A participatory evaluation model was used to evaluate the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate (SWO) Indian Alcohol Substance Abuse Program (IASAP) project. The Community Survey (Part 1, Community Survey Quantitative Data) was used to obtain tribal members' perceptions related to the welfare of the community and their perceived levels of satisfaction with how their challenges and problems were being addressed. Data were collected between August 2006 and April 2007 using a convenience sample (n=100). Focus groups (Part 2, Focus Group Interview Qualitative Data) were held with key stake holders from five groups: past adult clients (n=6), parents of juvenile probationers (n=4), service providers and key project staff (n=4), elders (n=5), and policy-makers (n=2). The focus groups were held during three site visits between October 2006 and April 2007. Part 1 (Community Survey Quantitative Data) includes demographic variables such as gender, age, tribal enrollment status, number of years in the community, and experiences with criminal justice systems (both on and off the reservation). Other questions asked the respondent about major problems within the community (i.e., alcohol and drug use, violent crime, child and elder abuse or neglect, gang activity, and property crime) and what was being done to address the problem. Part 2 (Focus Group Interview Qualitative Data) variables were developed based on the type of focus group. Questions for past drug court participants and parents of the juvenile probationers focused on their experiences with the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program (IASAP). Questions for policy-makers, service providers, and program staff focused on the impact and sustainability of the IASAP. Questions for elders focused on issues related to culture, traditional practices, and the barriers to providing cultural and/or traditional services.

This data collection represents a combined experimental evaluation of a drug court program, implemented in 1992 in cooperation with the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department, in comparison to standard probation with different levels of drug testing. The experiment's objective was to compare the drug use and criminal behavior of probationers assigned to four alternative regimes or tracks: (1) standard probation, but no drug testing, (2) standard probation with random monthly drug tests, (3) standard probation with testing scheduled twice a week, and (4) drug court, an integrated program of drug testing, treatment, and sanctions that utilized a carefully structured set of rewards and punishments. The experiment was limited to first-time felony offenders convicted of drug possession or use (not sales) and sentenced to a term of three years' probation. A total of 630 probationers from Maricopa County were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental regimes and tracked for a 12-month period. Data collection efforts included: (1) background information on each participant, (2) process information on the characteristics of supervision and services provided under each experimental condition, and (3) follow-up data on subsequent drug use, crime, and pro-social activities for 12 full months. Background Data (Part 1) include demographic variables such as race, sex, education, marital status, living arrangements, and employment history. In addition, there are variables on prior drug use and abuse, drug treatment, criminal histories as both a juvenile and an adult, and risk and need assessment scores. Other variables include the results of drug testing and any sanctions taken for a positive result (Part 2), new arrests while on probation and corresponding disposition and conviction (Part 3), and technical violations and any actions taken for these violations (Part 4). For probationers assigned to drug court (Part 5) there are variables measuring probationers' status, probation recommendations, and judges' decisions at 11 different progress assessments. The follow-up information (Parts 6-8) includes monthly data on the status of the probationer, the number of face-to-face office contacts, phone contacts, work/school contacts, and community contacts, collateral checks, employment/school verification, counseling sessions, alcohol tests, drug tests, substance abuse treatment, the number of hours the probationer spent job hunting, in educational training, in vocational training, and in community service, the number of days employed full- and part-time, and the amount of earnings, fines paid, restitution paid, and fees paid.

In 1986, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) funded a demonstration project of intensive supervision programs (ISPs), alternatives to control sanctions that involve community sanctions and emphasize stringent conditions and close monitoring of convicted offenders. The primary intent of the demonstration project was to determine the effects of participation in an ISP program on the subsequent behavior of offenders and to test the feasibility of the ISP's stated objectives: (1) to reduce recidivism by providing a seemingly cost-effective alternative to imprisonment, and (2) to provide an intermediate punishment between incarceration and regular probation that allows the punishment to fit the crime. Fourteen sites in nine states participated in the project and each of the selected sites was funded for 18 to 24 months. Individual agencies in each site tailored their ISP programs to their local needs, resources, and contexts, developed their own eligibility criteria, and determined whether probationers met those criteria. While the individual ISP projects differed, each site was required to follow identical procedures regarding random assignment, data collection, and overall program evaluation. Data collection instruments that differed in the amount of drug-related questions asked were used for the six- and twelve-month reviews. The "non-drug" data collection instrument, used in Contra Costa, Ventura, and Los Angeles counties, CA, Marion County, OR, and Milwaukee, WI, gathered drug data only on the number of monthly drug and alcohol tests given to offenders. The "drug" data collection instrument was distributed in Atlanta, Macon, and Waycross, GA, Seattle, WA, Santa Fe, NM, Des Moines, IA, and Winchester, VA. Variables regarding drug use included the number of drug tests ordered, the number of drug tests taken, and the number of positives for alcohol, cocaine, heroin, uppers, downers, quaaludes, LSD/hallucinogens, PCP, marijuana/hashish, and "other". The drug questions on the instrument used in Dallas and Houston, TX, were the same as those asked at the drug sites. Once a site determined that an offender was eligible for inclusion, RAND staff randomly assigned the offender to either the experimental ISP program (prison diversion, enhanced probation, or enhanced parole) or to a control sanction (prison, routine probation, or parole). Assignment periods began in January 1987 and some sites continued to accept cases through January 1990. Each offender was followed for a period of one year, beginning on the day of assignment to the experimental or control program. The six-month and twelve-month review data contain identical variables: the current status of the offender (prison, ISP, or terminated), record of each arrest and/or technical violation, its disposition, and sentence or sanction. Information was also recorded for each month during the follow-up regarding face-to-face contacts, phone and collateral contacts, monitoring and record checks, community service hours, days on electronic surveillance (if applicable), contacts between client and community sponsor, number and type of counseling sessions and training, days in paid employment and earnings, number of drug and alcohol tests taken, and amount of restitution, fines, court costs, and probation fees paid. Background variables include sex, race, age at assignment, prior criminal history, drug use and treatment history, type of current offense, sentence characteristics, conditions imposed, and various items relating to risk of recidivism and need for treatment. For the two Texas sites, information on each arrest and/or technical violation, its disposition, and sentence or sanction was recorded in separate recidivism files (Parts 10 and 17). Dates were converted by RAND to time-lapse variables for the public release files that comprise this data collection.

