Prison Inmates in India

Demographics, Age, Education, Caste, Wages, Rehabilitation, Technical Info

By Rajanand Ilangovan [source]

About this dataset

This dataset provides a detailed view of prison inmates in India, including their age, caste, and educational background. It includes information on inmates from all states/union territories for the year 2019 such as the number of male and female inmates aged 16-18 years, 18-30 year old inmates and those above 50 years old. The data also covers total number of penalized prisoners sentenced to death sentence, life imprisonment or executed by the state authorities. Additionally, it provides information regarding the crimehead (type) committed by an inmate along with its grand total across different age groups. This dataset not only sheds light on India’s criminal justice system but also highlights prevelance of crimes in different states and union territories as well as providing insight into crime trends across Indian states over time

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This dataset provides a comprehensive look at the demographics, crimes and sentences of Indian prison inmates in 2019. The data is broken down by state/union territory, year, crime head, age groups and gender.

This dataset can be used to understand the demographic composition of the prison population in India as well as the types of crimes committed. It can also be used to gain insight into any changes or trends related to sentencing patterns in India over time. Furthermore, this data can provide valuable insight into potential correlations between different demographic factors (such as gender and caste) and specific types of crimes or length of sentences handed out.

To use this dataset effectively there are a few important things to keep in mind: •State/UT - This column refers to individual states or union territories in India where prisons are located •Year – This column indicates which year(s) the data relates to •Both genders - Female columns refer only to female prisoners while male columns refers only to male prisoners •Age Groups – 16-18 years old = 21-30 years old = 31-50 years old = 50+ years old •Crime Head – A broad definition for each type of crime that inmates have been convicted for •No Capital Punishment – The total number sentenced with capital punishment No Life Imprisonment – The total number sentenced with life imprisonment No Executed– The total number executed from death sentence Grand Total–The overall totals for each category

By using this information it is possible to answer questions regarding topics such as sentencing trends, types of crimes committed by different age groups or genders and state-by-state variation amongst other potential queries

Research Ideas

• Using the age and gender information to develop targeted outreach strategies for prisons in order to reduce recidivism rates.
• Creating an AI-based predictive model to predict crime trends by analyzing crime head data from a particular region/state and correlating it with population demographics, economic activity, etc.
• Analyzing the caste of inmates across different states in India in order to understand patterns of discrimination within the criminal justice system

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

License: Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) - You are free to: - Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially. - Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. - You must: - Give appropriate credit - Provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. - ShareAlike - You must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

Columns

File: SLL_Crime_headwise_distribution_of_inmates_who_convicted.csv | Column name | Description | |:--------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | STATE/UT | Name of the state or union territory where the jail is located. (String) | | YEAR | Year when the inmate population data was collected. (Integer) ...

Overview

The Marshall Project, the nonprofit investigative newsroom dedicated to the U.S. criminal justice system, has partnered with The Associated Press to compile data on the prevalence of COVID-19 infection in prisons across the country. The Associated Press is sharing this data as the most comprehensive current national source of COVID-19 outbreaks in state and federal prisons.

Lawyers, criminal justice reform advocates and families of the incarcerated have worried about what was happening in prisons across the nation as coronavirus began to take hold in the communities outside. Data collected by The Marshall Project and AP shows that hundreds of thousands of prisoners, workers, correctional officers and staff have caught the illness as prisons became the center of some of the country’s largest outbreaks. And thousands of people — most of them incarcerated — have died.

In December, as COVID-19 cases spiked across the U.S., the news organizations also shared cumulative rates of infection among prison populations, to better gauge the total effects of the pandemic on prison populations. The analysis found that by mid-December, one in five state and federal prisoners in the United States had tested positive for the coronavirus -- a rate more than four times higher than the general population.

This data, which is updated weekly, is an effort to track how those people have been affected and where the crisis has hit the hardest.

Methodology and Caveats

The data tracks the number of COVID-19 tests administered to people incarcerated in all state and federal prisons, as well as the staff in those facilities. It is collected on a weekly basis by Marshall Project and AP reporters who contact each prison agency directly and verify published figures with officials.

