My da|ra Login

Detailed view

metadata language: English

Survey of Adults on Probation, 1995: [United States]

Version
v1
Resource Type
Dataset : survey data, and administrative records data
Creator
  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Other Title
  • Version 1 (Subtitle)
Publication Date
1999-08-18
Funding Reference
  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Language
English
Free Keywords
arrest records; criminal histories; demographic characteristics; offender profiles; probation; probationers; sentencing; supervised liberty
Description
  • Abstract

    The 1995 Survey of Adults on Probation (SAP) was the first national survey to gather information on the individual characteristics of adult probationers. The SAP was a two-part nationally representative survey consisting of a records check based on probation office administrative records and personal interviews with probationers. The records check provided detailed information for 5,867 probationers on current offenses and sentences, criminal histories, levels of supervision and contacts, disciplinary hearings and outcomes, and demographic characteristics. Only adults with a formal sentence to probation who were not considered absconders were included in the records check. Excluded were persons supervised by a federal probation agency, those only on parole, persons on presentence or pretrial diversion, juveniles, and absconders. The records check forms were completed by a probation officer or by another person knowledgeable about probation office records. A subset of the population selected for the records check was selected for a personal interview, resulting in a total of 2,030 completed interviews. The personal interview sample excluded from the records check sample probationers not on active probation (defined as being required to make office visits at any interval), those incarcerated, and those in residential treatment. Respondents were asked about current offense(s) and supervision, criminal history, alcohol and drug use and treatment, mental health treatment, demographic characteristics, and a variety of socioeconomic characteristics such as employment, income, receipt of welfare, housing, number of children and child support, and living conditions while growing up.
  • Methods

    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.; Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
  • Table of Contents

    Datasets:

    • DS0: Study-Level Files
    • DS1: Records Check Data
    • DS2: Personal Interview Data
Temporal Coverage
  • Time period: 1995
  • 1994-12 / 1995-09
    Collection date: 1994-12--1995-09
Geographic Coverage
  • United States
Sampled Universe
The universe came from the 1991 Census of Probation and Parole Agencies and included agencies that supervised adult felons on probation only, adult misdemeanants on probation only, and both adult felons and misdemeanants.
Sampling
The records check sample was selected from a universe of 2,627 state, county, and municipal probation agencies with a total of 2,618,132 formally sentenced probationers. The sample design was a stratified two-stage selection. In the first stage, probation agencies were stratified into 16 strata defined by government branch (executive or judicial) and level (state or local), and census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, or West). The 43 largest probation agencies were made self-representing and were selected into the sample with certainty. The remaining 2,584 probation agencies were not self-representing and were grouped within strata into 122 roughly equal-size clusters. One agency was selected from each of the 122 clusters, with probability of selection proportional to size, for a total of 165 agencies. From the records check sample, 4,703 probationers were selected for personal interviews, which made up the second survey component. Because probationers on inactive supervision were excluded from the personal interview sample, the personal interview component represents a somewhat smaller share of the nation's probationers (2,065,896) than the records check (2,620,560). For the personal interview sample, 122 of the 206 agencies originally selected for the records check were chosen. The 43 largest self-representing agencies were selected with certainty. Of the 122 clusters of agencies that were not self-representing, 79 were selected, using a systematic sample. Excluding agencies in the sample that would only participate in the records checks resulted in a total of 101 probation offices in which interviews were conducted.
Collection Mode
  • The codebook is provided as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided through the ICPSR Website on the Internet.

Note
2006-03-30 File CB2039.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it 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. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Availability
Download
This study is freely available to the general public via web download.
Alternative Identifiers
  • 2039 (Type: ICPSR Study Number)
Publications
  • Collins, Sara W.. Does Family Context and Personal Background Contribute to Violent Behaviors Like Animal Cruelty?. Thesis, Georgetown University. 2013.
  • Collis, Sara W.. Does Family Context and Personal Background Contribute to Violent Behaviors Like Animal Cruelty?. Thesis, Georgetown University. 2013.
  • Thompson, Melissa. Gender, Race, and Mental Illness in the Criminal Justice System. Corrections and Mental Health.1, Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. 2011.
  • Schulenberg, Jennifer L.. Predicting noncompliant behavior: Disparities in the social locations of male and female probationers. Justice Research and Policy.9, (1), 25-57.2007.
    • ID: 10.3818/JRP.9.1.2007.25 (DOI)
  • Miller, Ted R., Levy, David T., Cohen, Mark A., Cox, Kenya L.. Costs of alcohol and drug-involved crime. Prevention Science.7, (4), 333-342.2006.
    • ID: 10.1007/s11121-006-0041-6 (DOI)
  • Harlow, Caroline Wolf. Education and Correctional Populations. Special Report.NCJ 195670, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2003.
    • ID: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ecp.pdf (URL)
  • Sieh, Edward W.. A theoretical basis for handling technical violations. Federal Probation.67, (3), 28-32.2003.
  • Mumola, Christopher J.. Incarcerated Parents and Their Children. NCJ 182335, United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2000.
    • ID: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/iptc.pdf (URL)
  • Ditton, Paula M.. Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers. NCJ 174463, United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1999.
    • ID: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhtip.pdf (URL)
  • Greenfeld, Lawrence A., Smith, Steven K.. American Indians and Crime. NCJ 173386, United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1999.
    • ID: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aic.pdf (URL)
  • Harlow, Caroline Wolf. Prior Abuse Reported by Inmates and Probationers. NCJ 172879, United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1999.
    • ID: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/parip.pdf (URL)
  • Maruschak, Laura M.. DWI Offenders under Correctional Supervision, Special Report. NCJ 172212, United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1999.
    • ID: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dwiocs.pdf (URL)
  • Greenfeld, Lawrence A.. Alcohol and Crime: An Analysis of National Data on the Prevalence of Alcohol Involvement in Crime. Prepared for the Assistant Attorney General's National Symposium on Alcohol Abuse and Crime.NCJ 168632, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1998.
    • ID: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ac.pdf (URL)
  • Mumola, Christopher J.. Substance Abuse and Treatment of Adults on Probation, 1995, Special Report. NCJ 166611, United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1998.
    • ID: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/satap95.pdf (URL)
  • Bonczar, Thomas P.. Characteristics of Adults on Probation, 1995. NCJ 164267, United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1997.
    • ID: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cap95.pdf (URL)
  • Petersilia, Joan. Probation in the United States. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 1997.

Update Metadata: 2015-08-05 | Issue Number: 6 | Registration Date: 2015-06-15

United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1999): Survey of Adults on Probation, 1995: [United States]. Version 1. Version: v1. ICPSR - Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02039.v1