Search results

Showing 1 – 50 of 241 results.

Curated

Restricted

Addressing Violence Towards Youth and Young Adults in Indigenous Communities: A Tribal-Research Partnership, United States, 2022-2023 (ICPSR 39178)

Released/updated on: 2025-12-02

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2022-01-01--2024-07-01

Through a new tribal program and researcher partnership, this study aimed to answer the questions: what does violence look like to Native youth, and how do Native youth experience resilience and how can that resilience be strengthened? Through the use of two theoretical frameworks, Galtung's Basic Human Needs and the Socio-Ecological model, these questions were explored.

The work from this project was threefold, first this was a capacity-building grant. Therefore, the central goal was to establish a new tribal program partnership between Native Women's Society of the Great Plains (NWS), led by researchers from the University of South Dakota (USD) and researchers from the University of Colorado Colorado Springs (UCCS). Together they worked to identify additional members who would be part of the study design, implementation, analysis, and dissemination. Project partners ranged in age and geographic location. Participants from NWS, USD, and UCCS worked collaboratively to meet the additional goals of this project.

The second goal was to explore an issue of concern to NWS across the Great Plains Region using the community based participatory research approach. From previous discussions between the researchers and NWS team, vulnerability to violence begins in youth, and therefore was of particular interest to Native people of the Great Plains Region. Thus, USD, NSW, and UCCS developed and applied for the Tribal-Research Capacity-Building Grant together.

The third goal was to identify a priority matter from the data collected on this project and collaborate on a subsequent grant application.

To meet these three overarching goals, five objectives were mapped out for this project. These included the following:

Objective 1: Develop a communication strategy among the partnership agency members to advance capacity and enable meaningful conversations about difficult topics.
Objective 2: Develop an answer to the question "what is violence?" for this population.
Objective 3: To understand how these different sources of violence interact with the human needs identified under objective 2 to create patterned vulnerabilities (or susceptibilities).
Objective 4: To address how resilience works within the developed model.
Objective 5: To extend capacity building in the broader Indigenous communities of the Great Plains through bidirectional communication and information sharing.

Curated

Anticipating Community Drug Problems in Washington, DC, and Portland, Oregon, 1984-1990 (ICPSR 9924)

Released/updated on: 1994-02-17

Geographic coverage: Oregon, District of Columbia, United States, Portland (Oregon)

Time period: 1984-01-01--1990-01-01

This study examined the use of arrestee urinalysis results as a predictor of other community drug problems. A three-stage public health model was developed using drug diffusion and community drug indicators as aggregate measures of individual drug use careers. Monthly data on drug indicators for Washington, DC, and Portland, Oregon, were used to: (1) estimate the correlations of drug problem indicators over time, (2) examine the correlations among indicators at different stages in the spread of new forms of drug abuse, and (3) estimate lagged models in which arrestee urinalysis results were used to predict subsequent community drug problems. Variables included arrestee drug test results, drug-overdose deaths, crimes reported to the local police department, and child maltreatment incidents. Washington variables also included drug-related emergency room episodes. The unit of analysis was months covered by the study. The Washington, DC, data consist of 78 records, one for each month from April 1984 through September 1990. The Portland, Oregon, data contain 33 records, one for each month from January 1988 through September 1990.

Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Project in Rural Nebraska, 1998 (ICPSR 28141)

Released/updated on: 2011-01-28

Geographic coverage: Omaha, United States, Nebraska

Time period: 1998-10-01--1998-11-01

A pilot outreach project of the National Intstitute of Justice's Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program, the rural Nebraska ADAM program examined the prevalence and type of arrestee drug use in four rural Nebraska counties and compared the results to those found in Omaha, Nebraska, an established ADAM site. The data were collected in Madison (n=78), Dawson (n=50), Hall (n=53), and Scotts Bluff (n=149) counties, and Omaha, Nebraska, (n=202) in October and November of 1998. The catchment area for Omaha was the central city. The ADAM interview provided demographic and descriptive data, including race, age, marital status, source of income, screens of substance abuse and dependency, treatment history, arrest and incarceration experiences, and participation in local drug markets. At the conclusion of the interview, respondents were asked to provide a urine specimen. The current study included a supplemental questionnaire about methamphetamine use. The methamphetamine addendum included variables on why the respondent began and continued the use of methamphetamines, how often and how much methamphetamine was used, if and why the respondent had ever sought and completed treatment, source of the methamphetamine, and if the respondent had ever made or sold methamphetamine.

Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2007 (ICPSR 25821)

Released/updated on: 2010-01-28

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis

Time period: 2007-04-01--2007-09-01

The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) II program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, the ONDCP and Abt Associates have initiated a new data collection that replicates the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. A total of 8,296 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2007. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.

Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2008 (ICPSR 27221)

Released/updated on: 2010-03-31

The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc. have initiated a new data collection that replicates the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implements two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collects data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. Data collection has been conducted across two back-to-back quarters in each of 10 counties from a county-based representative sample of 250 male arrestees per quarter for a total of 500 arrestees annually per site or a total of 5,000 arrestees across sites annually. A total of 7,717 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2008. Collection occurs in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2007 and ending March 31, 2008. Additional data collection periods were optioned by ONDCP, and subsequent cycles of back-to-back data collection (not yet available) began April 1, 2008. Participation is voluntary and confidential, and the procedures include a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.

Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2009 (ICPSR 30061)

Released/updated on: 2011-02-24

The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc., initiated a new data collection that replicated the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. A total of 7,794 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2009. Collection occurred in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2009, and ending September 30, 2009. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.

Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2010 (ICPSR 32321)

Released/updated on: 2011-11-04

The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc., initiated a new data collection that replicated the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. A total of 8,332 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2010. Collection occurred in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2010, and ending September 30, 2010. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.

Curated

Assessing the Texas Christian University Drug Screen Instrument with Texas Department of Criminal Justice Inmates, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3541)

Released/updated on: 2003-06-05

Geographic coverage: United States, Texas

Time period: 1999-01-01--2000-01-01

The overall purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties and credibility of the Texas Christian University (TCU) Drug Screen as an instrument to assess drug use severity for treatment referral decisions in correctional settings. TCU Drug Screen data were collected on 18,364 Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) inmates (15,816 males and 2,548 females) who completed the screen between January 1 and April 30, 1999. Of the 18,364 subjects, 13,902 were Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID) inmates and 4,462 were State Jail Division (TDCJ-SJD) inmates. The TCU Drug Screen was administered by TDCJ staff almost exclusively in a small group setting (12-25 inmates per group) as part of a larger battery of assessments during the intake process at a TDCJ facility. The level and intensity of treatment services needed was then determined and a referral decision was made. As part of this study, the relationship between TCU Drug Screen information and post-release reincarceration was examined. Although one original goal in the study was to assess the comparability, or concurrent validity, of the TCU Drug Screen with the lengthier, more comprehensive Addiction Severity Index (ASI), TDCJ changed the administration protocol for the ASI so that it was given only to a subsample of 3,245 inmates who failed to disclose drug use problems on the TCU Drug Screen. The data include inmate responses to all items of the TCU Drug Screen and the overall drug screen score. There is also demographic information as well as incarceration, release, and reincarceration data.

Curated

Breaking the Cycle of Drugs and Crime in Birmingham, Alabama, Jacksonville, Florida, and Tacoma, Washington, 1997-2001 (ICPSR 3928)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: Tacoma, United States, Alabama, Florida, Birmingham, Jacksonville, Washington

Time period: 1997-01-01--2001-01-01

This study was an evaluation of the Breaking the Cycle (BTC) demonstration projects conducted in Birmingham, Alabama, Jacksonville, Florida, and Tacoma, Washington, between 1997 and 2001. The BTC demonstrations tested the feasibility and impact of systemwide interventions to reduce drug use among offenders by identifying and intervening with drug-involved felony defendants. This study contains data collected as part of the impact evaluation of BTC, which was designed to test the hypotheses that BTC reduced criminal involvement, substance abuse, and problems related to the health, mental health, employment, and families of felony drug defendants in the demonstration sites. The evaluation examined the relationship between changes in these areas and characteristics of the participants, the kinds and levels of services and supervision they received, and perceptions of defendants about the justice system's handling of their cases. It also assessed how BTC affected case handling and the length of time required to reach a disposition, the number of hearings, and the kinds of sentences imposed. The impact evaluation was based on a quasi-experimental comparison of defendants in BTC with samples of similar defendants arrested in the year before BTC implementation. Interviews were conducted with sample members and additional data were gathered from administrative records sources, such as the BTC programs, arrest records, and court records.

