The purpose of this study was to determine whether the Lummi Nation's Community Mobilization Against Drugs (CMAD) Initiative successfully achieved its four stated goals, which were to reduce illicit drug trafficking, reduce rates of substance use disorder and addiction, prevent drug abuse and underage drinking among youth, and mobilize the community in all aspects of prevention, intervention, and suppression of alcohol and drug use, drug abuse, and drug trafficking. The study also aimed to evaluate whether the outcomes of the demonstration project had application for other tribal communities confronting similar public safety issues related to substance abuse. Qualitative information from focus group interviews was collected. Six focus groups were held with individuals representing the following populations: service providers, policy makers, adult clients and family members, youth, traditional tribal healers, and community members. In addition to the focus groups, the evaluation team conducted an interview session with two traditional providers who preferred this format. All focus groups were conducted on-site at Lummi by two trained moderators from the evaluation team. There were six different sets of questions, one for each group. Each set included 9 to 10 open-ended questions, which addressed knowledge and impact of the Community Mobilized Against Drugs (CMAD) Initiative; issues or problems with the Initiative; how the community viewed its actions; the importance and inclusion of a cultural perspective (traditional healers and others) in implementing various aspects of the CMAD Initiative; and how the Initiative had affected work and networking capabilities, policy making decisions, and/or treatment. Participants were also asked to think about what they would like CMAD to address and about their perceptions and definitions of some of the service barriers they may be experiencing (clients, community, and/or youth). All of the focus groups were openly audio taped with full knowledge and agreement of the participants.

This report uses 2003 to 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) to assess past year need for and receipt of alcohol use treatment and illicit drug use treatment among American Indian or Alaska Natives aged 12 or older in comparison to persons of other racial and ethnic groups. Results are shown by age group, gender, federal poverty level and rural/urban status.

This report provides methodological information on how to obtain estimates of behavioral health outcomes for populations living on and off tribal lands and provides some initial estimates using NSDUH 2005 to 2014 data.

The data for this study were collected in Phase 2, the outcome evaluation, of the Comprehensive Indian Resources for Community and Law Enforcement (CIRCLE) Project. The CIRCLE Project was launched in the late 1990s to strengthen tribal justice systems and, through effective tribal-level planning and strategic comprehensive approaches, to better equip Native American nations to combat the interlinked community problems of crime, violence, substance abuse, and juvenile delinquency. The Native American nations invited to participate in the CIRCLE Project were the Northern Cheyenne, the Ogling Sioux, and the Zuni. Part 1, Participant Data, contains data on each of the Native American nations. The Northern Cheyenne data include variables on juvenile arrests between 1995 and 2003 for intoxication, curfew violations, disorderly conduct, and total arrests. The Oglala Sioux data include variables on police force stability and court pleadings. The Zuni data include variables on arrests for simple assault, public intoxication, driving while intoxicated (DWI), endangerment, domestic violence, and total arrests between 2001 and 2004. Part 2, United States Department of Justice Funding Data, contains data on funding given to the Northern Cheyenne, the Oglala Sioux, the Zuni, and six comparison Native American nations for fiscal years 1998 to 2003.

This study evaluated program design, quality of treatment delivery, and program effectiveness of three separate state sponsored alcohol specific treatment programs in prisons located in Montana, Ohio, and Texas from 2006 to 2012.

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.

The purpose of this study was twofold. First, researchers wanted to assess the benefits of the driving while intoxicated (DWI) drug court established in the Las Cruces, New Mexico, Municipal Court in an effort to determine its future viability. This was accomplished by examining the behaviors and attitudes of three groups of convicted drunk-drivers and determining the extent to which these groups were different or similar. The three groups included: (1) non-alcoholic first- and second-time offenders (non-alcoholic offenders), (2) alcoholic first- and second-time DWI offenders (alcoholic offenders), and (3) chronic three-time (or more) DWI offenders (chronic offenders). The second purpose of this study was to explore police officers' attitudes toward court-based treatment programs for DWI offenders, while examining the distinguishing characteristics between police officers who support court-based programs for drunk drivers and those who are less likely to support such sanctions. Data for Part 1, Drug Court Survey Data, were collected using a survey questionnaire distributed to non-alcoholic, alcoholic, and chronic offenders. Part 1 variables include blood alcohol level, jail time, total number of prior arrests and convictions, the level of support from the respondents' family and friends, and whether the respondent thought DWI was wrong, could cause injury, or could ruin lives. Respondents were also asked whether they acted spontaneously in general, took risks, found trouble exciting, ever assaulted anyone, ever destroyed property, ever extorted money, ever sold or used drugs, thought lying or stealing was OK, ever stole a car, attempted breaking and entering, or had been a victim of extortion. Demographic variables for Part 1 include the age, gender, race, and marital status of each respondent. Data for Part 2, Police Officer Survey Data, were collected using a survey questionnaire designed to capture what police officers knew about the DWI Drug Court, where they learned about it, and what factors accounted for their attitudes toward the program. Variables for Part 2 include police officers' responses to whether DWI court was effective, whether DWI laws were successful, the perceived effect of mandatory jail time versus treatment alone, major problems seen with DWI policies, if DWI was considered dangerous, and how the officer had learned or been briefed about the drug court. Other variables include the number of DWI arrests, and whether respondents believed that reforms weaken police power, that DWI caused more work for them, that citizens have bad attitudes, that the public has too many rights, and that stiffer penalties for DWI offenders were more successful.

These data were collected to evaluate the Demand Reduction Program, a program initiated in Maricopa County, Arizona, in 1989 to combat drug abuse. A consortium of municipal, county, state, and federal law enforcement agencies developed the program, which stressed user accountability. The Demand Reduction Program had two objectives: (1) to create community-wide awareness of the severity of the drug problem and to alert drug users to the increased risk of legal sanctions, and (2) to adopt a zero-tolerance position of user accountability through an emphasis on increased and coordinated law enforcement activities directed against individual offenders and special treatment programs in lieu of prosecution. Part 1 of the collection, Demand Reduction Program Data, provides information on prosecutor's disposition, arrest date, submitted charges, filed charges, prior charges, disposition of charges, drugs offender used in last three months, information on prior drug treatment, type of attorney, and arrestee's age at arrest, sex, marital status, income, and living arrangement. Part 2 is a Citizen Survey conducted in January 1990, ten months after the implementation of the Demand Reduction Program. Adult residents of Maricopa County were asked in telephone interviews about their attitudes toward drug use, tax support for drug treatment, education, and punishment, their knowledge of the Demand Reduction Program, and demographic information. Parts 3 and 4 supply data from surveys of Maricopa County police officers, conducted in March 1990 and April 1991, to measure attitudes regarding the Demand Reduction Program with respect to (1) police effort, (2) inter-agency cooperation, (3) the harm involved in drug use, and (4) support for diversion to treatment. The two police surveys contained identically-worded questions, with only a small number of different questions asked the second year. Variables include officer's rank, years at rank, years in department, shift worked, age, sex, ethnicity, education, marital status, if officer was the primary or secondary wage earner, officer's perception of and training for the Demand Reduction Program, and personal attitudes toward drug use. Part 5 provides arrest data from the Maricopa County Task Force, which arrested drug users through two methods: (1) sweeps of public and semi-public places, and (2) "reversals," where drug sellers were arrested and replaced by police officers posing as drug sellers, who then arrested the drug buyers. Task Force data include arrest date, operation number, operation beginning and ending date, operation type, region where operation was conducted, charge resulting from arrest, Demand Reduction Program identification number, and arrestee's sex, race, and date of birth.