Evaluation of the New York City Department of Probation's Drug Treatment Initiative, 1991-1994 (ICPSR 2652)
Version Date: Nov 4, 2005 View help for published
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Gregory P. Falkin, National Development and Research Institutes, Inc.;
Shiela Straus, National Development and Research Institutes, Inc.;
Timothy Bohen, New York City Department of Probation;
Douglas Young, Vera Institute of Justice, Inc.;
Laura Winterfield, New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02652.v1
Version V1
Summary View help for Summary
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).
Citation View help for Citation
Export Citation:
Funding View help for Funding
Subject Terms View help for Subject Terms
Geographic Coverage View help for Geographic Coverage
HideTime Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)
Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection
Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose
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. At the time, probation departments throughout the country were struggling with large caseloads of drug-involved offenders. This was especially true in areas such as New York City, where drug-related arrests had risen sharply and alternatives to incarceration had been expanded to alleviate overcrowding in jails and prisons. Many community corrections agencies had established specialized or intensive drug supervision units that monitored clients' drug use with urine testing and referred those who tested positive to drug treatment programs. In 1989, the New York City Department of Probation established Substance Abuse Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) units. These specialized units were created to provide closer supervision of high-risk cocaine-abusing probationers by having lower caseloads than regular units and by developing stronger linkages with community-based drug treatment programs. In 1991, the department created a Central Placement Unit (CPU), which contracted with nine outpatient drug-free treatment programs for treatment slots. Referrals were made through the CPU, which operated like an 800-number reservation service that probation officers could call in order to place clients in contracting treatment programs. 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 study aimed to answer the question: Is outpatient drug treatment capable of reducing recidivism among a significant number of probationers?
Study Design View help for Study Design
The evaluation research involved an in-depth analysis of a sample of 1,860 probationers who were sentenced between September 1991 and 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).
Sample View help for Sample
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.
Universe View help for Universe
Probationers referred to contracting outpatient drug treatment programs in New York City.
Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Data Source View help for Data Source
administrative records
Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)
Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables
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).
Response Rates View help for Response Rates
Not applicable
Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales
None
HideOriginal Release Date View help for Original Release Date
2000-12-04
Version History View help for Version History
- Falkin, Gregory P., Shiela Straus, Timothy Bohen, Douglas Young, and Laura Winterfield. EVALUATION OF THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION'S DRUG TREATMENT INITIATIVE, 1991-1994. ICPSR02652-v1. New York, NY: National Development and Research Institutes, Inc./New York City Department of Probation/Vera Institute of Justice, Inc./New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. [producers], 1999. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2000. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02652.v1
2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions.
2000-12-04 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:
- Standardized missing values.
- Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
Notes
The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.