The California Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) of 2000 targeted nonviolent offenders who have a history of substance abuse and were primarily charged with misdemeanor or felony possession, excluding selling charges, for diversion from incarceration into community-based substance abuse programs. The two sites selected for this study (the El Monte Drug Court in Los Angeles County and San Joaquin County Drug Court) had SACPA programs that differed from each other and from the Drug Court model. The data for the outcome analysis were collected from administrative databases and from paper files where necessary and available. The data link an individial's criminal activity data, treatment data, and other program activity data. The outcome analysis consisted of Drug Court and Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) samples from San Joaquin and El Monte (Los Angeles) counties. Part 1, San Joaquin County Data, had a total of 725 participants and Part 2, El Monte (Los Angeles) County Data, had a total of 587 participants. The Drug Court cohort included pre- and post-SACPA Drug Court participants. The pre-SACPA Drug Court participants included all those who entered the Drug Court program July 1998 through June 1999 and included 202 participants in San Joaquin and 127 participants in El Monte. The post-SACPA Drug Court participants included all those who entered the Drug Court program in July 2002 through June 2003. This sample provided 128 participants in San Joaquin and 147 participants in El Monte who experienced the Drug Court program after any changes in eligibility and Drug Court processes due to SACPA, as well as allowing for outcome data for three years post-program entry. The SACPA samples in San Joaquin and El Monte consisted of all SACPA participants who were first time enrollees in SACPA programs between July 2002 and June 2003. These samples included 395 participants in San Joaquin and 313 participants in El Monte who experienced a reasonably well-established SACPA program while still allowing three years of outcomes post-program entry. The data for both San Joaquin county and El Monte (Los Angeles) county include the demographic variables age, race, gender, and drug of choice. Drug Court Treatment variables include dates or number of group sessions, dates or number of individual sessions, dates or number of days in residential treatment, other Drug Court service dates and types. Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) Treatment variables include dates or number of group sessions or episodes, dates or number of individual sessions or episodes, dates or number of urinalysis tests, dates or number of days in residential treatment, and other SACPA service dates and types. Other variables include arrest data, new court cases data, jail data, prison data, and probation data.

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.

In 1996, the Los Angeles County Probation Department developed a set of six instruments to better assess offender risks and needs. Each instrument was intended to serve a specific purpose, with separate instruments used for adult and juvenile populations and release and placement decisions. The instruments were to be completed by probation staff. These instruments were tested in a pilot project by probation field staff in 1997. The probation department then asked RAND to re-examine the six instruments for instrument integrity, use of overrides, and relationship to long-term recidivism outcomes. The probation department's research staff had completed the instruments between April and December 1997 using available reports and case file information. RAND's involvement in the study began after all samples had been selected and instruments completed. The probation department gave RAND the data on instrument scores. Recidivism data were gathered at 6, 12, and 18 months after the instruments' administration. For juveniles data on the nature and date of arrest were available from the Juvenile Automated Information files. Data on adult re-arrests were unavailable, but the Adult Probation System provided the date, nature, and disposition of offenses referred to probation.

This study was undertaken to investigate the relationship, if any, between drug treatment and success or failure of drug-involved offenders on probation/community supervision. Further, the researchers sought to evaluate the outcomes of drug-involved offenders admitted to (1) secure residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) programs, (2) non-secure residential drug treatment programs, (3) non-residential drug treatment programs, and (4) no drug treatment programs. Data were collected from administrative records provided by the Florida Department of Corrections, specifically case history records of offenders admitted to supervision in the community from July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1997. Part 1 is comprised of all cases admitted to community supervision between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993 (fiscal years 1991 and 1992) and treated in a secure residential drug treatment program. Part 2 is comprised of all cases admitted to community supervision from July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1995, receiving treatment in a non-secure residential drug treatment program. Part 3 contains data on offenders admitted to non-residential drug treatment programs, whose community supervision admissions were between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993. Part 4 contains data on offenders admitted to non-residential drug treatment programs, whose community supervision admissions were between July 1, 1993, and June 30, 1995 (fiscal years 1993 and 1994). Part 5 contains data on cases admitted to community supervision between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993, who did not receive drug treatment of any kind. Cases admitted to community supervision between July 1, 1993, and June 20, 1995, receiving no drug treatment are contained in Part 6. Each supervision admission record contains a history of subsequent court actions that were complete through December 31, 1997. Variables for all parts include population estimates, unemployment rates, population by age-specific categories, violent and nonviolent index offenses, per capita personal income, clearance rates, split sentence flag, primary offense disposition, primary offense felony level, current commitment years supervised, supervision type, whether current offense included a drug charge, number of prior supervision terms, number of prior commitments, reasons for failure, treatment facility code, number of drug sale/traffic offenses, outcome of supervision period, and reasons for prison intake. Demographic variables include race and gender.

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.