Each week, the reporters ask every prison agency for the total number of coronavirus tests administered to its staff members and prisoners, the cumulative number who tested positive among staff and prisoners, and the numbers of deaths for each group.

The time series data is aggregated to the system level; there is one record for each prison agency on each date of collection. Not all departments could provide data for the exact date requested, and the data indicates the date for the figures.

To estimate the rate of infection among prisoners, we collected population data for each prison system before the pandemic, roughly in mid-March, in April, June, July, August, September and October. Beginning the week of July 28, we updated all prisoner population numbers, reflecting the number of incarcerated adults in state or federal prisons. Prior to that, population figures may have included additional populations, such as prisoners housed in other facilities, which were not captured in our COVID-19 data. In states with unified prison and jail systems, we include both detainees awaiting trial and sentenced prisoners.

To estimate the rate of infection among prison employees, we collected staffing numbers for each system. Where current data was not publicly available, we acquired other numbers through our reporting, including calling agencies or from state budget documents. In six states, we were unable to find recent staffing figures: Alaska, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, Utah.

To calculate the cumulative COVID-19 impact on prisoner and prison worker populations, we aggregated prisoner and staff COVID case and death data up through Dec. 15. Because population snapshots do not account for movement in and out of prisons since March, and because many systems have significantly slowed the number of new people being sent to prison, it’s difficult to estimate the total number of people who have been held in a state system since March. To be conservative, we calculated our rates of infection using the largest prisoner population snapshots we had during this time period.

As with all COVID-19 data, our understanding of the spread and impact of the virus is limited by the availability of testing. Epidemiology and public health experts say that aside from a few states that have recently begun aggressively testing in prisons, it is likely that there are more cases of COVID-19 circulating undetected in facilities. Sixteen prison systems, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, would not release information about how many prisoners they are testing.

Corrections departments in Indiana, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota and Wisconsin report coronavirus testing and case data for juvenile facilities; West Virginia reports figures for juvenile facilities and jails. For consistency of comparison with other state prison systems, we removed those facilities from our data that had been included prior to July 28. For these states we have also removed staff data. Similarly, Pennsylvania’s coronavirus data includes testing and cases for those who have been released on parole. We removed these tests and cases for prisoners from the data prior to July 28. The staff cases remain.

About the Data

There are four tables in this data:

• covid_prison_cases.csv contains weekly time series data on tests, infections and deaths in prisons. The first dates in the table are on March 26. Any questions that a prison agency could not or would not answer are left blank.

• prison_populations.csv contains snapshots of the population of people incarcerated in each of these prison systems for whom data on COVID testing and cases are available. This varies by state and may not always be the entire number of people incarcerated in each system. In some states, it may include other populations, such as those on parole or held in state-run jails. This data is primarily for use in calculating rates of testing and infection, and we would not recommend using these numbers to compare the change in how many people are being held in each prison system.

• staff_populations.csv contains a one-time, recent snapshot of the headcount of workers for each prison agency, collected as close to April 15 as possible.

• covid_prison_rates.csv contains the rates of cases and deaths for prisoners. There is one row for every state and federal prison system and an additional row with the National totals.

Queries

The Associated Press and The Marshall Project have created several queries to help you use this data:

Get your state's prison COVID data: Provides each week's data from just your state and calculates a cases-per-100000-prisoners rate, a deaths-per-100000-prisoners rate, a cases-per-100000-workers rate and a deaths-per-100000-workers rate here

Rank all systems' most recent data by cases per 100,000 prisoners here

Find what percentage of your state's total cases and deaths -- as reported by Johns Hopkins University -- occurred within the prison system here

Attribution

In stories, attribute this data to: “According to an analysis of state prison cases by The Marshall Project, a nonprofit investigative newsroom dedicated to the U.S. criminal justice system, and The Associated Press.”

