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.

This study was undertaken to evaluate the New York City Department of Probation's initiative to place clients in specialized Substance Abuse Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) units for treatment and management. The main analytical strategy of this study was to determine whether clients who were appropriately matched to outpatient drug treatment were less likely to recidivate after treatment in this modality. The focus of the research was not so much on developing powerful prediction models, but rather on determining whether outpatient drug treatment was appropriate and effective for certain types of probationers. The evaluation research involved an in-depth analysis of a sample of 1,860 probationers who were sentenced between September 1991-September 1992 and referred to contracting outpatient drug treatment programs one or more times as of December 31, 1993. The following types of data were collected: (1) the New York City Department of Probation's demographic and drug use information, obtained during the presentence investigation and at intake to probation, (2) the Department of Probation's Central Placement Unit (CPU) database records for each referral made through the CPU, as well as monthly progress reports filled out by the treatment programs on each probationer admitted to drug treatment, (3) the New York State Department of Criminal Justice Statistics' data on criminal histories, and (4) probation officers' reports on whether clients were referred to treatment, the kind of treatment modality to which they were referred, and the dates of admission and discharge. Demographic and socioeconomic variables include age at first arrest and sentencing, gender, race or ethnicity, marital status, family composition, educational attainment, and employment status. Other variables include drug use history (e.g., age at which drugs were first used, if the client's family members used drugs, if the client was actively using heroin, cocaine, or alcohol at time of intake into treatment), criminal history (e.g., age at first arrest, number of arrests, types of crimes, prior convictions, and prior probation and jail sentences), and drug treatment history (e.g., number and types of prior times in drug treatment, months since last treatment program, number of admissions to a CPU program, and number of AIDS education programs attended).

These data were collected to measure the degree to which subjective deterrence and rational choice are effective in reducing drug-use recidivism rates. Baseline interviews were conducted with participants upon entering a drug rehabilitation program in New Jersey. Under the terms of this program, which was an alternative to prison, any incident of drug use occurring during the rehabilitation period would result in the participant's returning to prison. Follow-up interviews were conducted when the participant either had a drug/alcohol use relapse or successfully completed a year in the program without a drug-use incident. Baseline interviews included questions about criminal and drug-use history, as well as initial reactions to the drug rehabilitation program. Follow-up interviews probed for participants' feelings about the drug rehabilitation program experience. Further questions concerned participants' failure or success at staying away from drugs or alcohol.

This study examined adult drug treatment courts. Drug treatment courts are intended to reduce the recidivism of drug-involved offenders by changing their drug-use habits. These courts provide a connection between the criminal justice and treatment systems by combining treatment with structured sanctions and rewards. Researchers collected data between February 2001 and May 2002 on drug court participants, treatment services and staff, and organizations involved in drug court operations in four jurisdictions: Bakersfield, California, Jackson County, Missouri, Creek County, Oklahoma, and St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. Part 1, Retrospective Participant Data, contains recidivism and treatment data on 2,357 drug treatment court participants who were enrolled in one of the drug courts between January 1997 and December 2000. Part 2, Treatment Observation Data, contains data collected from observations of treatment sessions at each site from May through July 2001. Part 3, Staff Survey Data, provides data obtained through surveys of 54 treatment service staff members.