Curated

Restricted

Building Healthy Relationships: An Evaluation of the Fourth R Curriculum with Middle School Students in Bronx, NY (2010-2012) (ICPSR 35255)

Released/updated on: 2017-06-09

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 2010-09-01--2012-06-01

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This study seeks to test the Fourth R curriculum, a curriculum that seeks to build relationship knowledge and skills, with a younger, urban population of middle school students in the Bronx, New York. Utilizing a randomized controlled trial design, this study tests the effectiveness of the Fourth R curriculum with seventh-grade students drawn from ten public middle schools in the Bronx, New York. A secondary quasi-experimental study seeks to examine diffusion of program impacts by comparing outcomes between students assigned to the experimental control sample and students in three comparison schools where no one received the Fourth R.

The study seeks to measure program impact on five primary and three secondary domains. Primary program impact domains include:

Dating violence (victimization and perpetration)
Sexual harassment/assault (victimization and perpetration)
Peer violence/bullying (victimization and perpetration)
Sexual activity
Drug and alcohol use

Secondary outcomes, which are targeted by the Fourth R curriculum, but are not the core program focus, include:

Perceived school safety
Positive beliefs (e.g., anti-fighting/violence, rejection of gender stereotypes)
Pro-social behaviors

This study achieved their goals through student surveys, administrator and teacher interviews, and student focus groups.

Curated

Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities, 1990 (ICPSR 9908)

Released/updated on: 2001-12-21

Geographic coverage: United States

This census is the fourth enumeration of state adult correctional institutions and the first of federal institutions sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and conducted by the Bureau of the Census. Earlier censuses were completed in 1974 (ICPSR 7811), 1979 (ICPSR 7852), and 1984 (ICPSR 8444). Separate questionnaires were devised for confinement facilities and for community-based facilities. Variables describing the facilities include physical security, age, functions, capacity, confinement space, available medical facilities, programs, inmate/resident work assignments, staff employment, facilities under court order/consent decree for conditions of confinement, capital and operating expenditures, custody level of inmates/residents, one-day count and average daily population, race/ethnicity of inmates/residents, inmate/resident deaths, special inmate/resident counts, and assaults and incidents by inmates. An addendum on drug control activities in state and federal facilities was included for the first time in the 1990 census. Facilities were asked to provide information on the following: procedures used with inmates/residents, visitors, and staff to keep out illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia, inmate/resident drug-testing practices, including the criteria for testing inmates/residents, the number of inmates/residents tested in total and by specific drug, and the number that tested positive, staff drug testing, including groups and basis for testing, number tested, and procedures when tests were positive, and capacity and enrollment in various types of drug treatment and intervention programs.

Curated

Changing Patterns of Drug Abuse and Criminality Among Crack Cocaine Users in New York City, 1988-1989 (ICPSR 9670)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 1984-01-01--1989-12-01

This collection examines the characteristics of users and sellers of crack cocaine and the impact of users and sellers on the criminal justice system and on drug treatment and community programs. Information was also collected concerning users of drugs other than crack cocaine and the attributes of those users. Topics covered include initiation into substance use and sales, expenses for drug use, involvement with crime, sources of income, and primary substance of abuse. Demographic information includes subject's race, educational level, living area, social setting, employment status, occupation, marital status, number of children, place of birth, and date of birth. Information was also collected about the subject's parents: education level, occupation, and place of birth.

Curated

Changing Patterns of Drug Abuse and Criminality Among Crack Cocaine Users in New York City: Criminal Histories and Criminal Justice System Processing, 1983-1984, 1986 (ICPSR 9790)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 1983-01-01--1984-01-01

This data collection compares a sample of persons arrested for offenses related to crack cocaine with a sample arrested for offenses related to powdered cocaine. The collection is one of two parts of a study designed to examine the characteristics of crack users and sellers, the impact of large numbers of crack-related offenders on the criminal justice system, and their effects on drug treatment and community programs. Official arrest records and supplementary data bases are used to analyze the official arrest, conviction, and incarceration histories of powdered cocaine and crack defendants. Questions addressed by the collection include: (1) How are defendants charged with crack-related offenses different from defendants charged with offenses related to powdered cocaine? (2) Is there a difference between the ways the criminal justice system handles crack offenders and powdered cocaine offenders in pretrial detention, charges filed, case dispositions, and sentencing? (3) How do the criminal careers of crack offenders compare with the criminal careers of powdered cocaine offenders, especially in terms of total arrest rates, frequencies of nondrug crimes, and frequencies of violent crimes? (4) Is violence more strongly associated with crack dealing than with powdered cocaine dealing? and (5) How does the developmental history of powdered cocaine sales and possession compare with the history of crack sales and possession? Variables include demographic information such as gender, residence, and race, arrest, conviction, and incarceration histories, prior criminal record, community ties, and court outcomes of the arrests.

Curated

Restricted

A Comprehensive Evaluation of a Drug Market Intervention Training Cohort in Roanoke, Virginia; Jacksonville, Florida; and Guntersville, Alabama, 2011-2013. (ICPSR 36322)

Released/updated on: 2016-09-27

Geographic coverage: United States, Guntersville, Alabama, Florida, Roanoke, Virginia, Jacksonville

Time period: 2011-01-01--2012-01-01, 2011-01-01--2012-01-01

The Drug Market Intervention (DMI) has been identified as a promising practice for disrupting overt-drug markets, reducing the crime and disorder associated with drug sales, and improving police-community relations. Montgomery County, Maryland; Flint, Michigan; Guntersville, Alabama; Lake County, Indiana; Jacksonville, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Roanoke, Virginia applied for and received DMI training and technical assistance from Michigan State University in 2010 and 2011. This study followed the seven sites that were trained in the program to determine how the program was implemented, how the DMI affected the targeted drug market, whether the program affected crime and disorder, whether the program improved police-community relations, and how much the program cost.

Curated

Crack, Powder Cocaine, and Heroin: Drug Purchase and Use Patterns in Six Cities in the United States, 1995-1996 (ICPSR 2564)

Released/updated on: 2012-08-22

Geographic coverage: New York City, Oregon, District of Columbia, San Diego, San Antonio, United States, Chicago, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), California, New York (state)

Time period: 1995-01-01--1996-01-01

This study was designed to address the practical and policy implications of various drug market participation patterns. In 1995, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) collaborated on a project called the Procurement Study. This study was executed as an addendum to NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]) with the goal of extending previous research in which heroin users were interviewed on various aspects of drug market activity. The present study sought to explore additional features of drug market participation and use, both within and across drug types and cities, and included two additional drugs -- powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Data were collected from recently arrested users of powder cocaine, crack cocaine, and heroin in six DUF cities (Chicago, New York, Portland, San Diego, San Antonio, and Washington, DC). Each of the three files in this collection, Crack Data (Part 1), Heroin Data (Part 2), and Powder Cocaine Data (Part 3), is comprised of data from a procurement interview, urine test variables, and a DUF interview. During the procurement interview, information was collected on purchase and use patterns for specific drugs. Variables from the procurement interview include the respondent's method of using the drug, the term used to refer to the drug, whether the respondent bought the drug in the neighborhood, the number of different dealers the respondent bought the drug from, how the respondent made the connection with the dealer (i.e., street, house, phone, beeper, business/store, or friends), their main drug source, whether the respondent went to someone else if the source was not available, how the respondent coped with not being able to find drugs to buy, whether the respondent got the drug for free, the means by which the respondent obtained money, the quantity and packaging of the drug, and the number of minutes spent searching for, traveling to, and waiting for their last purchase. 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). Data from the DUF interview provide 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. Demographic data include the age, race, sex, educational attainment, marital status, employment status, and living circumstances of each respondent.

Curated

Partially restricted

Criminal Behavior of Gangs in Aurora and Denver, Colorado, and Broward County, Florida: 1993-1994 (ICPSR 2626)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: Aurora, United States, Colorado, Denver, Florida

Time period: 1993-01-01--1994-01-01

This study was undertaken to measure the criminal behavior of gangs, including their involvement in delinquent behavior such as drug use and drug trafficking activities, and to compare gang behavior with that of youth who were at risk, but who had not yet become active in gangs. The project assessed the role that gangs play in the lives of youth whose living conditions are otherwise comparable. In order to study the criminal behavior of gangs, investigators sought to interview 50 gang members and 50 non-gang, at-risk youth at two sites in Colorado and one site in Florida. A large portion of the interview questions asked in both the gang member interview and the at-risk youth interview were parallel. The following variables appear in both the gang member and at-risk youth files (Parts 1 and 2 respectively) created for this data collection: gang popularity variables (respondents' perceptions of the positive and negative attributes of a gang, and why gangs endure over time), drug involvement variables (whether respondents or fellow members/friends sold various types of drugs, why selling drugs increases a person's "juice", the drug source organization, and where they traveled to get the drugs), criminal history variables (the reasons why respondents believed they were able to get away with crimes, their first arrest age, and their most serious arrest charge), personal activity variables (whether respondents or fellow members/friends participated in dances, sporting events, fighting, drug use or selling, shoplifting, assaulting people, or burglarizing homes), variables concerning the future (whether respondents would join a gang again/join a gang today, why some gangs survive and others don't, and how respondents see their future), and demographic variables (respondents' age, sex, race, city, neighborhood, school, school status, type of work, marital status, and relationship with parent(s)). In addition, Part 1, the Gang Member Data, contains gang status variables (gang symbols, gang nickname, gang turf, and how members define a gang) and gang membership variables (roles of the respondents within the gang, why members join a gang, what the most important gang rule is, and what happens to those who refuse the gang). Part 2, At-Risk Youth Data, contains additional variables on gang contact (the names of gangs who had approached the respondents, methods used to try to get the youths to join, how the youths refused the gang, and what happened as a result of refusing) and prevention (how at-risk youth would advise a young person to react if approached by a gang, and what the youths felt was the best way to prepare children to deal with gangs).

Curated

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): National Criminal Justice Treatment Program (NCJTP) Survey in the United States, 2002-2008 (ICPSR 27382)

Released/updated on: 2010-08-09

Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States

Time period: 2002-01-01--2008-01-01

The National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices (NCJTP) Survey provides a comprehensive inquiry into the nature of programs and services provided to adult and juvenile offenders involved in the justice system in the United States. Participants included key criminal justice administrators, operations managers, and staff. This survey was conducted in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey involved a myriad of state, regional, and local organizations employing a mix of their own staff and contracted personnel, and services that might involve multiple levels of government. It was a self-administrated, paper-and-pencil questionnaire. The methodology included a multilevel approach that captured the perspective of executives, front-line administrators, and line staff about current practices in a range of institutional and community correctional settings for adults and juveniles. The goals for this survey were: to describe current drug treatment practices, policies, and delivery systems for offenders on probation or parole supervision, and in jails, prisons, and youth institutions; to examine agency structures, resources, and other organizational factors that may affect service delivery, including mission, leadership, climate, culture, and beliefs about rehabilitation versus punishment; and to assess coordination and integration across criminal justice agencies and between corrections and treatment systems. Items in the survey included: respondent characteristics, organizational characteristics, correctional programs characteristics (e.g., size, nature, etc.), substance abuse treatment programs characteristics, social networks/agencies collaboration, integration of services with other agencies, attitudes toward punishment and rehabilitation (personal values), organizational needs assessment, organizational culture and climate for treatment, cynicism toward change, organizational commitment to treatment, and perspectives on intradepartmental coordination.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Delaware Opioid Metric Intelligence Project (DOMIP), 2013-2020 (ICPSR 38317)

Released/updated on: 2022-09-14

Geographic coverage: United States, Delaware

Time period: 2013-01-01--2020-01-01

The Delaware Opioid Metric Intelligence Project (DOMIP) provides community surveillance capabilities in Delaware to help reduce its prescription and illicit drug problems. DOMIP achieves this by integrating data on overdose deaths, crime, population characteristics and community resources into a user-friendly web application called the DOMIP Mapping app.

Curated

Developing Methods for Assessing Outcomes of Law and Policy on Drug Trafficking Offenders, Organizations, and Criminal Justice Responses, United States, 2000-2018 (ICPSR 38441)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-27

Geographic coverage: Tacoma, Seattle, United States, California, Bellevue, Washington

Time period: 2000-01-01--2018-12-31

This project sought to gather and analyze data on the effects of marijuana legalization from primary and secondary data sources that are both local and national in scope, and at both the individual and aggregate level. Since 1996, 37 states have passed statutes legalizing marijuana for medical and/or recreational use, while it has remained illegal under federal law. Jurisdictional and temporal variation in law creates a complex environment and substantial challenges for police and prosecutors charged with enforcement, and little is known about the justice system processing, public safety, and public health outcomes of evolving laws and policies.

Secondary criminal justice and public health data were gathered from federal, state, and local sources. Each source has a sufficiently long time series to provide statistical power and to allow for sometimes gradual implementation. The design exploits geographic and temporal variation in the implementation of marijuana law, using a difference-in-differences design that compares outcomes in states which implemented the policies with states that did not, before and after implementation.