Contributors

Many reporters and editors at The Marshall Project and The Associated Press contributed to this data, including: Katie Park, Tom Meagher, Weihua Li, Gabe Isman, Cary Aspinwall, Keri Blakinger, Jake Bleiberg, Andrew R. Calderón, Maurice Chammah, Andrew DeMillo, Eli Hager, Jamiles Lartey, Claudia Lauer, Nicole Lewis, Humera Lodhi, Colleen Long, Joseph Neff, Michelle Pitcher, Alysia Santo, Beth Schwartzapfel, Damini Sharma, Colleen Slevin, Christie Thompson, Abbie VanSickle, Adria Watson, Andrew Welsh-Huggins.

Questions

If you have questions about the data, please email The Marshall Project at info+covidtracker@themarshallproject.org or file a Github issue.

To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.

The Fortune Society, a private not-for-profit organization located in New York City, provides a variety of services that are intended to support former prisoners in becoming stable and productive members of society. The purpose of this evaluation was to explore the extent to which receiving supportive services at the Fortune Society improved clients' prospects for law abiding behavior. More specifically, this study examined the extent to which receipt of these services reduced recidivism and homelessness following release. The research team adopted a quasi-experimental design that compared recidivism outcomes for persons enrolled at Fortune (clients) to persons released from New York State prisons and returning to New York City and, separately, inmates released from the New York City jails, none of whom went to Fortune (non-clients). All -- clients and non-clients alike -- were released after January 1, 2000, and before November 3, 2005 (for state prisoners), and March 3, 2005 (for city jail prisoners). Information about all prisoners released during these time frames was obtained from the New York State Department of Correctional Services for state prisoners and from the New York City Department of Correction for city prisoners. The research team also obtained records from the Fortune Society for its clients and arrest and conviction information for all released prisoners from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services' criminal history repository. These records were matched and merged, producing a 72,408 case dataset on 57,349 released state prisoners (Part 1) and a 68,614 case dataset on 64,049 city jail prisoners (Part 2). The research team obtained data from the Fortune Society for 15,685 persons formally registered as clients between 1989 and 2006 (Part 3) and data on 416,943 activities provided to clients at the Fortune Society between September 1999 and March 2006 (Part 4). Additionally, the research team obtained 97,665 records from the New York City Department of Homeless Services of all persons who sought shelter or other homeless services during the period from January 2000 to July 2006 (Part 5). Part 6 contains 96,009 cases and catalogs matches between a New York State criminal record identifier and a Fortune Society client identifier. The New York State Prisons Releases Data (Part 1) contain a total of 124 variables on released prison inmate characteristics including demographic information, criminal history variables, indicator variables, geographic variables, and service variables. The New York City Jails Releases Data (Part 2) contain a total of 92 variables on released jail inmate characteristics including demographic information, criminal history variables, indicator variables, and geographic variables. The Fortune Society Client Data (Part 3) contain 44 variables including demographic, criminal history, needs/issues, and other variables. The Fortune Society Client Activity Data (Part 4) contain seven variables including two identifiers, end date, Fortune service unit, duration in hours, activity type, and activity. The Homelessness Events Data (Part 5) contain four variables including two identifiers, change in homeless status, and date of change. The New York State Criminal Record/Fortune Society Client Match Data (Part 6) contain four variables including three identifiers and a variable that indicates the type of match between a New York State criminal record identifier and a Fortune Society client identifier.

