As of February 2025, El Salvador had the highest prisoner rate worldwide, with over 1,600 prisoners per 100,000 of the national population. Cuba, Rwanda, Turkmenistan, and the United States, rounded out the top five countries with the highest rate of incarceration. Homicides in El Salvador Interestingly, El Salvador, which long had the highest global homicide rates, has dropped out of the top 20 after a high number of gang members have been incarcerated. A high number of the countries with the highest homicide rate are located in Latin America. Prisoners in the United StatesThe United States is home to the largest number of prisoners worldwide. More than 1.8 million people were incarcerated in the U.S. at the beginning of 2025. In China, the estimated prison population totaled 1.69 million people that year. Other nations had far fewer prisoners. The largest share of the U.S. prisoners in federal correctional facilities were of African-American origin. As of 2020, there were 345,500 black, non-Hispanic prisoners, compared to 327,300 white, non-Hispanic inmates. The U.S. states with the largest number of prisoners in 2022 were Texas, California, and Florida. Over 160,000 prisoners in state facilities were sentenced for rape or sexual assault, which was the most common cause of imprisonment. The second most common was murder, followed by aggravated or simple assault.

At the beginning of 2025, the United States had the highest number of incarcerated individuals worldwide, with around 1.8 million people in prison. China followed with around 100,000 fewer prisoners. Brazil followed in third. The incarceration problem in the U.S. The United States has an incredibly high number of incarcerated individuals. Therefore, the incarceration problem has become a widely contested issue, because it impacts disadvantaged people and minorities the most. Additionally, the prison system has become capitalized by outside corporations that fund prisons, but there is still a high cost to taxpayers. Furthermore, there has been an increase in the amount of private prisons that have been created. For-profit prison companies have come under scrutiny because of their lack of satisfactory staff and widespread lobbying. Violent offenses are the most common type of offense among prisoners in the U.S. Incarceration rates worldwide El Salvador had the highest rate of incarceration worldwide, at 1,659 prisoners per 100,000 residents as of February 2025. Cuba followed in second with 794 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants. The incarceration rate is a better measure to use when comparing countries than the total prison populations, which will naturally have the most populous countries topping the list.

With approximately 1.7 million prisoners, China had by far the biggest prison population across the Asia-Pacific region in 2022. In contrast, less than one thousand people were incarcerated in Brunei and Timor-Leste, respectively.

Prison populations and total populations

The varying size of prison populations throughout Asia-Pacific can be attributed to the size of the general populations across the region's countries and territories. With a population of over 1.4 billion, China is the most populous country in the world. Despite the disparity in population size, Bhutan, which had one of the smallest prison populations in APAC in 2022, had a higher serious assault rate than other Asia-Pacific counties.

Crime rates

Apart from the general population size, there are other factors which can be taken into consideration, such as a diversity in justice systems. Therefore, a comparison of crime throughout the region can be challenging. Although China had a higher prison population, it had a lower intentional homicide rate compared to other Asia-Pacific countries and territories. New Zealand, Singapore, and Hong Kong have the lowest corruption index scores in the region, whereas countries including Bangladesh, Cambodia, and North Korea have recorded the highest scores.

The purpose of this data collection was to develop and test an interactive model for classifying prisoners. The model includes person variables, environmental or situation variables, and prison-environmental interaction variables in order to study the interactions between individuals and their environments and to predict offender behaviors such as escape, misconduct, and violence. The model was designed to enhance the predictive validity of the National Institute of Corrections' classification system that was being used in Vermont prisons. Included are scores from the National Institute of Corrections' custody classification and reclassification instruments, scores from a needs assessment, sentencing information, and characteristics of the prison in which the inmate was housed.

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).

The Census of Jail Inmates is the eighth in a series of data collection efforts aimed at studying the nation's locally-administered jails. Beginning in 2005, the National Jail Census was broken out into two collections. The 2005 Census of Jail Inmates (CJI) collects data on the facilities' supervised populations, inmate counts and movements, and persons supervised in the community. The forthcoming 2006 Census of Jail Facilities collects information on staffing levels, programming, and facility policies. Previous censuses were conducted in 1970, 1972, 1978, 1983, 1988, 1993, and 1999. The 2005 CJI enumerated 2,960 locally administered confinement facilities that held inmates beyond arraignment and were staffed by municipal or county employees. Among these were 42 privately-operated jails under contract to local governments and 65 regional jails that were operated for two or more jail authorities. In addition, the census identified 12 facilities maintained by the Federal Bureau of Prisons that functioned as jails. These 12 facilities, together with the 2,960 nonfederal facilities, brought the number of jails in operation on June 30, 2005, to a nationwide total of 2,972. The CJI supplies data on characteristics of jails such as admissions and releases, growth in the number of jail facilities, changes in their rated capacities and level of occupancy, crowding issues, growth in the population supervised in the community, and changes in methods of community supervision. The CJI also provides information on changes in the demographics of the jail population, supervision status of persons held, and a count of non-United States citizens in custody. The data are intended for a variety of users, including federal and state agencies, local officials in conjunction with jail administrators, researchers, planners, and the public.

