Integrated Administrative Data & Criminal Justice Research
Using integrated administrative data from criminal justice and social service systems can harness information in meaningful ways that transcend traditional “silos” and allow communities to focus collective attention on important social issues that cross systemic boundaries. Despite recent advances in use of integrated administrative data, practical information to promote adoption by new users is lacking. Here we provide an introduction to potential uses of integrated administrative data for criminal justice researchers, including general benefits of using integrated data as well as implications for innovative research design. We describe a case example of data integration through a state data warehouse for a federally funded project on impact of incarceration on families. The project utilizes data from eight agencies (corrections, juvenile justice, mental health, substance use, social services, health, education, and environmental control) and includes development of an Online Analytical Processing cube. We draw from lessons learned to provide specific recommendations for developing researcher-practitioner partnerships that use integrated administrative data to improve translational criminal justice research and evidence-based practice and policy.
KeywordsAdministrative data Archival data Big data Data linkage Data warehouse Impact of incarceration
- Bradley, C., Penberthy, L., Devers, K., & Holden, D. (2010). Health services research and data linkages: Issues, Methods, and directions for the future. Health Research and Educational Trust, 45(5), 1468–1488.Google Scholar
- Chan-Sew, S., Sherwood, D., Romney, S., & Reyes, A. (2007). Creating an integrated multi-agency data system to improve program planning and evaluation. Retrieved 3/1/2016 from http://www.tapartnership.org/docs/presentations/socMeetingSummer2007/day3/Creating_an_Integrated_Multi-Agency_Data_System.pdf.
- Duran, F., Wilson, S., & Carroll, D. (2005). Putting administrative data to work: A toolkit for state agencies on advancing data integration and data sharing efforts to support sound policy and program development. Farmington: Child Health and Development Institute of Connecticut.Google Scholar
- Hua, H., & Herstein, J. (March, 2003). Education management information system: Integrated data and information systems and their implications in educational management. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Comparative and International Education Society, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved 3/1/2016 from http://www.infodev.org/infodev-files/resource/InfodevDocuments_188.pdf.
- Mumola, C. (2000). Incarcerated parents and their children. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
- Parsons, J., & Sandwick, T. (2012). Closing the gap: Using criminal justice and public health data to improve the identification of mental illness. NY: Vera Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
- Parsons, J., Cloud, D., & Sideman, O. (2016). Justice & Health Connect: A national resource for justice and health data sharing. Retrieved 3/1/2016 at www.jhconnect.org.
- Pensler, R. (1993). Office for Human Research Protections IRB Guidebook. Washington, DC: USDHHS.Google Scholar
- Ping Identity (2016). The 4 A’s of cloud identity: Authentication, authorization, account management & audit logging. Retrieved 3/1/2016 from https://www.pingidentity.com/en/resources/articles/authentication-authorization-audit-logging-account-management.html.
- Reidy, M., George, R., & Lee, B. (1998). Developing an integrated administrative database. In M. Little & D. Gordon (Eds.), Exploring Research Methods in Social Policy Research. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
- Revenue and Fiscal Affairs (2013). Health and demographic summary of data. Columbia: SCRFA.Google Scholar
- Robertson, O. (2007). The impact of parental imprisonment on children. Geneva: Quaker United Nations Office.Google Scholar
- Travis, J., McBride, E., & Solomon, A. (2005). Families left behind: The hidden costs of incarceration and reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
- White House (2016). Building evidence with administrative data. FY2016 Budget & Analytical Perspectives, 65–73. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget.Google Scholar