The data for this study were collected in Phase 2, the outcome evaluation, of the Comprehensive Indian Resources for Community and Law Enforcement (CIRCLE) Project. The CIRCLE Project was launched in the late 1990s to strengthen tribal justice systems and, through effective tribal-level planning and strategic comprehensive approaches, to better equip Native American nations to combat the interlinked community problems of crime, violence, substance abuse, and juvenile delinquency. The Native American nations invited to participate in the CIRCLE Project were the Northern Cheyenne, the Ogling Sioux, and the Zuni. Part 1, Participant Data, contains data on each of the Native American nations. The Northern Cheyenne data include variables on juvenile arrests between 1995 and 2003 for intoxication, curfew violations, disorderly conduct, and total arrests. The Oglala Sioux data include variables on police force stability and court pleadings. The Zuni data include variables on arrests for simple assault, public intoxication, driving while intoxicated (DWI), endangerment, domestic violence, and total arrests between 2001 and 2004. Part 2, United States Department of Justice Funding Data, contains data on funding given to the Northern Cheyenne, the Oglala Sioux, the Zuni, and six comparison Native American nations for fiscal years 1998 to 2003.

The purpose of this multisite program evaluation project was to provide detailed and systematic descriptions of participants and treatment program components for a sample of five drug treatment programs in local jails. Three of the programs were located in California: Jail Education and Treatment (JET), Deciding, Educating, Understanding, Counseling, and Evaluation (DEUCE), and Rebuilding, Educating, Awareness, Counseling, and Hope (REACH). Two programs were in New York State: Substance Abuse Intervention Division (SAID) and New Beginnings. The project was aimed at assessing program completion rates as well as 12-month post-release recidivism for program participants versus matched controls. Background information obtained about the participating offenders includes sex, race, age, education, marital status, and employment status, as well as history of drug use, previous drug treatment, mental illness, inpatient/outpatient episodes, and offenses and sentencing. Additional data cover program location, dates of release from the program and from jail, type of program termination, type of residence upon release, and anticipated post-custody treatment. Information on each conviction/disposition was obtained through state criminal information systems, and state-level criminal history data (rap sheets) were collected for both the treatment and comparison groups. The unit of analysis is arrest events.

The Department of Justice launched Operation Weed and Seed in 1991 as a means of mobilizing a large and varied array of resources in a comprehensive, coordinated effort to control crime and drug problems and improve the quality of life in targeted high-crime neighborhoods. In the long term, Weed and Seed programs are intended to reduce levels of crime, violence, drug trafficking, and fear of crime, and to create new jobs, improve housing, enhance the quality of neighborhood life, and reduce alcohol and drug use. This baseline data collection effort is the initial step toward assessing the achievement of the long-term objectives. The evaluation was conducted using a quasi-experimental design, matching households in comparison neighborhoods with the Weed and Seed target neighborhoods. Comparison neighborhoods were chosen to match Weed and Seed target neighborhoods on the basis of crime rates, population demographics, housing characteristics, and size and density. Neighborhoods in eight sites were selected: Akron, OH, Bradenton (North Manatee), FL, Hartford, CT, Las Vegas, NV, Pittsburgh, PA, Salt Lake City, UT, Seattle, WA, and Shreveport, LA. The "neighborhood" in Hartford, CT, was actually a public housing development, which is part of the reason for the smaller number of interviews at this site. Baseline data collection tasks included the completion of in-person surveys with residents in the target and matched comparison neighborhoods, and the provision of guidance to the sites in the collection of important process data on a routine uniform basis. The survey questions can be broadly divided into these areas: (1) respondent demographics, (2) household size and income, (3) perceptions of the neighborhood, and (4) perceptions of city services. Questions addressed in the course of gathering the baseline data include: Are the target and comparison areas sufficiently well-matched that analytic contrasts between the areas over time are valid? Is there evidence that the survey measures are accurate and valid measures of the dependent variables of interest -- fear of crime, victimization, etc.? Are the sample sizes and response rates sufficient to provide ample statistical power for later analyses? Variables cover respondents' perceptions of the neighborhood, safety and observed security measures, police effectiveness, and city services, as well as their ratings of neighborhood crime, disorder, and other problems. Other items included respondents' experiences with victimization, calls/contacts with police and satisfaction with police response, and involvement in community meetings and events. Demographic information on respondents includes year of birth, gender, ethnicity, household income, and employment status.