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

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

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

This dataset lists inmates incarcerated at Cockatoo Island prison in Sydney (Australia) between 1847-1869. It offers insights into how the colonial criminal justice system operated after New South Wales’ transition from a penal colony to a ‘free’ colony when transportation ceased in 1840. It is a useful tool for genealogists tracing the lives of their criminal ancestors and for historians of crime and punishment researching nineteenth-century Australia. The dataset includes prisoners' names and aliases, their ship of arrival, place of origin, details of their colonial conviction(s) (trial place, court, offence, sentence), date(s) admitted to Cockatoo Island, and when and how they were discharged from Cockatoo Island. In some cases, it also includes prisoners' place of origin, occupation, biometric information (height, eye/hair colour, complexion, scars, tattoos), 'condition upon arrival' (convict or free), and (for convicts) details of their original conviction in Britain or Ireland. As a UNESCO World Heritage 'Convict Site' Cockatoo Island is best known as a site of secondary punishment for recidivist convicts, especially those transferred from Norfolk Island. This dataset demonstrates the diversity of the prison population: including nominally free convicts (ticket-of-leave holders), migrants from Britain, China and other Australian colonies drawn in by the gold rush, exiles from Port Phillip, Aboriginal Australians convicted during frontier warfare, colonial-born white Australians (including bushrangers), and black, Indian and American sailors visiting Sydney. Significant attention has been paid to the more than 160,000 British and Irish convicts who were transported Australia as colonists between 1787 and 1868. Much less has been said about those punished within the criminal justice system that arose in the wake of New South Wales' transition from 'penal' to 'free' colony (Finnane, 1997: x-xi). Cockatoo Island prison opened in 1839, a year before convict transportation to New South Wales ceased, and was intended to punish the most recidivist and violent of the transported convicts. This archetype has prevailed in historical discourses, and they have been described as 'criminal lunatics... [and] criminals incapable of reform' (Parker, 1977: 61); 'the most desperate and abandoned characters' (O'Carrigan, 1994: 64); and people of 'doubtful character' (NSW Government Architect's Office, 2009: 29). Yet, this was far from the truth. My analysis of 1666 prisoners arriving between 1839-52 show they were overwhelming non-violent offenders, tried for minor property crimes at lower courts. They were also far more diverse population than commonly recognised, including Indigenous Australian, Chinese and black convicts alongside majority British and Irish men (Harman, 2012). This project will make publicly available extremely detailed records relating to Cockatoo Island's prisoners to show people firsthand exactly who made up the inmate population. The digital version of the original registers will include information on convicts' criminal record, but also their job, whether they were married or had children, and even what they looked like. It will also be a name-searchable database so family historians can search for their ancestors, who may have been incarcerated on the island. As it stands, they will be able find information online about ancestors who were transported as long as they remained in the 'convict system', but they may seem to disappear as soon as they are awarded their ticket-of-leave and become 'free'. However, many former convicts, and free immigrants, to New South Wales were convicted locally, and these records can give us information about their lives within the colony. The type of data included in these registers will also allow researchers to investigate questions including: (1) were convicts more likely to offend again than free immigrants? (2) Were the children of convicts more likely to offend than others? (3) Did the influx of mostly Chinese migrants during the gold rush actually lead to a crime-wave, as reported in the press? (4) Were laws introduced between 1830 and 1853, actually effective at prosecuting bushrangers (highwaymen)? (5) Was the criminal-judicial system in Australia more rehabilitative, despite developing out of a harsher convict transportation system? Alongside the dataset, the website will include 'life-biographies' of individual convicts to show you how this dataset can be used to piece together a life-story. It also to warns against understanding a real-life person only through the records of their conviction. There many of fascinating stories to tell, including those 'John Perry' ('Black Perry') the prizewinning boxer; the love story of the 'Two Fredericks'; and Tan, the Chinese gold-digger who resisted his incarceration. In addition, there will be teaching resources for secondary school children and undergraduate university students who want to engage directly with historical materials, without having to leave their classroom. Overall, this website invites anyone with an interest in the history of crime and punishment, and any visitors to the UNESCO world heritage site 'Cockatoo Island', to try searching for a name in the database or read about a featured convict's life story. It asks them, though, to think about how and why these people's lives intersected with the state, leading to their incarceration, and how history has erased much of their lives outside of it. Data collection involved photographing a Cockatoo Island’s surviving prison registers and returns kept at the State Archives of New South Wales (call numbers: 4/4540, 4/6501, 4/6509, 6571, 4/6572, 4/6573, 4/6574, 4/6575, X819). In these volumes, clerks had listed details of incoming prisoners on the dates they arrived between April 1847 and October 1869. This prison register for the period 1839-46 (call number: 2/8285) had not survived to a good enough quality for accurate transcription and was excluded from data collection. I photographed and then transcribed these records in full into a tabular form, with minor standardisation of abbreviations and irregular spellings. Where multiple records existed for one person I combined information from two separate archival records into one line of the dataset. Where I could not verify that two people with the same name were the same person, I listed them as separate entries. Barring errors in entry at the time of record creation, the studied population represents the entire population of prisoners incarcerated at Cockatoo Island between April 1847 and October 1869 when the prison closed.