Investigator(s): Bureau of Justice Statistics The Annual Survey of Jails, formerly titled National Survey of Jails, is the only data collection effort that provides an annual source of data on local jails and jail inmates. The series was begun in 1982 by the Bureau of Justice Statistics with data collected by the Bureau of the Census. Local jails are locally-operated correctional facilities that confine persons before or after adjudication. Inmates sentenced to jails usually have a sentence of a year or less, but jails also incarcerate persons in a wide variety of other categories. Data on the size of the jail population and selected inmate characteristics are obtained every five to six years from the Census of Jails. In each of the years between the full censuses, a sample survey of jails is conducted to estimate baseline characteristics of the nation's jails and inmates housed in these jails. Data are supplied on admissions and releases, growth in the number of jail facilities, changes in their rated capacities and level of occupancy, growth in the population supervised in the community, changes in methods of community supervision, and crowding issues in state and federal prisons. The data are intended for a variety of users, including federal and state agencies, local officials in conjunction with jail administrators, researchers, planners, and the public.Years Produced: Annually, except every 5th year when the National Jail Census is produced.

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 contains information gathered in a two-part survey that was designed to assess institutional conditions in state and federal prisons and in halfway houses. It was one of a series of data-gathering efforts undertaken during the 1970s to assist policymakers in assessing and overcoming deficiencies in the nation's correctional institutions. This particular survey was conducted in response to a mandate set forth in the Crime Control Act of 1976. Data were gathered via self-enumerated questionnaires that were mailed to the administrators of all 558 federal and state prisons and all 405 community-based prerelease facilities in existence in the United States in 1979. Part 1 contains the results of the survey of state and federal adult correctional systems, and Part 2 contains the results of the survey of community-based prerelease facilities. The two files contain similar variables designed to tap certain key aspects of confinement: (1) inmate (or resident) counts by sex and by security class, (2) age of facility and rated capacity, (3) spatial density, occupancy, and hours confined for each inmate's (or resident's) confinement quarters, (4) composition of inmate (or resident) population according to race, age, and offense type, (5) inmate (or resident) labor and earnings, (6) race, age, and sex characteristics of prison (or half-way house) staff, and (7) court orders by type of order and pending litigation. Other data (contained in both files) include case ID number, state ID number, name of facility, and operator of facility (e.g., federal, state, local, or private).

This report documents and examines the process of de congestion of prisons across India by assessing the functioning of High Powered Committees (HPC), Undertrial Review Committees (UTRC) and legal aid functionaries. It has vital data on prison population rates as well as a comparative on both pre and post COVID-19 induced lockdown. This data helps in understanding the impact on prison overcrowding as well as predicting future overcrowding rates with High Courts cancelling interim bail and paroles of prisoners across the country. As such this information would be vital for journalists, grassroots organizations as well as other stakeholders to highlight related concerns in their states/region of work.

As of July 2023, the number of prisoners in Italy was 57,749 inmates. Between 2000 and 2019, Italy's prison population increased, while it experienced a decrease in 2020 and 2021. In 2010, the population of prisoners in custody reached its peak at 68,000 inmates, whereas by the end of 2019, the number of inmates amounted to 60,800 individuals. During the coronavirus emergency, Italy adopted a decree for the supervised release of certain prisoners in order to reduce overcrowding. Thus, the number of detainees in the last year experienced a decrease.

Demography of incarcerated population

Among prisoners, two groups stand out for age and educational level. Data related to the age of people in jail show that individuals between 50 and 59 years old made up the largest group of the prison population (ten thousand inmates). Furthermore, a glance at their educational background reveals that 19 thousand individuals held a lower secondary school degree. Both groups represented a significant part of the incarcerated population.

Overcrowded prisons and tough conditions

Prison overcrowding is a worldwide phenomenon. Prison systems in more than one hundred countries operate at over double their capacities. Likewise, several prisons in Italy hold more prisoners than the facilities can accommodate. In 2019, a jail in the South Italian region Molise was rated the most overcrowded prison in the country, which was occupied at 195 percent of designed prison capacity. In addition to overcrowding, a further problem of the Italian prison system concerns the tough conditions for mafia prisoners. In October 2019, the European court of human rights (ECHR) ruled that the Italian prison system for mafia inmates must be reviewed, as the conditions in which they are serving their life term sentence violate their human rights.