>**Uchwała nr 742/XXIII/2020 Rady Miasta Lublin z dnia 19 listopada 2020 r.** >**Celem Programu** jest ograniczanie problemów związanych z używaniem substancji psychoaktywnych, poprzez: >a. wspieranie dostępu do programów terapeutycznych i rehabilitacyjnych; >b. wspieranie prowadzenia oddziaływań informacyjnych, edukacyjnych, profilaktycznych, motywacyjnych i interwencyjnych; >c. wspieranie realizacji programów profilaktycznych adresowanych do dzieci i młodzieży; >d. wspieranie działań umożliwiających powrót osób uzależnionych do pełnienia ról społecznych po przebytej terapii; >e. wspieranie działalności edukacyjnej w zakresie zakażenia HIV, HCV, HBV; >f. propagowanie wiedzy o szkodliwości używania środków odurzających, substancji psychotropowych, środków zastępczych, nowych substancji psychoaktywnych; >g. wspieranie prowadzenia oddziaływań w celu motywowania osób do podjęcia leczenia; >h. wspieranie współpracy międzyinstytucjonalnej służącej rozwiązywaniu problemów narkomanii; >i. wspieranie działań zmierzających do poprawy stanu zdrowia i jakości życia osób używających substancji psychoaktywnych oraz członków ich rodzin. - **Komórka organizacyjna wiodąca:** Wydział Zdrowia i Profilaktyki Urzędu Miasta Lublin - **Komórki organizacyjne i instytucje partnerskie:** fundacje, stowarzyszenia, podmioty lecznicze, osoby fizyczne prowadzące działalność gospodarczą. - Tabela. Wskaźniki monitorujące realizację celów Gminnego Programu Przeciwdziałania Narkomanii dla Miasta Lublin - Uwagi: stan na 31.12 danego roku

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) community supervision strategy for substance-abusing probationers. The study involved the administration of key stakeholder surveys as part of a process evaluation of the HOPE program and the comparison of HOPE probationers with control-group probationers on two primary outcome measures: no-shows for probation appointments and positive urine tests for illicit-substance use. For Part 1 and Part 2, data were collected from administrative data sources. Missed Appointments Data (Part 1) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on a total of 1,174 probationers including 1,078 HOPE probationers, 78 comparison probationers, and 18 probationers for which study group information was not available. Specifically, for Part 1, the research team compiled data on the proportion of missed appointments in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Drug Test Results Data (Part 2) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on the same 1,174 probationers. Specifically, for Part 2, the research team compiled data on the proportion of positive urine tests in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Stakeholder survey data were collected from September 2008 through March 2009 on 50 Integrated Community Sanctions or "Specialized Unit" probationers (Part 3), 28 probationers in treatment (Part 4), 16 probationers in jail (Part 5), 20 probation officers in the Integrated Community Sanctions Unit (Part 6), 11 public defenders (Part 7), 12 prosecutors (Part 8), 7 judges (Part 9), and 11 court staff (Part 10). Part 1 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean missed appointments scores for three periods. Part 2 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean positive urine tests for illicit-substance use scores for three periods. The Integrated Community Sanctions Probationers Survey Data (Part 3), the Probationers in Treatment Survey Data (Part 4), and the Probationers in Jail Survey Data (Part 5) each include variables about the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 3 contains 24 variables, Part 4 contains 30 variables, and Part 5 contains 30 variables. The Probation Officers Survey Data (Part 6), Public Defenders Survey Data (Part 7), Prosecutors Survey Data (Part 8), Judges Survey Data (Part 9), and Court Staff Survey Data (Part 10) include variables about workload issues and the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 6 contains 65 variables, Part 7 contains 45 variables, Part 8 contains 55 variables, Part 9 contains 36 variables, and Part 10 contains 36 variables.

This study evaluated program design, quality of treatment delivery, and program effectiveness of three separate state sponsored alcohol specific treatment programs in prisons located in Montana, Ohio, and Texas from 2006 to 2012.