations of specific programs. In response, the Center for Court Innovation, the RAND Corporation, and the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys conducted a national, multi-method study with the following goals: (1) to synthesize existing knowledge of PDPs, (2) to produce a rich understanding of existing programs through in-depth case studies of programs in 11 sites nationwide, including program goals, target populations, and policies, and (3) to test PDP effectiveness in reducing recidivism, incarceration, psychosocial problems, and costs to the society and the economy through a prospective impact evaluation of 5 programs at 3 sites. Phase 1 consisted of in-depth interviews with key stakeholders at the 11 sites. Phase 2 consisted of focus groups with program participants, and an impact study of the effects of PDPs on case disposition, use of jail, re-arrest, and cost effectiveness. This collection includes data from the Phase 2 impact study. Five programs from 3 of the 11 sites (Cook County, Illinois, Chittenden County, Vermont, and Milwaukee County, Wisconsin) were selected for quasi-experimental impact evaluations. For each program, the research team obtained a de-identified dataset containing demographics, criminal histories, and instant case outcomes.