{"@type": "dcat:Dataset", "accessLevel": "public", "bureauCode": ["011:21"], "contactPoint": {"@type": "vcard:Contact", "fn": "Open Data Office of Justice Programs (USDOJ)", "hasEmail": "mailto:opendata@usdoj.gov"}, "dataQuality": false, "description": "The purpose of this study was to conduct a national-scale\r\n evaluation of correctional facilities housing female offenders in\r\n order to assess the effectiveness of current programs, including\r\n alternative sanctions and treatment programs, and management\r\n practices. The goal was to gather information on \"what works for\r\n which women\" with respect to the program characteristics most related\r\n to positive outcomes. The first stage of the study consisted of\r\n gathering the opinions of administrators in state departments of\r\n corrections, including state-level administrators and administrators\r\n in institutions for women (Part 1). Administrators from jails that\r\n housed women were also interviewed (Part 2). Data collected for Parts\r\n 1 and 2 focused on attitudes toward the influx of women into jails and\r\n prisons, the needs of incarcerated women, and management and program\r\n approaches for meeting those needs. Respondents were asked to identify\r\n programs that in their view stood out as especially effective in\r\n meeting the needs of incarcerated women. From this list of nominated\r\n programs, researchers conducted 62 in-depth telephone interviews with\r\n administrators of programs located in jails, prisons, and the\r\n community (Part 3). A supplement to this study consisted of telephone\r\n interviews with 11 program directors who headed mental health programs\r\n that appeared to be \"state of the art\" for incarcerated women (Part\r\n 4). Variables in Parts 1-4 that concern the nominated programs include\r\n the underlying principles guiding the programs, whom the programs\r\n targeted, what types of staff were employed by the programs, the most\r\n positive effects of the programs, and whether program evaluations had\r\n been completed. Program effort variables found in Parts 1-4 cover\r\n whether the programs focused on trying to treat substance abuse, stop\r\n child abuse, provide women with nontraditional job skills, parenting\r\n skills, HIV/AIDS education, and life skills, change cognitive\r\n thinking, and/or promote self-esteem. Several variables common to\r\n Parts 1-3 include whether the programs provided women with\r\n follow-up/transitional help, helped to stimulate pre-release planning,\r\n allowed visits between women and children, or used ex-offenders,\r\n ex-substance users, volunteers, or outside community groups to work\r\n with the women. Variables focusing on the types of assessment tools\r\n used cover medical assessments, VD screening, reading/math ability\r\n screening, mental health screening, substance abuse screening, needs\r\n regarding children screening, and victim-spouse abuse\r\n screening. Variables pertaining to institution management include\r\n background knowledge needed to manage a facility, the types of\r\n management styles used for managing female offenders, security and\r\n other operational issues, problems with cross-sex supervision, and\r\n handling complaints. Similar variables across Parts 1, 2, and 4 deal\r\n with the impact of private or state funding, such as respondents'\r\n views on the positive and negative outcomes of privatization and of\r\n using state services. Both Parts 1 and 2 contain information on\r\n respondents' views regarding the unique needs of women offenders,\r\n which programs were especially for women, and which program needs were\r\n more serious than others. Planning variables in Parts 1 and 2 include\r\n whether there were plans to have institutions link with other state\r\n agencies, and which programs were most in need of expansion. Further\r\n common variables concerned the influx of women in prison, including\r\n how administrators were dealing with the increasing number of women\r\n offenders, whether the facilities were originally designed for women,\r\n how the facilities adapted for women, and the number of women\r\n currently in the facilities. In addition, Part 1 contains unique\r\n variables on alternative, intermediate sanction options for women,\r\n such as the percentage of women sent to day supervision/treatment and\r\n sent to work release centers, why it was possible to use intermediate\r\n sanctions, and how decisions were made to use intermediate\r\n sanctions. Variables dealing with funding and the provision of\r\n services to women include the type of private contractor or government\r\n agency that provided drug treatment, academic services, and vocational\r\n services to women, and the nature of the medical and food services\r\n provided to women. Variables unique to Part 2 pertain to the type of\r\n offender the jail housed, including whether the jurisdiction had a\r\n separate facility for pretrial or sentenced offenders, the total rated\r\n capacity of the jail, the average daily population of pretrial\r\n females, whether the jail was currently housing state inmates, and the\r\n impact on local inmates of being housed with state inmates. Variables\r\n concerning classification and assessment focused on the purpose of the\r\n classification process for female offenders, whether the\r\n classification process was different for male and female offenders,\r\n and a description of the process used. Variables specific to Part 3\r\n deal with characteristics of the participants, such as whether program\r\n participants were involved in a case management system, the\r\n approximate number of women and men participating in the programs,\r\n whether offenders were tried and awaiting sentence or were on\r\n probation, and the number of hours a week that individuals\r\n participated in the program. Program structure variables include\r\n whether the program was culture- or gender-specific, restrictions on\r\n program participants, and who established the\r\n restrictions. Programming strategy variables cover identifying\r\n strategies used for meeting the needs of women offenders with short\r\n sentences, strategies for women with long sentences, and what stood in\r\n the way of greater use of intermediate sanctions. Part 4 contains\r\n variables on the size of the mental health program/unit, including the\r\n number of beds in the mental health unit, the number of beds set aside\r\n for different types of diagnoses, and the number of women served\r\n annually. Diagnosis variables provide information on who was\r\n responsible for screening women for mental health needs, whether women\r\n were re-evaluated at any time other than at intake, and the most\r\n common mental health problems of women in the unit. Variables on\r\n running the program include whether the program/unit worked with\r\n private or public hospitals, the factors that hindered coordination of\r\n services among local or state facilities, the types of services\r\n affected by budget constraints, and the strategies used to prevent\r\n women from harming themselves and others. Staffing variables cover the\r\n number of psychologists, social workers, nurses, and correctional\r\n officers that worked in the mental health unit. Demographic variables\r\n were similar for all four data files. These include the institution\r\n level, the type of respondent interviewed, respondents' gender and\r\n educational background, and the number of years they had been in their\r\n positions, were employed in corrections, and had worked in women's\r\nfacilities.", "distribution": [{"@type": "dcat:Distribution", "accessURL": "https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02788.v1", "title": "National Study of Innovative and Promising Programs for Women Offenders, 1994-1995"}], "identifier": "3475", "issued": "2000-08-28T00:00:00", "keyword": ["child abuse", "correctional facilities", "female inmates", "female offenders", "inmate programs", "job training", "needs assessment", "parenting skills", "prerelease programs", "program evaluation", "self esteem", "substance abuse", "treatment outcomes", "treatment programs"], "language": ["eng"], "license": "http://www.usa.gov/publicdomain/label/1.0/", "modified": "2006-03-30T00:00:00", "programCode": ["011:060"], "publisher": {"@type": "org:Organization", "name": "National Institute of Justice", "subOrganizationOf": {"acronym": "OJP", "id": 22, "name": "Office of Justice Programs", "parentOrganization": {"acronym": "DOJ", "id": 10, "name": "Department of Justice"}, "parentOrganizationID": 10}}, "title": "National Study of Innovative and Promising Programs for Women Offenders, 1994-1995"}