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 purpose of this study was to examine multiple treatment process measures and post-release outcomes for inmates who participated in Therapeutic Community (TC) drug treatment programs or comparison groups provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections at five state prisons. The project attempted to examine more closely the relationships among inmate characteristics, treatment process, and treatment outcomes than previous studies in order to explore critical issues in prison-based drug treatment programming and policies. Researchers examined in-treatment measures and multiple post-release outcomes for inmates who participated in TC drug treatment programs or comparison groups at five state prisons: Graterford, Houtzdale, Cresson, Waymart, and Huntingdon. Matched comparison groups were made up of TC-eligible inmates who participated in less intensive forms of treatment (e.g., short-term drug education and outpatient treatment groups) due to a shortage of intensive treatment slots at the five institutions. Included in the treatment sample were all current TC residents as of January 1, 2000. New subjects were added to the study as they were admitted to treatment programs. Between January 1 and November 30, 2000, data on all inmates admitted to or discharged from alcohol or drug treatment programs were collected on a monthly basis. Monthly tracking was continued throughout the study to determine treatment outcomes (e.g., successful vs. unsuccessful). TC clients were asked to complete additional self-report measures that tapped psychological constructs and inmate perceptions of the treatment experience, and TC counselors were asked to complete periodic reassessments of each inmate's participation in treatment. Self-reports of treatment process and psychological functioning were gathered within 30 days after admission, again after six months, again at the end of 12 months, and again at discharge if the inmate remained in TC longer than 12 months. Counselor ratings of inmate participation in treatment were similarly gathered one month, six months, and 12 months following admission to treatment. After release, both treatment and comparison groups were tracked over time to monitor rearrest, reincarceration, drug use, and employment. Measures can be broken down into the following four categories and their sources: (1) Inmate Background Factors were collected from the Pennsylvania Additive Classification System (PACT), the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Screening Instrument (PACSI), and the TCU (Texas Christian University) Drug Screen. (2) Institutional Indicators: Impacts Internal to the Prison Environment were collected from the Department of Corrections Misconduct Database, research and program records, and TCU Resident Evaluation of Self and Treatment (REST) forms. (3) Intermediate or "Proximal" Outcomes: Reductions in Risk for Drug Use and Criminal Behavior were collected from research and program records, TCU Counselor Rating of Client (CRC) forms, and TCU Resident Evaluation of Self and Treatment (REST) forms. (4) Post-Release Indicators: Inmate Behavior Upon Release from Prison were collected from the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Pennsylvania state police records provided by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD), and the Department of Corrections inmate records system.

The Drug Testing Technology/Focused Offender Disposition (FOD) program was designed to examine two issues regarding drug users in the criminal justice system: (1) the utility of need assessment instruments in appropriately determining the level of treatment and/or supervision needed by criminal offenders with a history of drug use, and (2) the use of urinalysis monitoring as a deterrent to subsequent drug use. This data collection consists of four datasets from three sites. The FOD program was first established in Birmingham, Alabama, and Phoenix, Arizona, in December 1988 and ran through August 1990. The Chicago, Illinois, program began in October 1990 and ended in March 1992. These first three programs studied probationers with a history of recent drug use who were not incarcerated while awaiting sentencing. The subjects were assessed with one of two different treatment instruments. Half of all clients were assessed with the objective Offender Profile Index (OPI) created by the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors (NASADAD). The other half were assessed with the local instrument administered in each site by Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC), Inc. Regardless of which assessment procedure was used, offenders were then randomly assigned to one of two groups. Half of all offenders assessed by the OPI and half of the offenders assessed by the local instrument were assigned to a control group that received only random urinalysis monitoring regardless of the drug treatment intervention strategy prescribed by the assessment instrument. The other half of offenders in each assessment group were assigned to a treatment group that received appropriate drug intervention treatment. The Phoenix pilot study (Part 4), which ran from March 1991 to May 1992, was designed like the first Phoenix study, except that the sample for the pilot study was drawn from convicted felons who were jailed prior to sentencing and who were expected to be sentenced to probation. These data contain administrative information, such as current offense, number of arrests, number of convictions, and prior charges. The need assessment instruments were used to gather data on clients' living arrangements, educational and vocational backgrounds, friendships, history of mental problems, drug use history, and scores measuring stakes in conformity. In addition, the study specifically collected information on the monitoring of the clients while in the FOD program, including the number of urinalyses administered and their results, as well as the placement of clients in treatment programs. The files also contain demographic information, such as age, race, sex, and education.

