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.

With funding from the National Institute of Justice, the Center for Court Innovation examined the impact of introducing an evidence-based risk-need assessment and treatment matching protocol into three New York City drug courts. Preexisting practice in all three sites involved administration of a non-validated bio-psychosocial assessment, whose results informed the professional judgment of court-employed case managers, but without the aid of a structured decision making system.

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.

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.

This study examined the relationship between legal pressure and drug treatment retention by assessing perceptions of legal pressure held by two groups of legally-mandated treatment clients: (1) participants of the Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program operated by the Kings County (Brooklyn) District Attorney in New York City, and (2) a matched group of probationers, parolees, Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) participants, and other court-mandated offenders attending the same community-based treatment programs used by DTAP. The Brooklyn DTAP was selected for study because of the program's uniquely coercive program components, including the threat of a mandatory prison term for noncompliance. The goals of this project were (1) to test whether DTAP participants would show significantly higher retention rates when compared to a matched sample of other legally-mandated treatment clients, and (2) to assess the role of perceived legal pressure in predicting retention for both of these groups. Data were collected from program participants through interviews conducted at admission to treatment and follow-up interviews conducted about eight weeks later. Intake interviews were conducted, on average, one week after the client's admission to treatment. The one-to-one interviews, which lasted up to two hours, were administered by trained researchers in a private location at the treatment site. The intake interview battery included a mixture of standardized measures and those developed by the Vera Institute of Justice. Data in Part 1 were collected with the Addiction Severity Index and include age, sex, race, religion, and education. Additional variables cover medical problems, employment history, detailed substance abuse and treatment history, number of times arrested for various crimes, history of incarceration, family's substance abuse and criminal histories, relationships with family and friends, psychological problems such as depression, anxiety, and suicide, current living arrangements, and sources of income. Part 2, Supplemental Background and Retention Data, contains treatment entry date, number of days in treatment, age at treatment entry, termination date, treatment condition, arrest date, detention at arrest, date released on probation/parole, violation of probation/parole arrest date and location, problem drug, prior drug treatment, as well as age, gender, race, education, and marital status. Part 3, Division of Criminal Justice Services Data, includes data on the number of arrests before and after program entry, and number of total misdemeanor and felony arrests, convictions, and sentences. Part 4, Chemical Use, Abuse, and Dependence Data, contains information on type of substance abuse, intoxication or withdrawal at work, school, or home, effects of abuse on social, occupational, or recreational activities, and effects of abuse on relationships, health, emotions, and employment. Parts 5 and 6 contain psychiatric data gathered from the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised and Beck's Depression Inventory, respectively. Part 7 variables from the Circumstances, Motivation, Readiness, and Suitability scale include family's attitude toward treatment, subject's need for treatment, subject's desire to change life, and legal consequences if subject did not participate in treatment. Part 8, Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness scale, contains data on how the subject viewed the drug problem, desire to change, and history of dealing with substance abuse. Part 9, Motivational/Program Supplement Data, includes variables on the subject's need for treatment, attitudes toward treatment sessions, the family's reaction to treatment, and a likelihood of completion rating. Part 10, Perceived Legal Coercion Data, gathered information on who referred the subject to the treatment program, who was keeping track of attendance, whether someone explained the rules of participation in the program and the consequences if the

