Context

In 1975, the United States set a new record with 240,593 prisoners incarcerated by state or federal agencies. The United States achieved new record totals during each of the next 34 years. Today, there are over 1,500,000 prisoners in the United States. Over one quarter of the world's entire population of prisoners is located in the United States.

The U.S. Education deparment reports state and local government expenditures on prisons (and jails - not reflected in this dataset) have increased about three times as fast as spending on elementary and secondary education during this time period. Does this significant investment into imprisonment improve public safety? This dataset brings together crime and incarceration statistics to help researchers explore this relationship.

Content

The Bureau of Justice Statistics administers the National Prisoners Statistics Program (NPS), an annual data collection effort that began in response to a 1926 congressional mandate. The population statistics reflect each state's prisoner population as of December 31 for the recorded year. Prisoners listed under federal jurisdiction are incarcerated by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.

The Uniform Crime Report (UCR) has served as the FBI's primary national data collection tool since a 1930 congressional mandate directed the Attorney General to "acquire, collect, classify, and preserve identification, criminal identification, crime, and other records." The FBI collects this information voluntarily submitted by local, state, and fedral law enforcement agencies. Some U.S. municipalities choose not to participate fully in the program. The crimes_estimated field indicates cases where the FBI estimated state totals due to lack of participation by some municipalities within a state. The crime_reporting_change field reflects instances when states' reporting standards change. For more information on the responsible use of this dataset, please see Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics: Their Proper Use

Acknowledgements

State and Federal prisoner population figures published by Bureau of Justice Statistics.

State crime and population statistics published by the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. https://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm

Banner Photo by Oscar Söderlund on Unsplash

Inspiration

What is the relationship between incarceration rates and crime rates? Does mass incarceration improve public safety? See below for some recent statements from U.S. politicians related to the relationship between crime and incarceration. Are the data consistent with any of these statements?

"There is no better way to reduce crime than to identify, target, and incapacitate those hardened criminals... we cannot incapacitate these criminals unless we build sufficient prison and jail space to house them. " - Nominee for 85th U.S. Attorney General William Barr, [October 28, 1992][13]

"Violent crime has declined since the 1980s because mandatory minimums adopted then locked up violent criminals." - Senator Tom Cotton, August 15, 2018

"You may assume mass incarceration exists because people are committing more crimes. But that is not true... The incredibly costly reality is that prisons in our nation continue to grow irrespective of crime rates. It is a bureaucracy that has been expanding independent of our security or safety." - Senator Cory Booker, Apr 28, 2015

"It is far from clear whether this dramatic increase in incarceration for drug crimes has had enough of an effect on property and violent crime rates to justify the human toll of more incarceration." - Senator Ted Cruz, Apr 27, 2015

"For several decades, tough laws and long sentences have created the illusion that public safety is best served when we treat all offenders the same way: arrest, convict, incarcerate..." - Senator Kamala Harris, [Apr 27, 2015][11]

"We've got some space to put some people! We need to reverse a trend that suggested that criminals won't be confronted seriously with their crimes" - 84th U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, [March 15, 2018][12]

...

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 dataset shows the number of people that are in prison by state in 2006 and 2007. These numbers are then compared to show the difference between the two years and a percentage of change is given as well. This data was brought to our attention by the Pew Charitable Trusts in their report titled, One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008."" The main emphasis of the article emphasizes the point that in 2007 1 in every 100 Americans were in prison. To note: Many states have not completed their data verification process. Final published figures may differ slightly. The District of Columbia is not included. D.C. prisoners were transferred to federal custody in 2001

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) ...

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.

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.