The Probationers in Recovery (PIR) program, developed by the San Diego County Probation Department, targeted high-risk, drug-abusing offenders with the goal of controlling offender behavior without increasing risks to communities. This evaluation of PIR was based on a quasiexperimental design that compared program activities and outcomes for two matched groups of high-risk probationers receiving different levels of service and supervision. The assessment included both a process evaluation to discover if expected service levels were implemented as designed, and an impact evaluation to assess the effectiveness of drug treatment within an intensive community supervision program. The experimental group included 209 PIR participants who received intensive community supervision and drug treatment, and the control group consisted of 151 probationers who were assigned to regular high-risk probation caseloads and who met the PIR screening criteria. The samples were selected from probationers entering community supervision from February to December 1991. The length of the PIR program varied, but for purposes of analysis the minimum time in the program to represent the intervention period was set at eight months, including relapse prevention. A comparable period was used for the control group. The subsequent six-month period was used to measure the effects of PIR and regular high-risk probation after intervention. Intake interviews were conducted with a subsample of 96 probationers in PIR and 80 in the control group (Part 1). The interviews were conducted within the first two weeks after intake. Follow-up interviews were conducted with these probationers after they had completed eight months of PIR or regular high-risk probation to measure experiences on probation and changes in behavior and attitudes (Part 2). Follow-up interviews were completed with 47 probationers from the experimental group in the PIR program and 35 in the control group. The case tracking portion of the study involved the review of probation, treatment, and state and local criminal history files (Part 3). Data on technical violations and arrests for new crimes were compiled for the following time periods: (1) six months prior to the instant offense (the baseline), (2) the first eight months of community supervision (the in-program period), (3) the six months after intervention, and (4) the combined 14-month period. The initial interview (Part 1) included questions regarding sociodemographic characteristics, current offense, awareness of probation conditions ordered, perceived consequences for violations of probation, drug use and drug history, prior drug treatment and treatment needs, criminal history, expectations regarding the probation term, opinions regarding probation and treatment, daily activities prior to the current offense, current life satisfaction, and prospects for the future. Questions on the follow-up interview (Part 2) focused on changes in probationers' personal lives (e.g., employment, income, education, marital status, living situation, and relationships with family and friends), technical probation violations and new offenses committed during the eight-month period, sanctions imposed by probation staff, contacts with probation and treatment staff, changes in drug use and daily activities, expectations with regard to remaining crime- and drug-free in the future, attitudes regarding probation and treatment, treatment needs, and significant life changes over the eight-month period. Variables in the tracking data file (Part 3) include sociodemographic characteristics, current offense and sentence imposed, probation conditions ordered, drug use history, offense and probation violations occurring before, during, and after an eight-month probation period, custody time, changes in level of probation supervision, and program interventions such as drug tests, services delivered, and sanctions imposed.

The study examined the first five years of operation of Kansas senate bill 123 (November 2003-November 2008) examining individual-level and system-level outcomes over time and across community corrections districts and judicial actors. The study also assesses the impact of SB 123 on the work routines of criminal justice system actors, examining changes in sentencing and supervision practices and interactions across agencies following the implementation of SB 123. Individual-level impacts of SB 123 on recidivism rates are assessed using sentencing and revocation data collected by the Kansas Sentencing Commission for drug possessors sentenced in Kansas between November 1, 2001 and October 31, 2008 (Dataset 1). Propensity score matching was used to compare the revocation and reconviction rates of drug possessors sentenced to SB 123 with the recidivism rates of similar individuals sentenced to regular probation (standard supervision by community corrections or court services) (Dataset 2). Supervision and program participation data provided by the Kansas Department of Corrections were used to assess the use of drug treatment services, education and employment services, and sanctions for individuals sentenced to SB 123 or standard community corrections (Dataset 3). These quantitative data were complemented by a set qualitative data derived from interviews with SB 123-eligible offenders (Dataset 4), community corrections managers, and courtroom actors (judges, prosecutors, public defenders) (Dataset 5).

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.