This data collection includes tabulations of annual adult admissions to federal and state correctional institutions by gender for the years 1926 through 1987. The two data files have identical structures: Part 1 includes information on male admissions, and Part 2 includes information on female admissions. The 3,348 cases in each part include one case for each of the 62 years of the collection for each of the following 54 categories: the 50 states, the District of Columbia, federal institutional totals, state cumulative totals, and United States totals (the sum of the federal and state cumulative totals). The figures were drawn from a voluntary reporting program in which each state, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons reported summary and detailed statistics, as part of the National Prisoner Statistics reporting series. Each file also includes individual state and United States general population figures.

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 survey was was conducted as part of the Rand Corporation's research program on career criminals. Rand's Second Inmate Survey was administered in late 1978 and early 1979 to convicted male inmates at 12 prisons and 14 county jails in California, Michigan, and Texas. The purpose of the survey was to provide detailed information about the criminal behavior of offenders and their associated characteristics. Emphasis was also placed on investigating other major areas of interest such as the quality of prisoner self-reports, varieties of criminal behavior, selective incapacitation, and prison treatment programs.

This study of prison rapes used an ethnographic, culturally relativistic methodology and was conducted between April 2004 and September 2005. The study was conducted in 30 correctional institutions, 23 men's and 7 women's, in 10 states. All 23 men's institutions were the highest-security level men's prison available in each state. When women's institutions were multi-security level and housed minimum, medium, and high-security inmates, they were selected from the highest-security level housing units within the institution. A total of 564 (409 male and 155 female) inmates were interviewed. The inmates to be interviewed were selected from the general prison population using a probability sample design. Average interview length was just under an hour. The sole mode of data collection was an open-ended, semistructured inmate interview. To ensure comparability of answers, surveys were designed with each query resting on a particular concept or variable. The same interview instrument was used for both male and female inmates. Questions were asked about inmate prison history, mental health, rape, social process, domestic violence and relationships, staff, institutional factors, and perception of social roles, and demographic information. Also included are lexical responses and free list questions such as "Why do inmates have sex with other inmates?"

Sheet 1—Prison Population by Nationality, Age Group, Year, and Gender. Sheet 2—Prison Suicides by Nationality, Age Group, and Gender. Sheet 3—General Population by Nationality, Age, Year, and Gender. Sheet 4 General Population by Nationality, Age, and Gender (sum of years 2000–2013). Sheet 5—Suicides in the General Population by Nationality, Age Group, and Gender. (XLSX)

This dataset contains photographic records (portraits) and descriptions of male and female Queensland criminals created by Queensland Prisons Department. Also contained are photographs, criminal records, and descriptions of prisoners executed in Queensland. The records are held at Queensland State Archives. The information has been drawn from S22, S1231, S3693, S10836 and S14872.

Under request of PLOS ONE journal and in order to contribute to the transparency and replicability of research, the authors of the study “Cross-sectional association between length of incarceration and selected risk factors for non-communicable chronic diseases in two male prisons in Mexico City”; made the data available. Any other use than exploring or replicating the results of the afore-mentioned paper_inc is not authorized and shall not be used without previous authorization of the researchers. If you are interested in analyzing this database for original research purpose please contact Sergio Bautista-Arredondo (PI of the original study- sbautista@insp.mx) or Ruy Lopez-Ridaura (corresponding author- rlridaura@insp.mx)

Adult correctional services, custodial and community supervision, average counts of offenders in federal programs, Canada and regions, five years of data.

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

Information on scholarships intended to help male and female prisoners, regardless of age, obtain a higher education diploma (for information, only 20% of prisoners receive general training provided by teachers from the National Education Department made available to the Ministry of Justice).