Abstract (en): This study was conducted to provide a consistent and comprehensive description of convicted persons' entrance into and departure from correctional custody and correctional supervision. To accomplish this goal, data were gathered from official state prison records on topics such as race, sex, and age of inmates, length of time in jail, length of time in prison, and type of offense committed. The data were collected from the state prison systems of 38 states, as well as the Federal Prison System, the California Youth Authority, and the District of Columbia. 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: Performed consistency checks.; Standardized missing values.; Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. All persons incarcerated in prisons in the United States. All people incarcerated in 38 state prisons (plus federal prisons, the California Youth Authority, and the District of Columbia) in 1992. 2010-04-23 The entire NCRP series is being re-released in restricted format.2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 6 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 5 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 4 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.1997-08-01 The data have been checked for wild or invalid codes, and the codebook and SAS and SPSS data definition statements now document these codes. In addition, the codebook is now available as a PDF file only, and the variable and value labels have been expanded. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Conducted by the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Mortality in Correctional Institutions (MCI) (formerly, the Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP)), is an annual data collection conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The MCI collection 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. 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 prison subcollection, which has a prison death file. The prison portion of Mortality in Correctional Institutions began in 2001 after the passage of the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 in October of 2000. The prison component of MCI collects data on inmate deaths occurring in the 50 state departments of corrections while inmates are in the physical custody of prison officials.

Jail Management Software Market size was valued at USD 756.56 Million in 2023 and is projected to reach USD 1040.76 Million by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 5.45% during the forecast period 2024-2030.

Global Jail Management Software Market Drivers

The market drivers for the Jail Management Software Market can be influenced by various factors. These may include:

Growing Number of Prisoners: The demand for cutting-edge JMS solutions is driven by the growing prison population and the requirement for effective management of correctional facilities. The need for technologies that can expedite administrative procedures is growing as the number of inmates in prisons rises.
Governmental Modernization Initiatives: Governments and law enforcement organisations are spending money to update their jail infrastructure. This includes implementing technological solutions to improve data management, general security, and operational efficiency, such as JMS.
Put Public Safety First: The emphasis on security and safety for the general public leads to the use of cutting edge technology in correctional facilities. JMS assists in keeping the peace, monitoring prisoners, and guaranteeing the security of both personnel and inmates.
Connectivity with Different Systems: The JMS is becoming more integrated with other criminal justice and law enforcement institutions. The criminal justice system functions more effectively overall when databases, biometric systems, and other security technology are integrated seamlessly.
Compliance and Data Security: Adoption of JMS solutions is fueled by growing concerns about data security and the requirement for regulatory compliance. These systems frequently have components that guarantee the safe management of private prisoner data and adherence to legal requirements regarding privacy.
Effectiveness and Economical Benefits: JMS facilitates the automation of numerous manual tasks, lowers the amount of paperwork, and boosts overall operational effectiveness. For correctional facilities, this can therefore result in financial savings.
Technological Progress: Continuous technological developments, such the incorporation of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) in JMS, enhance analytics, boost predictive capacities, and facilitate better decision-making in correctional facilities.
Cloud-Based Programmes: Law enforcement agencies may handle and retrieve data more effectively with the flexibility, scalability, and accessibility provided by cloud-based JMS systems.
Emphasis on Rehab Initiatives: Programmes for prisoners’ rehabilitation and reintegration are receiving more attention. JMS can be used to monitor and oversee these initiatives, which helps to achieve the overarching objective of lowering recidivism.

This census, designed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and conducted by the United States Census Bureau, includes all state correctional facilities known to the Census Bureau in 1979. Each facility is classified into one of ten categories such as community center, prison farm, road camp, or reception center. Data for 1979 include number of inmates by security classification and by sex, number of full- and part-time staff, number of paid and volunteer staff broken down by position, age, pay, and education, number and age of facilities, type of facilities provided in each cell by size of cell, hospital facilities available, programs provided for the inmates, job training, and inmate IQ scores.

Abstract (en): The data contain records of sentenced offenders in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) at year-end of fiscal year 2014. The data include commitments of United States District Court, violators of conditions of release (e.g., parole, probation, or supervised release violators), offenders convicted in other courts (e.g., military or District of Columbia courts), and persons admitted to prison as material witnesses or for purposes of treatment, examination, or transfer to another authority. These data include variables that describe the offender, such as age, race, citizenship, as well as variables that describe the sentences and expected prison terms. The data file contains original variables from the Bureau of Prisons' SENTRY database, as well as "SAF" variables that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 7.9-7.16. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by Abt and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by Abt. 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.. Offenders in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons at year-end of fiscal year 2014.