The 2019 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities (CCF) was the ninth enumeration of state institutions and the sixth enumeration of federal institutions sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and its predecessors. Earlier censuses were completed in 1979 (ICPSR 7852), 1984 (ICPSR 8444), 1990 (ICPSR 9908), 1995 (ICPSR 6953), 2000 (ICPSR 4021), 2005 (ICPSR 24642), and 2012 (ICPSR 37294). The 2019 CCF consisted of two data collection instruments - one for confinement facilities and one for community-based facilities. For each facility, information was provided on facility operator; sex of prisoners authorized to be housed by facility; facility functions; percentage of prisoners authorized to leave the facility; one-day counts of prisoners by sex, race/ethnicity, special populations, and holding authority; number of walkaways occurring over a one-year period; and educational and other special programs offered to prisoners. Additional information was collected from confinement facilities, including physical security level; housing for special populations; capacity; court orders for specific conditions; one-day count of correctional staff by payroll status and sex; one-day count of security staff by sex and race/ethnicity; assaults and incidents caused by prisoners; number of escapes occurring over a one-year period; and work assignments available to prisoners. Late in the data collection to avoid complete nonresponse from facilities, BJS offered the option of providing critical data elements from the two data collection instruments. These elements included facility operator; sex of prisoners authorized to be housed by facility; facility functions; percentage of prisoners authorized to leave the facility; one-day counts of prisoners by sex, and holding authority. Physical security level was an additional critical data element for confinement facilities. The census counted prisoners held in the facilities, a custody count. Some prisoners who are held in the custody of one jurisdiction may be under the authority of a different jurisdiction. The custody count is distinct from a count of prisoners under a correctional authority's jurisdiction, which includes all prisoners over whom a correctional authority exercises control, regardless of where the prisoner is housed. A jurisdictional count is more inclusive than a prison custody count and includes state and federal prisoners housed in local jails or other non-correctional facilities.

This data collection provides information about topics and issues of concern in research and policy within the field of corrections. Chief among these are the characteristics of persons confined to state prisons, their current and past offenses, and the circumstances or conditions of their confinement. Also included is extensive information on inmates' drug and alcohol use, program participation, and the victims of the inmates' most recent offenses. This information, which is not available on a national basis from any other source, is intended to assist the criminal justice community and other researchers in analysis and evaluation of correctional issues.