In addition, this system is supplemented by:

• free registration fees in agreement with partner academic institutions such as the University of Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée
• assistance with the acquisition of books, university books and computer equipment
• multi-year regional support for aid and support programmes for incarcerated students carried out in Île-de-France by universities in the Ile-de-France region

N.B.:

• SPIP: Prison Service for Integration and Probation
• UPR: Regional Pedagogical Unit
• The "unique ID" column is only there to secure the quality of the dataset; it does not carry any particular information and is not part of the initial dataset

This project sought to investigate a possible relationship between sentencing guidelines and family structure in the United States. The research team developed three research modules that employed a variety of data sources and approaches to understand family destabilization and community distress, which cannot be observed directly. These three research modules were used to discover causal relationships between male withdrawal from productive spheres of the economy and resulting changes in the community and families. The research modules approached the issue of sentencing guidelines and family structure by studying: (1) the flow of inmates into prison (Module A), (2) the role of and issues related to sentencing reform (Module B), and family disruption in a single state (Module C). Module A utilized the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program data for 1984 and 1993 (Parts 1 and 2), the 1984 and 1993 National Correctional Reporting Program (NCRP) data (Parts 3-6), the Urban Institute's 1980 and 1990 Underclass Database (UDB) (Part 7), the 1985 and 1994 National Longitudinal Survey on Youth (NLSY) (Parts 8 and 9), and county population, social, and economic data from the Current Population Survey, County Business Patterns, and United States Vital Statistics (Parts 10-12). The focus of this module was the relationship between family instability, as measured by female-headed families, and three societal characteristics, namely underclass measures in county of residence, individual characteristics, and flows of inmates. Module B examined the effects of statewide incarceration and sentencing changes on marriage markets and family structure. Module B utilized data from the Current Population Survey for 1985 and 1994 (Part 12) and the United States Statistical Abstracts (Part 13), as well as state-level data (Parts 14 and 15) to measure the Darity-Myers sex ratio and expected welfare income. The relationship between these two factors and family structure, sentencing guidelines, and minimum sentences for drug-related crimes was then measured. Module C used data collected from inmates entering the Minnesota prison system in 1997 and 1998 (Part 16), information from the 1990 Census (Part 17), and the Minnesota Crime Survey (Part 18) to assess any connections between incarceration and family structure. Module C focused on a single state with sentencing guidelines with the goal of understanding how sentencing reforms and the impacts of the local community factors affect inmate family structure. The researchers wanted to know if the aspects of locations that lose marriageable males to prison were more important than individual inmate characteristics with respect to the probability that someone will be imprisoned and leave behind dependent children. Variables in Parts 1 and 2 document arrests by race for arson, assault, auto theft, burglary, drugs, homicide, larceny, manslaughter, rape, robbery, sexual assault, and weapons. Variables in Parts 3 and 4 document prison admissions, while variables in Parts 5 and 6 document prison releases. Variables in Part 7 include the number of households on public assistance, education and income levels of residents by race, labor force participation by race, unemployment by race, percentage of population of different races, poverty rate by race, men in the military by race, and marriage pool by race. Variables in Parts 8 and 9 include age, county, education, employment status, family income, marital status, race, residence type, sex, and state. Part 10 provides county population data. Part 11 contains two different state identifiers. Variables in Part 12 describe mortality data and welfare data. Part 13 contains data from the United States Statistical Abstracts, including welfare and poverty variables. Variables in Parts 14 and 15 include number of children, age, education, family type, gender, head of household, marital status, race, religion, and state. Variables in Part 16 cover admission date, admission type, age, county, education, language, length of sentence, marital status, military status, sentence, sex, state, and ZIP code. Part 17 contains demographic data by Minnesota ZIP code, such as age categories, race, divorces, number of children, home ownership, and unemployment. Part 18 includes Minnesota crime data as well as some demographic variables, such as race, education, and poverty ratio.