This dataset shows the total amount of State Prison Expenditures for Medical Care, Food expenses, and Utilities in the year 2001. Over a quarter of prison operating costs are for basic living expenses. Prisoner medical care, food service, utilities, and contract housing totaled $7.3 billion, or about 26% of State prison current operating expenses. Inmate medical care totaled $3.3 billion, or about 12% of operating expenditures. Supplies and services of government staff and full-time and part-time managed care and fee-for service providers averaged $2,625 per inmate, or $7.19 per day. By comparison, the average annual health care expenditure of U.S. residents, including all sources in FY 2001, was $4,370, or $11.97 per day. Factors beyond the scope of this report contributed to the variation in spending levels for prisoner medical care. Lacking economies of scale, some States had significantly higher than average medical costs for everyone, and some had higher proportions of inmates whose abuse of drugs or alcohol had led to disease. Also influencing variations in expenditures were staffing and funding of prisoner health care and distribution of specialized medical equipment for prisoner treatment. Food service in FY 2001 cost $1.2 billion, or approximately 4% of State prison operating expenditures. On average nationwide, State departments of correction spent $2.62 to feed inmates each day. Utility services for electricity, natural gas, heating oil, water, sewerage, trash removal, and telephone in State prisons totaled $996 million in FY 2001. Utilities accounted for about 3.5% of State prison operating expenditure. For more information see the url source of this dataset.

This 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 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 dataset shows the total amount of expenditures and operating costs that states spent on inmates in the fiscal year of 2001. Correctional authorities spent $38.2 billion to maintain the Nation's State correctional systems in fiscal year 2001, including $29.5 billion specifically for adult correctional facilities. Day-today operating expenses totaled $28.4 billion, and capital outlays for land, new building, and renovations, $1.1 billion. The average annual operating cost per State inmate in 2001 was $22,650, or $62.05 per day. Among facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, it was $22,632 per inmate, or $62.01 per day. In a followup to a study based on FY 1996 data, this report presents unique statistics on the cost of operating State prisons in FY 2001. Information was obtained by extracting corrections data from each State's responses to the U.S. Census Bureau's annual Survey of Government Finances. Item categories were standardized across jurisdictions, and reported figures were verified with State budget officials. For more information please see source url.

This dataset displays the inmate populations for all the Federal Prisons throughout the United States on 7.2.08. This weekly Population Report can be found on the Bureau of Prisons website at bop.gov. These facilities are positioned by their lat/lon and this dataset is updated on a weekly basis.

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 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.

State PREA Reports- The purpose of the act is to “provide for the analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape in Federal, State, and local institutions and to provide information, resources, recommendations and funding to protect individuals from prison rape

This data collection focused on problems in the women's correctional system over a 135-year period. More specifically, it examined the origins and development of prisoner and sentencing characteristics in three states. Demographic data on female inmates cover age, race, parents' place of birth, prisoner's occupation, religion, and marital status. Other variables include correctional facilities, offenses, minimum and maximum sentences, prior commitments, method of release from prison, and presence of crime partners.

Abstract (en): This data collection provides annual data on prisoners under a sentence of death and on those whose offense sentences were commuted or vacated. Information is available on basic sociodemographic characteristics such as age, sex, race and ethnicity, marital status at time of imprisonment, level of education, and state of incarceration. Criminal history data include prior felony convictions for criminal homicide and legal status at the time of the capital offense. Additional information is provided on those inmates removed from death row by yearend 1988 and those inmates who were executed. 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: Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Inmates in state prisons under the sentence of death. 2008-11-12 Minor changes have been made to the metadata.2008-10-30 All parts have been moved to restricted access and are available only using the restricted access procedures.2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 3 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 3 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions.1997-05-30 SAS data definition statements are now available for this collection, and the SPSS data definition statements were updated. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1) Information collected prior to 1972 is in many cases incomplete and reflects vestiges in the reporting process. (2) The inmate identification numbers were assigned by the Bureau of Census and have no purpose outside this dataset.

Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, Congress mandated that the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) investigate former prisoners' experiences in prison to assist in understanding the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization within the prison setting. BJS and its subcontractor, NORC at the University of Chicago, led a national data collection effort focusing on prison sexual assault as reported by former state prisoners. The focus of the National Former Prisoner Survey (NFPS) was sexual victimization among former state prisoners. The survey was divided into 6 sections. The first two sections were administered using a computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) method and focused on demographic and criminal history information. The remaining sections, covering more sensitive information, were administered using a touch-screen-audio-assisted-computer-self-interviewing (TACASI) method. Sections A and B of the instrument collected demographic and criminal history information, as well as information on placements during the last continuous incarceration. Sections C and D captured detailed inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization during the last continuous incarceration, including the type of sexual activity, identification of facilities at which such incidents occurred, frequency of occurrences, and other specifics regarding sexual victimization. Section E addressed staff-on-inmate sexual victimization and misconduct, whether considered willing or unwilling, and gathered specifics of activity indicated. The last section, F, focused on the impacts of sexual assault on victimized respondents, as well as parole supervision characteristics for all respondents. The National Former Prisoner Survey (NFPS) began in January 2008 and concluded in October 2008, and involved the random selection of approximately 250 parole offices across the country using probability proportional-to-size (PPS) sampling procedures. Completed interviews were obtained for 17,738 respondents; supplemental data was collected on all former prisoners sampled in order to develop weights for national estimations.

Research shows that prison visitation is integral to the success of incarcerated people, reducing recidivism, facilitating reentry into the community, and promoting positive parent-child relationships. However, people are often incarcerated long distances from their home communities in areas that are difficult to reach by public transport, creating significant barriers to in-person visitation. Departments of corrections are exploring the use of computer-based video visits as a means to address some of the visitation needs of those in custody in a cost-effective way while continuing to encourage in-person visits. To learn more about this practice, the study team conducted the following research activities: A survey of incarcerated people: The study team surveyed 211 people incarcerated in Washington State prisons about their use of video visits, their perceptions of the service, and their experiences of in-person visits more generally. This was a self-administered, pen-and-paper survey. An impact evaluation of video visits: The study team analyzed individual-level administrative data from the Washington Department of Corrections (WADOC) and the private video visit vendor (JPay) to understand whether use of the service affected four outcomes: 1) the number of in-person visits people received, 2) the number of rule violations (of any severity) people committed in prison, 3) the number of general (ie. non-serious) rule violations they committed, and 4) the number of serious (as defined by WADOC) rule violations that were committed. The researchers used two analytic techniques: 1) a difference-in-difference test, using inverse probability of treatment weighting, and 2) Bayesian additive regression trees. An analysis of in-person visit rates: The study team analyzed administrative data relating to all people who were incarcerated for the 12 month period ending November 2015 (n=11,524). The study team produced descriptive statistics and conducted negative binomial regressions to understand the rates of in-person visits and how these related to the characteristics of the incarcerated people.

Historical Dataset of High Desert State Prison Adult High School is provided by PublicSchoolReview and contain statistics on metrics:Total Students Trends Over Years (2015-2018),Total Classroom Teachers Trends Over Years (2016-2023),Student-Teacher Ratio Comparison Over Years (2017-2018),Hispanic Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2017-2018),Black Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2017-2018),Two or More Races Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2017-2018),Diversity Score Comparison Over Years (2017-2018)

This is a MD iMAP hosted service layer. Find more information at http://imap.maryland.gov. This dataset contains correctional facilities run by the United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP) located within Maryland. The data was obtained from the US BOP (http://www.bop.gov/) Last Updated: 07/30/2014 Feature Service Layer Link: https://mdgeodata.md.gov/imap/rest/services/PublicSafety/MD_CorrectionalFacilities/FeatureServer ADDITIONAL LICENSE TERMS: The Spatial Data and the information therein (collectively "the Data") is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind either expressed implied or statutory. The user assumes the entire risk as to quality and performance of the Data. No guarantee of accuracy is granted nor is any responsibility for reliance thereon assumed. In no event shall the State of Maryland be liable for direct indirect incidental consequential or special damages of any kind. The State of Maryland does not accept liability for any damages or misrepresentation caused by inaccuracies in the Data or as a result to changes to the Data nor is there responsibility assumed to maintain the Data in any manner or form. The Data can be freely distributed as long as the metadata entry is not modified or deleted. Any data derived from the Data must acknowledge the State of Maryland in the metadata.