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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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 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.

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.

Despite a growing consensus among scholars that substance abuse treatment is effective in reducing offending, strict eligibility rules have limited the impact of current models of therapeutic jurisprudence on public safety. This research effort was aimed at providing policy makers some guidance on whether expanding this model to more drug-involved offenders is cost-beneficial. Since data needed for providing evidence-based analysis of this issue were not readily available, micro-level data from three nationally representative sources were used to construct a 40,320 case synthetic dataset -- defined using population profiles rather than sampled observation -- that was used to estimate the benefits of going to scale in treating drug involved offenders. The principal investigators combined information from the NATIONAL SURVEY ON DRUG USE AND HEALTH, 2003 (ICPSR 4138) and the ARRESTEE DRUG ABUSE MONITORING (ADAM) PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES, 2003 (ICPSR 4020) to estimate the likelihood of drug addiction or dependence problems and develop nationally representative prevalence estimates. They used information in the DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT OUTCOME STUDY (DATOS), 1991-1994 (ICPSR 2258) to compute expected crime reducing benefits of treating various types of drug involved offenders under four different treatment modalities. The project computed expected crime reducing benefits that were conditional on treatment modality as well as arrestee attributes and risk of drug dependence or abuse. Moreover, the principal investigators obtained estimates of crime reducing benefits for all crimes as well as select sub-types. Variables include age, race, gender, offense, history of violence, history of treatment, co-occurring alcohol problem, criminal justice system status, geographic location, arrest history, and a total of 134 prevalence and treatment effect estimates and variances.