In the late 1970s, the Rand Corporation pioneered a method of collecting crime rate statistics. They obtained reports of offending behavior--types and frequencies of crimes committed--directly from offenders serving prison sentences. The current study extends this research by exploring the extent to which variation in the methodological approach affects prisoners' self-reports of criminal activity. If the crime rates reported in this survey remained constant across methods, perhaps one of the new techniques developed would be easier and/or less expensive to administer. Also, the self-reported offending rate data for female offenders in this collection represents the first time such data has been collected for females. Male and female prisoners recently admitted to the Diagnostic Unit of the Colorado Department of Corrections were selected for participation in the study. Prisoners were given one of two different survey instruments, referred to as the long form and short form. Both questionnaires dealt with the number of times respondents committed each of eight types of crimes during a 12-month measurement period. The crimes of interest were burglary, robbery, assault, theft, auto theft, forgery/credit card and check-writing crimes, fraud, and drug dealing. The long form of the instrument focused on juvenile and adult criminal activity and covered the offender's childhood and family. It also contained questions about the offender's rap sheet as one of the bases for validating the self-reported data. The crime count sections of the long form contained questions about motivation, initiative, whether the offender usually acted alone or with others, and if the crimes recorded included crimes against people he or she knew. Long-form data are given in Part 1. The short form of the survey had fewer or no questions compared with the long form on areas such as the respondent's rap sheet, the number of crimes committed as a juvenile, the number of times the respondent was on probation or parole, the respondent's childhood experiences, and the respondent's perception of his criminal career. These data are contained in Part 2. In addition, the surveys were administered under different conditions of confidentiality. Prisoners given what were called "confidential" interviews had their names identified with the survey. Those interviewed under conditions of anonymity did not have their names associated with the survey. The short forms were all administered anonymously, while the long forms were either anonymous or confidential. In addition to the surveys, data were collected from official records, which are presented in Part 3. The official record data collection form was designed to collect detailed criminal history information, particularly during the measurement period identified in the questionnaires, plus a number of demographic and drug-use items. This information, when compared with the self-reported offense data from the measurement period in both the short and long forms, allows a validity analysis to be performed.

This study examined women correctional officers working in the 11 institutions for men operated by the California Department of Corrections in 1979. For Part 1, Census, researchers conducted a census of all 386 female correctional officers working in these institutions to collect demographic characteristics and baseline data. For Parts 2 (Staff) and 3 (Inmate), a survey was administered to staff and inmates asking their opinions about differences in performance between male and female correctional officers. Part 4, Profile, contains demographic and background data for the officers participating in the Part 2 survey. For Parts 5 (Female) and 6 (Male), researchers gathered job performance data for female correctional officers in 7 of the 11 institutions, as well as a matched sample of male correctional officers. Variables in Parts 1 and 4-6 include demographic information such as age, ethnicity, marital status, number of children, and educational and occupational history. Other variables measure attributes such as age, weight, and height, and record career information such as date and location of permanent assignment as a correctional officer, any breaks in service, and other criminal justice work experience. Additional variables in Parts 5 and 6 include job performance measures, such as ratings on skills, knowledge, work habits, learning ability, overall work habits, quality and quantity of work, and commendations. Parts 2 and 3 present information on staff and inmate evaluations of male and female correctional officers performing specific roles, such as control work officer, yard officer, or security squad officer. Additional variables include opinions on how well male and female officers handled emergency situations, maintained control under stress, and used firearms when necessary. Questions were also asked about whether inmates' or officers' safety was endangered with female officers, whether women should be hired as correctional officers, and whether female officers were gaining acceptance in correctional facilities.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This study, with assistance from the National Institute of Justice's Data Resources Program (FY2012), is a reanalysis of data from the national evaluation of the federal Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI). SVORI provided funding to 69 agencies across the United States to enhance reentry programs and coordination between corrections and community services. The national evaluation covered 16 of these sites, twelve of which provided services to the 2,054 adult ex-prisoners who are the focus of the present study. The purpose of this study is to understand whether or not offenders receive the services they say they need, and whether the degree of 'fit' between this self-reported criminogenic need and services received is related to recidivism. This study analyzes data from the SVORI multisite evaluation to assess the potential explanations for the mixed effectiveness of reentry programs. The goal is to understand whether or not service-risk/need fit is related to successful reentry outcomes, or whether the needs of returning prisoners are unrelated to their risk of recidivism regardless of how well they are addressed. For the present study researchers obtained the SVORI (ICPSR 27101) outcome evaluation datasets from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD). The archive holds four separate datasets from the evaluation: Adult Males Data (Part 1, N=1,697), Adult Females Data (Part 2, N=357), Juvenile Males Data (Part 3, N=337) and official recidivism and reincarceration data (Part 4, N=35,469), which can be linked on a one-to-many basis with the individual-level data in the other three datasets. To prepare the SVORI data for analysis researchers merged Datasets 1 and 2 (Adult Males and Adult Females) and created seven separate datasets containing Waves 1 through 4 survey data, National Crime Information Center (NCIC) crime data, administrative data, and sampling weights. This deposit to NACJD is intended to complement the existing SVORI dataset (ICPSR 27101). It contains an R syntax file to be used with the datasets contained in the ICPSR 27101 collection.

