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 data collection contains the results of a study created in response to New York State's 1973 revision of its criminal laws relating to drug use. The Association of the Bar of the City of New York and the Drug Abuse Council jointly organized a joint committee and a research project to collect data, in a systematic fashion, (1) to ascertain the repercussions of the drug law revision, (2) to analyze, to the degree possible, why the law was revised, and (3) to identify any general principles or specific lessons that could be derived from the New York experience that could be helpful to other states as they dealt with the problem of illegal drug use and related crime. This data collection contains five files from the study. Part 1 contains information gathered in a survey investigating the effects of the 1973 predicate felony provisions on crime committed by repeat offenders. Data include sex, age at first arrest, county and year of sampled felony conviction, subsequent arrests up to December 1976, time between arrests, time incarcerated between arrests, and number and type of short-span arrests and incarcerations. Part 2 contains data gathered in a survey meant to estimate the number and proportion of felony crimes attributable to narcotics users in Manhattan. Case records for male defendants, aged 16 and older, who were arraigned on at least one felony charge in Manhattan's Criminal Court, in 1972 and 1975, were sampled. Data include original and reduced charges and penal code numbers, and indicators of first, second, third, and fourth drug status. Part 3 contains data gathered in a survey designed to estimate the number and proportion of felony crimes attributable to narcotics users in Manhattan. Case records for male defendants, aged 16 and older, who were arraigned on at least one felony charge in Manhattan's Criminal Court or Manhattan's Supreme Court, were sampled from 1971 through 1975. Eighty percent of the sample was drawn from the Criminal Court while the remaining 20 percent was taken from the Supreme Court. Data include date of arraignment, age, number of charges, penal code numbers for first six charges, bail information (e.g., if it was set, amount, and date bail made), disposition and sentence, indications of first through fourth drug status, first through third drug of abuse, and treatment status of defendant. Part 4 contains data gathered in a survey that determined the extent of knowledge of the 1973 drug law among ex-drug users in drug treatment programs, and to discover any changes in their behavior in response to the new law. Interviews were administered to non-randomly selected volunteers from three modalities: residential drug-free, ambulatory methadone maintenance, and the detoxification unit of the New York City House of Detention for Men. Data include sources of knowledge of drug laws (e.g., from media, subway posters, police, friends, dealers, and treatment programs), average length of sentence for various drug convictions, maximum sentence for such crimes, the pre-1974 sentence for such crimes, type of plea bargaining done, and respondent's opinion of the effects of the new law on police activity, the street, conviction rates, and drug use. Part 5 contains data from a survey that estimated the number and proportion of felony crimes attributable to narcotics users in Manhattan. Detained males aged 16 and older in Manhattan pre-trial detention centers who faced at least one current felony charge were sampled. Data include date of admission and discharge, drug status and charges, penal code numbers for first through sixth charge, bail information, and drug status and treatment.

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).

This data collection compares a sample of persons arrested for offenses related to crack cocaine with a sample arrested for offenses related to powdered cocaine. The collection is one of two parts of a study designed to examine the characteristics of crack users and sellers, the impact of large numbers of crack-related offenders on the criminal justice system, and their effects on drug treatment and community programs. Official arrest records and supplementary data bases are used to analyze the official arrest, conviction, and incarceration histories of powdered cocaine and crack defendants. Questions addressed by the collection include: (1) How are defendants charged with crack-related offenses different from defendants charged with offenses related to powdered cocaine? (2) Is there a difference between the ways the criminal justice system handles crack offenders and powdered cocaine offenders in pretrial detention, charges filed, case dispositions, and sentencing? (3) How do the criminal careers of crack offenders compare with the criminal careers of powdered cocaine offenders, especially in terms of total arrest rates, frequencies of nondrug crimes, and frequencies of violent crimes? (4) Is violence more strongly associated with crack dealing than with powdered cocaine dealing? and (5) How does the developmental history of powdered cocaine sales and possession compare with the history of crack sales and possession? Variables include demographic information such as gender, residence, and race, arrest, conviction, and incarceration histories, prior criminal record, community ties, and court outcomes of the arrests.

The purpose of this data collection was to explore the relationship between drug use and crime. Specifically, the collection was undertaken to determine whether drug test results could provide important predictive information on pretrial misconduct over and above that provided by other variables, thus supplying more data for judges to use in making bail and pretrial release decisions. Data about defendants and their criminal and drug use history were gathered. In addition, defendants were subjected to urinalysis drug testing procedures to determine the presence or absence of drugs in the urine. Both the drug testing methods and subsequent results were subjected to reliability and validity testing procedures. The independent variables in the study include demographic attributes such as defendant's sex, race, birthdate, marital status, and employment, charge-related attributes such as current offense, arrest, and court disposition, prior criminal record of the defendant, current and past drug use, and drug testing results. The dependent variables pertain to the defendant's pretrial performance and include items such as failure to appear and any rearrests.

This study examined the use of arrestee urinalysis results as a predictor of other community drug problems. A three-stage public health model was developed using drug diffusion and community drug indicators as aggregate measures of individual drug use careers. Monthly data on drug indicators for Washington, DC, and Portland, Oregon, were used to: (1) estimate the correlations of drug problem indicators over time, (2) examine the correlations among indicators at different stages in the spread of new forms of drug abuse, and (3) estimate lagged models in which arrestee urinalysis results were used to predict subsequent community drug problems. Variables included arrestee drug test results, drug-overdose deaths, crimes reported to the local police department, and child maltreatment incidents. Washington variables also included drug-related emergency room episodes. The unit of analysis was months covered by the study. The Washington, DC, data consist of 78 records, one for each month from April 1984 through September 1990. The Portland, Oregon, data contain 33 records, one for each month from January 1988 through September 1990.