BackgroundTransmission of tuberculosis (TB) in prisons has been reported worldwide to be much higher than that reported for the corresponding general population.Methods and FindingsA systematic review has been performed to assess the risk of incident latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) and TB disease in prisons, as compared to the incidence in the corresponding local general population, and to estimate the fraction of TB in the general population attributable (PAF%) to transmission within prisons. Primary peer-reviewed studies have been searched to assess the incidence of LTBI and/or TB within prisons published until June 2010; both inmates and prison staff were considered. Studies, which were independently screened by two reviewers, were eligible for inclusion if they reported the incidence of LTBI and TB disease in prisons. Available data were collected from 23 studies out of 582 potentially relevant unique citations. Five studies from the US and one from Brazil were available to assess the incidence of LTBI in prisons, while 19 studies were available to assess the incidence of TB. The median estimated annual incidence rate ratio (IRR) for LTBI and TB were 26.4 (interquartile range [IQR]: 13.0–61.8) and 23.0 (IQR: 11.7–36.1), respectively. The median estimated fraction (PAF%) of tuberculosis in the general population attributable to the exposure in prisons for TB was 8.5% (IQR: 1.9%–17.9%) and 6.3% (IQR: 2.7%–17.2%) in high- and middle/low-income countries, respectively.ConclusionsThe very high IRR and the substantial population attributable fraction show that much better TB control in prisons could potentially protect prisoners and staff from within-prison spread of TB and would significantly reduce the national burden of TB. Future studies should measure the impact of the conditions in prisons on TB transmission and assess the population attributable risk of prison-to-community spread.Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

For this program evaluation, which utilized a randomized field experiment, two separate substudies were conducted: one investigated the "front door" Intensive Community Supervision (ICS) program that diverted prisoners into the community at the beginning of their prison terms, and the other studied the "back door" Intensive Supervised Release (ISR) program that provided enhanced supervision services for offenders who were just finishing their terms of confinement and had a residential mandate upon release from prison. The random assignment procedure began in October 1990 and continued until June 1992. Prison caseworkers in the Office of Adult Release (OAR) within the Minnesota Department of Corrections screened offenders for participation in the prison diversion program (ICS) according to established criteria. The RAND coordinator assigned offenders to the experimental program or to the control program (prison) by consulting a predetermined random list of assignments. For the ISR program, institutional caseworkers reviewed the treatment plans for offenders who were scheduled to be released from prison within the next six months. The same procedure for random assignment was used as in the ICS study. The final sample sizes were 124 in the ICS program and 176 in the ISR program. Parts 1 and 9, Background Data, include demographic information such as sex, race, education, marital status, number of dependents, and living arrangement at time of most recent arrest. Also included is information on the offender's prior employment history, drug use prior to drug treatment, status after random assignment, various probation/parole/release conditions ordered, and criminal record information for prior arrests, for the governing offense and for the offense immediately prior to the current prison admission. Each offender was also rated on various items relating to risk of recidivism and need for treatment. The 6-month, 12-month, and 13-month review data (Parts 2-4 and 10-12) record the same information for each month. Variables provide information on the current status of the offender, days under regular supervision, intensive community supervision, special services, electronic surveillance, detention or incarceration (jail or prison), and days on other status. Information was also recorded for each month during the review regarding number and type of face-to-face contacts, number and type of phone contacts, number of drug tests taken, number and type of monitoring checks performed, number and type of sessions in counseling, number of days job hunting or in training, hours of community service, number of days employed and amount of earnings, amount of fines and court costs paid, amount of victim restitution paid, and amount of probation fees paid. Because a large percentage of the ICS control offenders were expected to remain in prison during a 12-month follow-up (resulting in premature recidivism outcomes), recidivism data for all ICS offenders were collected for a period of 24 months after assignment to the study (Part 5). Part 5 contains up to three status codes and number of days at each status for months 1-25 for the ICS cases only. Also included is information on work release, violations of supervision, absconding, returns to jail, returns to prison, and other releases. Parts 6 and 13 provide drug violation data, including first and second type of drug, action taken, and number of days since random assignment. Parts 7 and 14 provide technical violation data, including technical violation, first, second, and third action taken, days from assignment to each action, and most serious action taken. Finally, Parts 8 and 15 provide arrest data, including arrest code, age at arrest, if convicted, conviction code, type of sentence, and age at disposition. Dates were converted by RAND to time-lapse variables for the public release files for purposes of time-at-risk analysis.