This study examined the effects of timing and level of legal supervision in controlling antisocial behavior and promoting prosocial behavior in chronic addict offenders. The study sought to answer several questions: (1) What is the effect of legal supervision on the criminal behavior of addicts? (2) Does legal supervision have time-course effects? (3) What are the differential effects of varying types of legal supervision (e.g., probation, parole, urinalysis, higher or lower number of contacts per month)? Data were obtained by conducting retrospective interviews with four separate groups of subjects from four distinct research projects previously conducted in Southern California (McGlothlin, Anglin, and Wilson, 1977, Anglin, McGlothlin, and Speckart, 1981, Anglin, McGlothlin, Speckart, and Ryan, 1982, and McGlothlin and Anglin, 1981). The first group were male patients in the California Civil Addict Program, admitted in 1962-1964, who were interviewed for this survey in 1974-1975. The second group was a sample of addicts drawn from male first admissions between the years 1971-1973 from Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Orange County methadone maintenance programs. These respondents were interviewed during the years 1978-1979, an average of 6.6 years after admission. The third group consisted of male and female methadone maintenance patients selected from rosters of clients active on June 30, 1976, at clinics in Bakersfield and Tulare, California. These subjects were interviewed during 1978 and 1979, an average of 3.5 years after admission. The fourth group of subjects consisted of males and females who were active on September 30, 1978, at San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange County clinics and were interviewed during the years 1980-1981, an average of six years after their admission. Subjects included Anglo-American and Mexican-American males and females. The samples were generally representative of California methadone maintenance patients except for the second sample, which had been selected to study the impact of civil commitment parole status on the behavior of patients receiving methadone and was not necessarily representative of the overall population of admitted patients receiving methodone. Before the interview, a schematic time line on each offender was prepared, which included all known arrests and intervals of incarceration, legal supervision, and methadone treatment, based on criminal justice system and treatment program records. In discussion with the subject, the interviewer established the date of the first narcotics use on the time line, then proceeded chronologically through the time line, marking a change in narcotics use from less-than-daily use to daily use (or vice versa), or a change in the respondent's legal or treatment status, as a time interval. The interviewer repeated this process for successive intervals up through the date of the interview. Parts 1-8 consist of the interview data, with Forms 2 and 3 corresponding to the various intervals. There can be multiple intervals for each individual. Variables cover drug use, employment, criminal behavior, legal status, conditions of parole or probation, and drug treatment enrollment. Form 1 data contain background information on offenders, such as family and substance abuse history, and Form 4 data include other personal information as well as self-reported arrest and treatment histories. Parts 9 and 10, Master Data, were created from selected variables from the interview data. Parts 11 and 12, Arrest Data, were collected from official criminal justice records and describe each offender's arrests, such as month and year of arrest, charge, disposition, and arrest category. The datasets are split between the Southern California (Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange County, Bakersfield, Tulare, and Riverside) and San Diego clinic locations.

The study investigated self-sufficiency, community adjustment, substance use, and criminal recidivism outcomes for substance abusing offenders served through the Washington County (Oregon) Community Corrections Department (WCCC) to document the value-added of providing substance-free transitional housing services. The study addressed the value-added of Oxford House and other transitional housing services to the combination of services offenders receive, and documented the relative costs and benefits of substance-free transitional housing services. Individuals were eligible for the study if they entered Oxford Houses, entered some other form of substance-free transitional housing, or could benefit from, but did not enter, any form of substance-free transitional housing. A total of 356 supervisees were eligible for the study; 301 agreed to participate in baseline interviews, and 238 participated in 12-month follow-up interviews. The study included both interview data collection and administrative records data collection. The research team also collected Housing Data (Part 2) from the housing section of the interviews and Treatment Data (Part 3) from a statewide treatment database.

These data were collected in Oakland, California, and Birmingham, Alabama, to examine the effectiveness of alternative drug enforcement strategies. A further objective was to compare the relative effectiveness of strategies drawn from professional- versus community-oriented models of policing. The professional model emphasizes police responsibility for crime control, whereas the community model stresses the importance of a police-citizen partnership in crime control. At each site, experimental treatments were applied to selected police beats. The Oakland Police Department implemented a high-visibility enforcement effort consisting of undercover buy-bust operations, aggressive patrols, and motor vehicle stops, while the Birmingham Police Department engaged in somewhat less visible buy-busts and sting operations. Both departments attempted a community-oriented approach involving door-to-door contacts with residents. In Oakland, four beats were studied: one beat used a special drug enforcement unit, another used a door-to-door community policing strategy, a third used a combination of these approaches, and the fourth beat served as a control group. In Birmingham, three beats were chosen: Drug enforcement was conducted by the narcotics unit in one beat, door-to-door policing, as in Oakland, was used in another beat, and a police substation was established in the third beat. To evaluate the effectiveness of these alternative strategies, data were collected from three sources. First, a panel survey was administered in two waves on a pre-test/post-test basis. The panel survey data addressed the ways in which citizens' perceptions of drug activity, crime problems, neighborhood safety, and police service were affected by the various policing strategies. Second, structured observations of police and citizen encounters were made in Oakland during the periods the treatments were in effect. Observers trained by the researchers recorded information regarding the roles and behaviors of police and citizens as well as police compliance with the experiment's procedures. And third, to assess the impact of the alternative strategies on crime rates, reported crime data were collected for time periods before and during the experimental treatment periods, both in the targeted beats and city-wide.

This study assesses the consequences for offenders of various drug enforcement strategies employed by the San Diego Police Department and profiles the factors that characterize street-level and mid-level dealers, drug users, and the drug market. The drug enforcement strategies examined include the use of search warrants, body wires, police decoys, surveillance, officer buys and sells, wiretaps, and sweeps. Measures of the consequences of arrests include drug and property seizures, convictions, and sentences. The data were drawn from police and court records of drug arrests made by three special sections of the police department in San Diego, California. Additionally, data were collected through personal interviews conducted at the time of arrest with a subsample of persons arrested for drug charges. The arrest tracking file, Part 1, contains demographic information about the offenders, including criminal history and gang membership, as well as data on each arrest through final disposition, charges, and sentencing. The interview portion of the study, Part 2, provides information about the demographics and characteristics of drug users and dealers, criminal history and drug use history, current arrest information, and offenders' opinions about drug use, drug sales, police strategies, and the drug market.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This study was a multi-site evaluation of a presumptive drug detection technology (PDDT) developed by Mistral Security Incorporated (MSI). The evaluation was conducted by Justice and Security Strategies, Inc. (JSS) in work release programs, probation and parole offices, and drug courts in three states: Alabama, Florida, and Wyoming. Also, interviews with the offenders, corrections staff, and program administrators were conducted.