This dataset provides the average daily count of male and female inmates being held in the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre covering fiscal years 2005-06 through to 2017-18.

Average daily counts are broken into six average counts:

• Federal sentence of two years or more/national parole violation
• Immigration hold
• Intermittent days stay (weekend days)
• Remand
• Provincial sentence of less than two years
• Other hold statuses than those listed

For more information, please see the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre "http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/Corrections/OttawaCarletonDetentionCentreTaskForce/OCDCTaskForce%E2%80%93QuarterlyTrendsAnalysis.html">Quarterly Trends Analysis.

This dataset is related to the following:

• Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre admissions alerts
• Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre admissions to custody
• Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre utilization rates
• Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre specialized unit hold counts

Registers of male and female prisoners admitted to HM Gaol Brisbane (Boggo Road) 1850-1901, also called description books, reception books or admission books – information recorded may include gaol number; name of prisoner, year of birth, where born, religion, height, make, complexion, eye and hair colour, education, trade or calling, marital status, children; mode of arrival, name of the ship, year of arrival; date and place of committal and by whom, date of reception in gaol, condition on entering gaol, offence, sentence, how disposed of/date of discharge and conduct in gaol; former convictions, particular markings, remarks, and connection and history.

The data refers to State/UT-wise and caste-wise details of prison inmates at the end of the reference year. The prison inmates are categorised into male and female population. The age of inmates are grouped into 16-18 yrs, 18-30 yrs, 30-50 yrs and 50 & above yrs. Castes of jail inmates are further categorized as OBCs, SCs, STs & Others.

This data collection documents an evaluation of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Regimented Inmate Diversion (RID) program conducted with male inmates who were participants in the program during September 1990-August 1991. The evaluation was designed to determine whether county-operated boot camp programs for male inmates were feasible and cost-effective. An evaluation design entailing both process and impact components was undertaken to fully assess the overall effects of the RID program on offenders and on the county jail system. The process component documented how the RID program actually operated in terms of its selection criteria, delivery of programs, length of participation, and program completion rates. Variables include demographic/criminal data (e.g., race, date of birth, arrest charge, bail and amount, sentence days, certificates acquired, marital status, employment status, income), historical state and county arrest data (e.g., date of crime, charge, disposition, probation time, jail time, type of crime), boot camp data (e.g., entry into and exit from boot camp, reason for exit, probation dates, living conditions, restitution order), drug history data (e.g., drug used, frequency, method), data on drug tests, and serious incidence data. The impact data were collected on measures of recidivism, program costs, institutional behavior, and RID's effect on jail crowding.

This dataset provides the number of male and female inmates admitted to the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre covering fiscal years 2005-06 through to 2017-18. * Admissions from a federal institution * Immigration hold * Remand * Provincial sentences of less than two years/inmates on a federal sentence awaiting transfer to a federal institution * Other reasons than those listed For more information, please see the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre Quarterly Trends Analysis. This dataset is related to the following: * Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre admissions alerts * Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre average daily counts * Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre utilization rates * Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre specialized unit hold counts

This dataset contains contains photographic records (portraits) and descriptions of male Queensland criminals created by Queensland Prisons Department. Also contained are photographs, criminal records, and descriptions of prisoners executed in Queensland. The records are held at Queensland State Archives. The information has been drawn from S22 and S10836.