This project involved an experiment conducted in three Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) [DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 (ICPSR 9477)] program sites to determine whether using a more detailed informed consent procedure and/or altering the sequence of the interview and urine specimen collection could enhance the validity of arrestees' self-reports of drug use without adversely affecting study response rates. A 2x2 factorial design was used to assess the effects of the two manipulations. The first two experimental conditions involved administering either the standard DUF informed consent or an enhanced consent that told the arrestees more about the confidential nature of the research and the capabilities of urinalysis. The second two conditions involved collecting the urine specimen either before or after the interview was administered. The experiment included 2,015 adult arrestees from Cleveland, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Houston, Texas, who were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. The experiment was designed so that the only variability across the interviews was the manipulation of informed consent and the sequencing of the urine specimen request. All other procedures of a standard DUF collection were followed. Data were collected in Cleveland between July 8 and August 22, 1997, in Detroit from August 4 to September 27, 1997, and in Houston from October 17 to November 1, 1997. Variables specific to this project include the experimental condition to which the respondent was assigned, follow-up questions asking whether the arrestee would have responded differently if assigned to the other conditions, and several dummy variables on length and type of drug use. Data from the DUF interview provided detailed information about each arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs. For each drug type, arrestees were asked whether they had ever used the drug, the age at which they first used the drug, whether they had used the drug within the past three days, how many days they had used the drug within the past month, whether they had ever needed or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were dependent on the drug at the time of the interview. Data from the DUF interview instrument also included alcohol/drug treatment history, information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs, and whether they were influenced by drugs when the crime that they were charged with was committed. The data also include information about whether the arrestee had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether he or she had had prior arrests in the past 12 months. Urine tests screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography). Demographic data include the age, race, sex, educational attainment, marital status, employment status, and living circumstances of each respondent.

This data collection was undertaken to develop a typology of narcotic addicts according to the kind, frequency, and seriousness of their crimes and to identify the most serious criminal offenders, thereby determining which individuals were best suited to rehabilitation. The following questions are addressed by the data: (1) What "types" of narcotic addicts can be distinguished in terms of their criminal behavior? Which of these types are amenable to rehabilitation? (2) At what time during their addiction careers do addicts commit the most crime? Do narcotic addicts "mature" out of addiction? (3) What is the relationship between individuals' involvement in crime prior to addiction and their criminal activity and drug use over their addiction career? (4) Which demographic, personality, or other factors are associated with serious crime committed during periods of narcotic addiction? (5) What are the contributions of situational and dispositional factors to the relationship between addiction and crime? Part 1 of the collection details the subjects' addiction careers, the age they first used various drugs, the age they first became addicted to narcotics, the amount of time they were addicted/not addicted to narcotics, and the total length of their addiction careers. Part 2 contains variables generated by cluster analysis, including cluster assignment or "type." Part 3 includes the educational, occupational, and arrest histories of the subjects, as well as the drug use and arrest histories of their families. The Part 4 file consists of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and Raven Progressive Matrix scores. The frequency and types of crime that subjects committed during the preaddiction period comprise Part 5, while the frequency and nature of drug use during the preaddiction period comprise Part 6. Parts 7 and 8 contain crime variables and drug use variables, respectively, across all nonaddiction periods. Finally, Part 9 contains data characterizing crime across all addiction periods, and Part 10 contains variables regarding drug use across total addiction periods.

The National Consortium for Assessing Drug Control Initiatives, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance and coordinated by the Criminal Justice Statistics Association, collected drug offender processing data from the state of New York. The purpose of the project was to track adult drug offenders from the point of entry into the criminal justice system (typically by arrest) through final court disposition, regardless of whether the offender was released without trial, acquitted, or convicted. These data allow researchers to examine how the criminal justice system processes drug offenders, to measure the changing volume of drug offenders moving through the different segments of the criminal justice system, to calculate processing time intervals between major decision-making events, and to assess the changing structure of the drug offender population. For purposes of this project, a drug offender was defined as any person who had been charged with a felony drug offense. The data are structured into six segments pertaining to (1) record identification, (2) the offender (date of birth, sex, race, and ethnic origin), (3) arrest information (date of arrest, age at arrest, arrest charge code), (4) prosecution information (filed offense code and level, prosecution disposition and date), (5) court disposition information (disposition offense and level, court disposition, final disposition date, final pleading, type of trial), and (6) sentencing information (sentence and sentence date, sentence minimum and maximum). Also included are elapsed time variables. The unit of analysis is the felony drug offender.

This collection examines the characteristics of users and sellers of crack cocaine and the impact of users and sellers on the criminal justice system and on drug treatment and community programs. Information was also collected concerning users of drugs other than crack cocaine and the attributes of those users. Topics covered include initiation into substance use and sales, expenses for drug use, involvement with crime, sources of income, and primary substance of abuse. Demographic information includes subject's race, educational level, living area, social setting, employment status, occupation, marital status, number of children, place of birth, and date of birth. Information was also collected about the subject's parents: education level, occupation, and place of birth.