American Journal of Criminal Justice

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 255–274 | Cite as

Integrated Administrative Data & Criminal Justice Research

  • Dana DeHartEmail author
  • Cheri Shapiro


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.


Administrative data Archival data Big data Data linkage Data warehouse Impact of incarceration 



This Project was supported by grant number 2012-IJ-CX-0034 from the United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (NIJ), in partnership with the SC Office of Revenue and Fiscal Affairs (RFA). Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of NIJ or RFA.


  1. Allard, T., Stewart, A., Smith, C., Dennison, S., Chrzanowski, C., & Thompson, C. (2014). The monetary cost of offender trajectories: Findings from Queensland (Australia). Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 47(1), 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allard, T., Chrzanowski, A., & Stewart, A. (2015). Integrating criminal careers and ecological research: The importance of geographic location for targeting interventions towards chronic and costly offenders. Crime & Delinquency. doi: 10.1177/0011128714568187. Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Broidy, L., Stewart, A., Thompson, C., Chrzanowski, A., Allard, T., & Dennison, S. (2015). Life course offending pathways across gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of Developmental and Life Course Criminology, 1, 118–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brownell, M., & Jutte, D. (2013). Administrative data linkage as a tool for child maltreatment research. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 120–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Cohen, M., Piquero, A., & Jennings, W. (2010). Studying the costs of crime across offender trajectories. Criminology & Public Policy, 9(2), 279–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doyle, J. (2007). Child protection and child outcomes: Measuring the effects of foster care. American Economic Review, 97(5), 1583–1610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Evans, E., Grella, C., Murphy, D., & Hser, Y. (2010). Using administrative data for longitudinal substance abuse research. Journal of Behavioral Health Services Research, 37(2), 252–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glasson, E., & Hussain, R. (2008). Linked data: Opportunities and challenges in disability research. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 33(4), 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Horner, E., & Cullen, M. (2015). Linking individual Medicare health claims data with work-life claims and other administrative data. BMC Public Health, 15, 995–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hser, Y., & Evans, E. (2008). Cross-system data linkage for treatment outcome evaluation: Lessons learned from the California treatment outcome project. Evaluation and Program Planning, 31, 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Jonson-Reid, M., & Barth, R. (2000). From maltreatment report to juvenile incarceration: The role of child welfare services. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(4), 505–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lyon, F., Gyateng, T., Pritchard, D., Vaze, P., Vickers, I., & Webb, N. (2015). Opening access to administrative data for evaluating public services: The case of the justice data lab. Evaluation, 21(2), 232–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mumola, C. (2000). Incarcerated parents and their children. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Parsons, J., Cloud, D., & Sideman, O. (2016). Justice & Health Connect: A national resource for justice and health data sharing. Retrieved 3/1/2016 at
  20. Pensler, R. (1993). Office for Human Research Protections IRB Guidebook. Washington, DC: USDHHS.Google Scholar
  21. Ping Identity (2016). The 4 A’s of cloud identity: Authentication, authorization, account management & audit logging. Retrieved 3/1/2016 from
  22. Piquero, A., Jennings, W., & Farrington, D. (2011). The monetary costs of crime to middle adulthood: Findings from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(1), 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Putnam-Hornstein, E., Needell, B., & Rhodes, A. (2013). Understanding risk and protective factors for child maltreatment: The value of integrated, population-based data. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 116–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs (2013). Health and demographic summary of data. Columbia: SCRFA.Google Scholar
  26. Robertson, O. (2007). The impact of parental imprisonment on children. Geneva: Quaker United Nations Office.Google Scholar
  27. Roos, L., Menec, V., & Currie, R. (2004). Policy analysis in an information-rich environment. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 2231–2241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sakshaug, J., Couper, M., Ofstedal, M., & Weir, D. (2012). Linking survey and administrative records: Mechanisms of consent. Sociological Methods & Research, 41(4), 535–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Somers, J., Rezansoff, S., Moniruzaman, A., & Zabarauckas, C. (2015). High-frequency use of corrections, health, and social services, and association with mental illness and substance use. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, 12, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stewart, A., Dennison, S., Allard, T., Thompson, C., Broidy, L., & Chrzanowski, A. (2015). Administrative data linkage as a tool for developmental and life-course criminology: The Queensland Linkage Project. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48(3), 409–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Travis, J., McBride, E., & Solomon, A. (2005). Families left behind: The hidden costs of incarceration and reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  32. White House (2016). Building evidence with administrative data. FY2016 Budget & Analytical Perspectives, 65–73. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Social WorkUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Families in Society, College of Social WorkUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations