Deterring Drug Use With Intensive Probation in New Jersey, 1989-1990 (ICPSR 9919)

Published: Jun 27, 2002 View help for published

Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Frank S. Pearson, Rutgers University, Department of Sociology, Institute for Criminological Research

https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09919.v1

Version V1

These data were collected to measure the degree to which subjective deterrence and rational choice are effective in reducing drug-use recidivism rates. Baseline interviews were conducted with participants upon entering a drug rehabilitation program in New Jersey. Under the terms of this program, which was an alternative to prison, any incident of drug use occurring during the rehabilitation period would result in the participant's returning to prison. Follow-up interviews were conducted when the participant either had a drug/alcohol use relapse or successfully completed a year in the program without a drug-use incident. Baseline interviews included questions about criminal and drug-use history, as well as initial reactions to the drug rehabilitation program. Follow-up interviews probed for participants' feelings about the drug rehabilitation program experience. Further questions concerned participants' failure or success at staying away from drugs or alcohol.

Pearson, Frank S. Deterring Drug Use With Intensive Probation in New Jersey, 1989-1990. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2002-06-27. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09919.v1

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (88-IJ-CX-0048)
1989 -- 1990
1989 -- 1990

The codebook and user guide are provided by ICPSR as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.

The Institute for Criminological Research conducted this study with the aim of gauging the degree to which subjective deterrence and rational choice affect drug-use recidivism. A secondary goal was to explore the effect of other social and psychological factors (e.g., those related to drug rehabilitation counseling) upon drug-use recidivism. The Intensive Supervision Program (ISP) in New Jersey was chosen because participants were aware that new drug-use incidents would most likely result in a return to prison. The main hypotheses of this study maintained that drug use in ISP was an inverse function of both the degree to which participants preferred ISP to prison and of the participants' belief that drug use would result in a return to prison.

The Intensive Supervision Program (ISP) was chosen for this study because participants in ISP were generally aware that new drug-use incidents would result in punishment, possibly including a return to prison. All participants who entered the program between January 1, 1989, and April 30, 1990, were potential interviewees. Interviews were conducted a few weeks after the individual's arrival in the program. The aim was to interview participants once they had begun to settle into the program, but before any drug-use recidivism had occurred. Follow-up interviews were conducted when the participant either relapsed or successfully completed a year drug-free.

All individuals who entered the Intensive Supervision Program in New Jersey between January 1, 1989, and April 30, 1990, were interviewed.

Individuals in the Intensive Supervision Program in New Jersey.

Individuals.

personal interviews

survey data

Interviews covered participants' feelings about the Intensive Supervision Program, risk of and reasons for drug-use recidivism, and history of alcohol and drug use.

Successful baseline interviews were completed with 516, or 94.5 percent, of the 546 felons. Follow-up interviews were conducted and completed with 128 out of 158, or 81 percent, of participants who tested positive for drugs and 38 out of 76, or 50 percent, of those who screened positive for alcohol. Of the program participants who had no positive urine screens for at least a year, follow-up interviews were conducted and completed with 84 out of 107, or 78.5 percent.

Several Likert-type scales were used.

1993-10-02

2002-06-27

2018-02-15 The citation of this study may have changed due to the new version control system that has been implemented. The previous citation was:
  • Pearson, Frank S. DETERRING DRUG USE WITH INTENSIVE PROBATION IN NEW JERSEY, 1989-1990. ICPSR version. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Department of Sociology, Institute for Criminological Research [producer], 1990. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2002. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09919.v1

2002-06-27 The user guide and codebook were converted from ASCII to PDF and combined into one file.

1993-10-02 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:

  • Performed consistency checks.
  • 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.

  • The citation of this study may have changed due to the new version control system that has been implemented.
NACJD logo

This dataset is maintained and distributed by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), the criminal justice archive within ICPSR. NACJD is primarily sponsored by three agencies within the U.S. Department of Justice: the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.