The 1922 Prison System Enquiry Committee Report said that: 'In order to judge our Prison system rightly it is necessary to know what kind of people become prisoners... How many go to prison? For what length of sentence?' These questions persist, and are especially relevant for today's prison crisis. This project will assess nearly 100 years of historical data to explore, for the first time, how prison numbers were largely dictated by the repeat incarceration of recidivist's offenders with short sentences. It questions how the prison authorities attempted to manage increasing numbers of offenders by using early release schemes (licenses) in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (licenses have only recently become available, generous access granted by The National Archives). This project will explore whether short sentences contributed to repeat offending, and whether early release schemes accelerated or inhibited recidivism. It investigates the financial costs of imprisonment to the country (and the human costs to those imprisoned) and does this over a significant period of time (allowing an examination of how repeated incarcerations affected the whole of an offender's criminal career). It concludes by asking what lessons can be learnt for today's debates about sentencing offenders and managing the prison population? Data was derived from the following sources: PCOM 3 (1853-1887, 1902-08, 1912-42) – these files contained 45,000 licenses and also the registers of license holders. They listed the prisoner’s name, sentence, where/when convicted, dates and conditions of the current license; previous convictions, age, previous occupation, when and from where the prisoner was released; and most had photographs of the prisoner. The National Archives granted us access to these records pre public release (they are now available on Find-My-Past and Ancestry). Criminal Registers 1853-1892 (contained offenders tried for indictable crimes, whether they were found guilty, details of the offence, and sentence imposed). Where possible we traced these offences in the Quarter Sessions Calendars in order to trace the antecedent criminal history. From these main sources, we were then able to trace prisoners released on license using a wide variety of other extant sources. These sources provided us with a considerable amount of additional information on offenders who were released on license: Census returns from 1841-1911 censuses (which gave details of the residence, family status, and occupation, of each person we will be searching for). Online Birth, Marriage and Death indices (which detailed if and when our offender was married, and had children; and, of course, when they died). Military records (mainly referring to World War One; these included service records - which in turn included disciplinary breaches - medal indices and pensions details. Metropolitan Police records including Habitual Criminal Registers (MEPO 6) which contain details of criminals as defined by sections 5-8 of the Prevention of Crimes Act 1871. From the sources above we constructed approximately 650 life grids. These were divided into an early (1853-55 n=62), middle (1871-73 n=201), and late (1885-1887 n=184) tranche, for 356 men and 288 women. Each life-grid charted offending/life histories for each offender. Studies funded by Leverhulme Trust (F/00130/H)) and ESRC (RES-062-23-0416) used life grids and `whole-life’ research methods and the method is now well-tested. The life-grid data was then entered into excel and SPSS in order to produce quantifiable data on - the progress of their criminal careers, their periods of incarceration, their employment careers, life events such as marriage, death of parents, and other significant life events. We had over two hundred thousand fields of data at the conclusion of our data collection/analysis. By analysing each of the life grids we were able to see the relationships and connections between life events and offending post-imprisonment (both short and long periods of custody, whilst on licence, and after license had expired.

This survey of inmates in five California prisons was conducted by the RAND Corporation with a grant from the National Institute of Justice. Researchers distributed an anonymous self-administered questionnaire to groups of 10-20 inmates at a time. Using the self-report technique, the survey obtained detailed information about the crimes committed by these prisoners prior to their incarceration. Variables were calculated to examine the characteristics of repeatedly arrested or convicted offenders (recidivists) as well as offenders reporting the greatest number of serious crimes (habitual criminals). The variables include crimes committed leading to incarceration, rates of criminal activity, and social-psychological scales for analyzing motivations to commit crimes, as well as self-reports of age, race, education, marital status, employment, income, and drug use.

A snapshot of the incarcerated population sentenced to the Indiana Department of Correction, including race, age, felony type, and most serious offense category. All data reflects December 31st of the selected year. This dataset contains the underlying data for the 'Population' tab of the 'Prison Incarceration' dashboard within the Public Safety domain.

This dataset integrates data from multiple publicly available sources to enhance the social and environmental analytical potential of the 2017 and 2020 HIFLD prison boundaries datasets to enable more fine grained research on private carceral facilities and their environmental regulatory compliance. The HIFLD prison boundary feature class contains secure detention facilities. These facilities range in jurisdiction from federal (excluding military) to local governments. This feature class’s attribution describes many physical and social characteristics of detention facilities in the United States and some of its territories. The attribution for this feature class was populated by open source search methodologies of authoritative sources. We subset this large dataset to focus solely on privately contracted detention facilities. Four companies, GeoGroup, CoreCivic, LaSalle Corrections, and Managements and Training Corporation, contract with a wide variety of law enforcement. We identified privately-contracted detention facilities via each companies’ website and matched them, where possible, to facilities in the HIFLD prison boundary dataset. Their websites are as follows: geogroup: https://www.geogroup.com/LOCATIONS corecivic: https://www.corecivic.com/facilities lasalle: https://lasallecorrections.com/locations/ mtc: https://www.mtctrains.com/detention/#division-map Additionally, we have manually coded the corresponding EPA Facility Registry Service (FRS) ID number to every facility for which we could find a reasonable match (source: https://www.epa.gov/frs/frs-facilities-state-single-file-csv-download). This FRS ID number enables finding corresponding environmental permits, inspections, violations, and enforcement actions. Purpose: This feature class contains private detention facilities with EPA FRS ID and additional socially relevant variables for research on the environmental injustices of mass incarceration by Carceral Ecologies.

