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.

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 purpose of this data collection was to examine the relationship between drug use and pretrial misconduct in Pima and Maricopa counties in Arizona. Data assess the effectiveness of Arizona pretrial services, which were designed to monitor those defendants who tested positive for selected drugs. The collection includes variables for drugs such as marijuana and cocaine, previous criminal history, results of urinalysis testing, pretrial misconduct, and drug monitoring. Demographic information includes defendant's sex, ethnicity, age, marital status, employment, and last grade completed.

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.

The State of Maine Department of Corrections (MDOC) and the Office of Substance Abuse (OSA) at the Maine Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services opened the Key Maine Therapeutic Community (TC) in March 1999, and its Transitional Treatment Program (TTP) for adult male inmates in January 2000. Spectrum Behavioral Services, Inc. (SBC) was subcontracted to implement the program, which was located at the Maine Correctional Facility in South Windham and the Pre-Release Center in Hallowell. The United States Department of Justice Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) funded the initiative. This study was undertaken as a process evaluation of the program. To accomplish the aims of the process evaluation, research staff examined both program and client-level data that were collected throughout the first 15 months of the Key Maine TC's operation, a period that included the initial start-up period for the TTP. Part 1, Baseline Data, contains information on inmates, including age, ethnic group, education level, timing of all diplomas or degrees they had received, reasons for stopping school, marital and/or relationship status and history, and number and ages of children. The file also includes information on the last six months before being incarcerated, such as attendance at religious services, kind of housing and time spent there, as well as whom they lived with and the behavior of the inmate and their living companions in terms of alcohol and drug use. Also, there is information about how respondents supported themselves financially, including employment status and job information, such as number of days worked, number of jobs, part-time or full-time status, income, supplemental income, drug and alcohol use effects on employment, and whether they had dependants to support. In addition to information on the six months before incarceration, the file provides information on the inmate's substance abuse behaviors over his lifetime, including specific drugs used, the frequency used, and the age at which use of particular substances began. Information on substance abuse behaviors, such as specific substances used and frequency used in the last 30 days, is also recorded. Other variables in Part 1 focus on whether inmates' substance abuse had caused problems in major areas of their lives, such as family, employment, school, physical and mental health, relationships, and other substance abuse treatment received, including the type of treatment, duration of treatment, main substance abused, and reasons for entering treatment. Self-report data are available on each inmate's lifetime history of illegal activities, including, but not limited to, arrest history. This includes the offense(s) for which the inmate was currently serving time, as well as past offenses, jail time served, number of times incarcerated, illegal activities in which the inmate engaged during the last six months before incarceration, and time spent in probation during the last six months before incarceration. Information on visitors received during time in jail and contact (phone calls and letters) with others while in jail are included, as well as personal history information concerning the inmate's relationship with family and the activities they engaged in together. There is information on the friends the inmate had during the six months before incarceration, such as their education level, employment status, and relationship with family. Additional variables include whether the inmate reported having a history of child abuse, with details such as age at time of abuse, relationship with the abuser, frequency of abuse, perceived association of child abuse history to the inmate's substance abuse, the inmate's history as both victim of and perpetrator of violent crimes and weapon use, the inmate's sexual activity during the six months before incarceration, and his opinions about the chances of contracting HIV/AIDS. Other items pertain

The major objectives of this research project were: (1) to evaluate the effectiveness of the combination of hair and urine assays in determining drug use among probationers, (2) to examine the concordance patterns of hair and urine specimens, (3) to explore the perceptions and attitudes of probation officers regarding the use of hair assays for drug testing, and (4) to assess the feasibility of implementing hair analysis in a probationary field setting. The 22 correctional officers who participated in this study were recruited from the Florida Department of Corrections Probation Field Services Divisions, and worked within Pinellas and Pasco counties. Each officer was requested to solicit from his or her caseload eight to ten probationers who would be eligible for the project because they would be undergoing at least monthly urinalysis or urine testing. Approximately 150 probationers participated in the project and were subject to hair assays for illicit drug use, along with standard urine testing. Specimens were collected and analyzed on 90 probationers over a six-month period and on 101 probationers for five consecutive months, as well as fewer numbers of samples for the other probationers. The drugs for which the hair and urine specimens were analyzed included cocaine, opiates, cannabinoids such as marijuana, PCP, and methadone. Survey questions asked of the probation officers (Part 1) covered personal information (gender, ethnicity, education level, years of experience in corrections, and satisfaction with job) and attitudes and opinions about their jobs and drug testing (estimated percentage of caseload using drugs, whether all clients should be tested, and whether knowing drug quantities is helpful). Data in Part 2 cover probationers' drug test results and self-reported drug use, personal information (gender, age, weight, ethnicity, and criminal charge), a variety of hair questions (color, texture, style, length, how often shampooed, and if dyed, tinted, bleached, relaxed, or jeried), and use of medications, along with the medication name and amount.

Although PMN imputation as currently implemented has a number of advantages, including the ability to use a large number of similar variables to determine the imputed value and to provide individual record consistency among very complex variable relationships, the goal of this study was to evaluate this method compared with other options, especially in the context of the redesign of the NSDUH.

The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) study included 23 drug courts and 6 comparison sites selected from 8 states across the country. The purpose of the study was to: (1) Test whether drug courts reduce drug use, crime, and multiple other problems associated with drug abuse, in comparision with similar offenders not exposed to drug courts, (2) address how drug courts work and for whom by isolating key individual and program factors that make drug courts more or less effective in achieving their desired outcomes, (3) explain how offender attitudes and behaviors change when they are exposed to drug courts and how these changes help explain the effectiveness of drug court programs, and (4) examine whether drug courts generate cost savings. Offenders in all 29 sites were surveyed in 3 waves, at baseline, 6 months later, and 18 months after enrollment. The research comprises three major components: process evaluation, impact evaluation, and a cost-benefit analysis. The process evaluation describes how the 23 drug court sites vary in program eligibility, supervision, treatment, team collaboration, and other key policies and practices. The impact evaluation examines whether drug courts produce better outcomes than comparison sites and tests which court policies and offender attitudes might explain those effects. The cost-benefit analysis evaluates drug court costs and benefits.

This report presents an evaluation of the coverage, overlap, biases, strengths, and weaknesses of three sources of data on the receipt of specialty substance use treatment: the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS), and the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS). Specialty substance use treatment measures compared include numbers and characteristics of persons treated in a given year, single-day treatment counts, numbers of admissions in a given year, and estimates of the numbers of persons who needed substance use treatment but did not receive it. This report includes data from the 2005 through 2010 NSDUHs; 2007 through 2009 N-SSATS; and 2007 through 2009 TEDS. Results are show by substance treated, age, race/ethnicity, and employment status,