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.

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 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 study investigates rates of serious crime for selected public housing developments in Washington, DC, Phoenix, Arizona, and Los Angeles, California, for the years 1986 to 1989. Offense rates in housing developments were compared to rates in nearby areas of private housing as well as to city-wide rates. In addition, the extent of law enforcement activity in housing developments as represented by arrests was considered and compared to arrest levels in other areas. This process allowed both intra-city and inter-city comparisons to be made. Variables cover study site, origin of data, year of event, offense codes, and location of event. Los Angeles files also include police division.

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 examined trends in the use of five widely abused drugs among arrestees at 10 geographically diverse locations from 2000 to 2010: Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Denver, Indianapolis, Manhattan, Minneapolis, Portland Oregon, Sacramento, and Washington DC. The data came from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program reintroduced in 2007 (ADAM II) and its predecessor the ADAM program. ADAM data included urinalysis results that provided an objective measure of recent drug use, provided location specific estimates over time, and provided sample weights that yielded unbiased estimates for each location. The ADAM data were analyzed according to a drug epidemics framework, which has been previously employed to understand the decline of the crack epidemic, the growth of marijuana use in the 1990s, and the persistence of heroin use. Similar to other diffusion of innovation processes, drug epidemics tend to follow a natural course passing through four distinct phases: incubation, expansion, plateau, and decline. The study also searched for changes in drug markets over the course of a drug epidemic.

These data were collected to explore connections between street gangs and drug distribution. The research objectives for this study were (1) to assess the magnitude of gang involvement in cocaine and other drug sales in two suburban cities, (2) to compare the characteristics of gang-involved drug sale incidents with those without gang involvement, (3) to assess the generalizability of findings on cocaine to other drugs, and from urban to more suburban settings, and (4) to translate the implications of the research findings into the development of law enforcement strategies. Law enforcement arrest records and gang membership records were obtained for two study sites, Pasadena and Pomona, California. Part 1, the incident-level file, supplies information on arrest incidents qualifying as drug sales. Variables in the file include presence at arrest of violence, guns, cash, and drugs, types of charges, gang characteristics of the incident, racial/ethnic makeup of arrestees, gender of arrestees, and gang affiliation of arrestees. Part 2, the participant-level file, supplies data on each participant in each incident. Variables in this file include gender, ethnicity, gang membership status, and charges.

This study investigated changes in the geographic concentration of drug crimes in Cleveland from 1990 to 2001. The study looked at both the locations of drug incidents and where drug offenders lived in order to explore factors that bring residents from one neighborhood into other neighborhoods to engage in drug-related activities. This study was based on data collected for the 224 census tracts in Cleveland, Ohio, in the 1990 decennial Census for the years 1990 to 1997 and 1999 to 2001. Data on drug crimes for 1990 to 1997 and 1999 to 2001 were obtained from Cleveland Police Department (CPD) arrest records and used to produce counts of the number of drug offenses that occurred in each tract in each year and the number of arrestees for drug offenses who lived in each tract. Other variables include counts and rates of other crimes committed in each census tract in each year, the social characteristics and housing conditions of each census tract, and net migration for each census tract.

This table provides information on the short (2 year), medium (5 year) and long (10 year) term trends in the number of incidents of use/possess amphetamines and cocaine offences recorded by the NSW Police Force by region (Statistical Area).

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.