The purpose of this collection was to measure the extent to which the Prisoner Management Classification (PMC) system in Washington state improved overall operations of prison facilities and reduced safety risks to inmates and staff. Four primary issues were addressed: (1) To what extent the PMC reduces rates of assaults on staff and inmates, (2) To what extent the PMC reduces rates of other serious misconduct, (3) To what extent the PMC increases rates of inmate participation in work or vocational programs, and (4) To what extent the PMC enhances staff job satisfaction, morale, and staff performance. Information is included on outcome variables against which comparisons between the experimental and control groups can be made. For each correctional facility, figures were collected for the number of staff-inmate assaults, number of inmate-inmate assaults, number of suicides and suicide attempts, number of escapes and escape attempts, number of "serious" disciplinary incidents, number of total staff, number of inmates, number of security staff vacancies, rated capacity of the facility, number of staff transfers and reasons, and number of inmates involved in educational, vocational, and work programs. Demographic variables include date of birth, sex, and race. Additional information concerns the family structure of the inmates and conditions surrounding the inmates' lives prior to entering prison.

This survey provides nationally representative data on inmates held in state prisons and federally-owned and operated prisons. Through personal interviews conducted from October 2003 through May 2004, inmates in both state and federal prisons provided information about their current offense and sentence, criminal history, family background and personal characteristics, prior drug and alcohol use and treatment programs, gun possession and use, and prison activities, programs, and services. Prior surveys of State prison inmates were conducted in 1974, 1979, 1986, 1991, and 1997. Sentenced federal prison inmates were interviewed in the 1991 and 1997 surveys.

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.

Summary: This is a collection of publicly reported data relevant to the COVID-19 pandemic scraped from state and federal prisons in the United States. Data are collected each night from every state and federal correctional agency’s site that has data available. Data from Massachusetts come directly from the ACLU Massachusetts COVID-19 website (https://data.aclum.org/sjc-12926-tracker/), not the Massachusetts DOC website. Data from a small number of states come from Recidiviz (https://www.recidiviz.org/) whose team manually collects data from these states. Not all dates are available for some states due to websites being down or changes to the website that cause some data to be missed by the scraper.The data primarily cover the number of people incarcerated in these facilities who have tested positive, negative, recovered, and have died from COVID-19. Many - but not all - states also provide this information for staff members. This dataset includes every variable that any state makes available. While there are dozens of variables in the data, most apply to only a small number of states or a single state.The data is primarily at the facility-date unit, meaning that each row represents a single prison facility on a single date. The date is the date we scraped the data (we do so each night between 9pm-3am EST) and not necessarily the date the data was updated. While many states update daily, some do so less frequently. As such, you may see some dates for certain states contain the same values. A small number of states do not provide facility-level data, or do so for only a subset of all the variables they make available. In these cases we have also collected state-level data and made that available separately. Please note: When facility data is available, the state-level file combines the aggregated facility-level data with any state-level data that is available. You should therefore use this file when doing a state-level analysis instead of aggregating the facility-level data, as some states report values only at the state level (these states may still have some data at the facility-level), and some states report cumulative numbers at the state level but do not report them at the facility level. As a result, when we identify this, we typically add the cumulative information to the state level file. The state level file is still undergoing quality checks and will be released soon.These data were scraped from nearly all state and federal prison websites that make their data available each night for several months, and we continue to collect data. Over time some states have changed what variables are available, both adding and removing some variables, as well as the definition of variables. For all states and time periods you are using this data for, please carefully examine the data to detect these kinds of issues. We have spent extensive time doing a careful check of the data to remove any issues we find, primarily ones that could be caused by a scraper not working properly. However, please check all data for issues before using it. Contact us at covidprisondata@gmail.com to let us know if you find any issues, have questions, or if you would like to collaborate on research.