This study was undertaken to measure the impact of the standard, treatment, and sanction dockets, which comprise the Superior Court Drug Intervention Program (SCDIP), on drug-involved defendants in Washington, DC, while examining defendants' continued drug use and substance abuse, criminal activity, and social and economic functioning. Features common to all three dockets of the SCDIP program included early intervention, frequent drug testing, and judicial involvement in monitoring drug test results, as well as the monitoring of each defendant's progress. Data for this study were collected from four sources for defendants arrested on drug felony charges between September 1, 1994, and January 31, 1996, who had been randomly assigned to one of three drug dockets (sanction, treatment, or standard) as part of the SCDIP program. First, data were collected from the Pretrial Services Agency, which provided monthly updated drug testing records, case records, and various other administrative records for all defendants assigned to any of the three dockets. Second, data regarding prior convictions and sentencing information were collected from computer files maintained by the Washington, DC, Superior Court. Third, arrest data were taken from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Lastly, data on self-reported drug use, criminal and personal activities, and opinions about the program were collected from interviews conducted with defendants one year after their sentencing. Variables collected from administrative records included drug test results, eligibility date for the defendant, date the defendant started treatment, number of compliance hearings, prior conviction, arrest, and sentencing information, and program entry date. Survey questions asked of each respondent fell into one of seven categories: (1) Individual characteristics, such as gender, age, and marital status. (2) Current offenses, including whether the respondent was sentenced to probation, prison, jail, or another correctional facility for any offense and the length of sentencing, special conditions or restrictions of that sentence (e.g., electronic monitoring, mandatory drug testing, educational programs, or psychological counseling), whether any of the sentence was reduced by credit, and whether the respondent was released on bail bond or to the custody of another person. (3) Current supervision, specifically, whether the respondent was currently on probation, the number and type of contacts made with probation officers, issues discussed during the meeting, any new offenses or convictions since being on probation, outcome of any hearings, and reasons for returning back to prison, jail, or another correctional facility. (4) Criminal history, such as the number of previous arrests, age at first arrest, sentencing type, whether the respondent was a juvenile, a youthful offender, or an adult when the crime was committed, and whether any time was served for each of the following crimes: drug trafficking, drug possession, driving while intoxicated, weapons violations, robbery, sexual assault/rape, murder, other violent offenses, burglary, larceny/auto theft, fraud, property offenses, public order offenses, and probation/parole violations. (5) Socioeconomic characteristics, such as whether the respondent had a job or business, worked part- or full-time, type of job or business, yearly income, whether the respondent was looking for work, the reasons why the respondent was not looking for work, whether the respondent was living in a house, apartment, trailer, hotel, shelter, or other type of housing, whether the respondent contributed money toward rent or mortgage, number of times moved, if anyone was living with the respondent, the number and ages of any children (including step or adopted), whether child support was being paid by the respondent, who the respondent lived with when growing up, the number of siblings the respondent had, whether any of the respondent's parents spent

The primary research goal of this study was to explore the effects of juvenile incarceration on future recidivism using social and legal history data about adjudicated juvenile delinquents in New York City. The secondary research goal of this study was to explore family court decision-making and the nature of family court processing. Study subjects were chosen by examining Family Court calendars in all five New York City boroughs for each day in April, May, and June of 2000, which identified every youth who received a disposition during this period. Research staff located case files for each subject in probation department file rooms in the five family courts, using personal and numeric identifiers taken from court calendars. Using a standardized data collection instrument that was developed by the research team, coded information was derived for 698 total cases by examining documents in each subject's probation case file. Coded data from probation case files offered a baseline portrait of this sample of delinquent youth. In order to measure recidivism, the principal investigator linked baseline records, using personal and numeric identifiers, to arrest and incarceration information provided by other city and state agencies. In this dataset, each record is essentially a snapshot of a particular youth at the time of his or her disposition. Variables about the sampled youth include: demographic profile, case processing, legal history, characteristics of present and past family environments, school performance indicators, community and peer relationships, history of alcohol and drug use, mental health history, and history of victimization.

This data collection was undertaken to estimate the prevalence of drug use/drug use trends among booked arrestees in New York City and to analyze the relationship between drug use and crime. The data, which were collected over a six-month period, were generated from volunteer interviews with male arrestees, the analyses of their urine specimens, police and court records of prior criminal behavior and experience with the criminal justice system, and records of each arrestee's current case, including court warrants, rearrests, failures to appear, and court dispositions. Demographic variables include age, education, vocational training, marital status, residence, and employment. Items relating to prior and current drug use and drug dependency are provided, along with results from urinalysis tests for opiates, cocaine, PCP, and methadone. The collection also contains arrest data for index crimes and subsequent court records pertaining to those arrests (number of court warrants issued, number of pretrial rearrests, types of rearrests, failure to appear in court, and court dispositions), and prior criminal records (number of times arrested and convicted for certain offenses).

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.

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.