National routine information on drug use and patterns of use amongst prisoners is rare. Most of the data available in the EU come from ad-hoc studies amongst prisoners, carried out at local level, with samples that vary considerably in size and which are often not representative of the whole prison system. This makes extrapolation to a national figure for the prison system very difficult. Furthermore, the lack of repeated surveys impedes trend analysis in most of the EU countries.

There are over 300 statistical tables in this dataset. Each data table may be viewed as an HTML table or downloaded in spreadsheet (Excel format).

The Prison Agriculture Lab at Colorado State University compiled a first-of-a-kind nationwide data set tracking prison agriculture in the United States. The data set identifies 1101 adult state-operated prisons, including 662 adult state-operated prisons with some type of crops and silviculture; horticulture and landscaping; animal agriculture; and/or food processing and production. These four types of agriculture are further broken down into subtypes, which are more detailed descriptions of an agricultural activity. The data set furthermore entails details on the specific drivers of agriculture, which are the goals or justifications for agriculture at each prison provided by prison authorities. The drivers are broadly classified into financial, idleness reduction, training, or reparative driver groups. Data covers all 50 states and was collected between 2019-2022 by speaking with prison authorities and by scraping official government and agency reports and websites. To enrich the geospatial aspects of this data set, the prison agriculture data provides a key to link with Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level prison boundaries data from 2020.

Number and rate of persons held in prisons from United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) for Pacific Islands Countries and Territories.

Find more Pacific data on PDH.stat.

BackgroundIt has been hypothesized that prisons serve as amplifiers of general tuberculosis (TB) epidemics, but there is a paucity of data on this phenomenon and the potential population-level effects of prison-focused interventions. This study (1) quantifies the TB risk for prisoners as they traverse incarceration and release, (2) mathematically models the impact of prison-based interventions on TB burden in the general population, and (3) generalizes this model to a wide range of epidemiological contexts.Methods and findingsWe obtained individual-level incarceration data for all inmates (n = 42,925) and all reported TB cases (n = 5,643) in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso do Sul from 2007 through 2013. We matched individuals between prisoner and TB databases and estimated the incidence of TB from the time of incarceration and the time of prison release using Cox proportional hazards models. We identified 130 new TB cases diagnosed during incarceration and 170 among individuals released from prison. During imprisonment, TB rates increased from 111 cases per 100,000 person-years at entry to a maximum of 1,303 per 100,000 person-years at 5.2 years. At release, TB incidence was 229 per 100,000 person-years, which declined to 42 per 100,000 person-years (the average TB incidence in Brazil) after 7 years. We used these data to populate a compartmental model of TB transmission and incarceration to evaluate the effects of various prison-based interventions on the incidence of TB among prisoners and the general population. Annual mass TB screening within Brazilian prisons would reduce TB incidence in prisons by 47.4% (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI], 44.4%–52.5%) and in the general population by 19.4% (95% BCI 17.9%–24.2%). A generalized model demonstrates that prison-based interventions would have maximum effectiveness in reducing community incidence in populations with a high concentration of TB in prisons and greater degrees of mixing between ex-prisoners and community members. Study limitations include our focus on a single Brazilian state and our retrospective use of administrative databases.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the prison environment, more so than the prison population itself, drives TB incidence, and targeted interventions within prisons could have a substantial effect on the broader TB epidemic.

This dataset was created as part of the PrisonLIFE project, funded by the Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia under Grant No. 7750249.

The dataset includes responses from prisoners across multiple correctional facilities in Serbia, collected using the Serbian version of the Measuring the Quality of Prison Life (MQPL) survey. It focuses on two key questions:

1. Perceptions of how the quality of prison life could be improved (e.g., through recreational activities, family contact, or preparation for release).
2. Factors perceived as most detrimental to the quality of prison life.

The dataset contains:

• Responses aggregated for each prison separately.
• Combined responses from all prisons included in the study.

This dataset provides valuable insights into prisoners' perspectives on improving and reducing the quality of prison life, supporting evidence-based recommendations for enhancing prison policies and practices.