Curated

Development of a New Measure of Adolescent Dating Aggression (ADA): National Norms with a Focus on Marginalized Youth, United States, 2019-2020 (ICPSR 37664)

Released/updated on: 2023-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2019-02-01--2020-12-01

This study collection was formed from two distinct data collection periods and respondent samples to test and validate a newly formed measure regarding adolescent dating abuse (ADA). The new measure named MARSHA (Measure of Adolescent Relationship Harassment and Abuse) reflects ADA from the both the perspectives of victim and perpetrator through the use of 39 pairs of questions on the topics of physical, sexual, emotional, and cyber abuse. The hope for this study was to allow researchers, clinicians, and practitioners, in a wide variety of settings and for multiple purposes, ability to assess the prevalence of ADA in a nation, state or neighborhood; conducting etiological research on ADA; evaluating ADA prevention programs; or screening youth for ADA in clinical or criminal justice settings.

Curated

Drug Abuse as a Predictor of Rearrest or Failure to Appear in Court in New York City, 1984 (ICPSR 9979)

Released/updated on: 2000-04-18

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 1984-04-01--1984-10-01

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).

Curated

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), 1994: [United States] (ICPSR 2756)

Released/updated on: 2014-08-13

Geographic coverage: United States

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) survey is designed to capture data on emergency department (ED) episodes that are induced by or related to the use of an illicit, prescription, or over-the-counter drug. For purposes of this collection, a drug "episode" is an ED visit that was induced by or related to the use of an illegal drug or the nonmedical use of a legal drug for patients aged six years and older. A drug "mention" refers to a substance that was mentioned during a drug-related ED episode. Because up to four drugs can be reported for each drug abuse episode, there are more mentions than episodes in the data. Individual persons may also be included more than once in the data. Within each facility participating in DAWN, a designated reporter, usually a member of the emergency department or medical records staff, was responsible for identifying drug-related episodes and recording and submitting data on each case. An episode report was submitted for each patient visiting a DAWN emergency department whose presenting problem(s) was/were related to their own drug use. DAWN produces estimates of drug-related emergency department visits for 50 specific drugs, drug categories, or combinations of drugs, including the following: acetaminophen, alcohol in combination with other drugs, alprazolam, amitriptyline, amphetamines, aspirin, cocaine, codeine, diazepam, diphenhydramine, fluoxetine, heroin/morphine, inhalants/solvents/aerosols, LSD, lorazepam, marijuana/hashish, methadone, methamphetamine, and PCP/PCP in combination with other drugs. The use of alcohol alone is not reported. The route of administration and form of drug used (e.g., powder, tablet, liquid) are included for each drug. Data collected for DAWN also include drug use motive and total drug mentions in the episode, as well as race, age, patient disposition, reason for ED visit, and day of the week, quarter, and year of episode.

Curated

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), 1997: [United States] (ICPSR 2834)

Released/updated on: 2014-08-13

Geographic coverage: United States

Curated

Drug Offender Treatment in Local Corrections in California and New York, 1991-1993 (ICPSR 6628)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States, California, New York (state)

Time period: 1991-01-01--1993-01-01

The purpose of this multisite program evaluation project was to provide detailed and systematic descriptions of participants and treatment program components for a sample of five drug treatment programs in local jails. Three of the programs were located in California: Jail Education and Treatment (JET), Deciding, Educating, Understanding, Counseling, and Evaluation (DEUCE), and Rebuilding, Educating, Awareness, Counseling, and Hope (REACH). Two programs were in New York State: Substance Abuse Intervention Division (SAID) and New Beginnings. The project was aimed at assessing program completion rates as well as 12-month post-release recidivism for program participants versus matched controls. Background information obtained about the participating offenders includes sex, race, age, education, marital status, and employment status, as well as history of drug use, previous drug treatment, mental illness, inpatient/outpatient episodes, and offenses and sentencing. Additional data cover program location, dates of release from the program and from jail, type of program termination, type of residence upon release, and anticipated post-custody treatment. Information on each conviction/disposition was obtained through state criminal information systems, and state-level criminal history data (rap sheets) were collected for both the treatment and comparison groups. The unit of analysis is arrest events.

Curated

Drugs, Alcohol, and Student Crime in the United States, April-May 1989 (ICPSR 9585)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1989-04-01--1989-05-01

This project examined different aspects of campus crime -- specifically, the prevalence of crimes among college students, whether the crime rate was increasing or decreasing on college campuses, and the factors related to campus crime. Researchers made the assumption that crimes committed by and against college students were likely to be related to drug and alcohol use. Specific questions designed to be answered by the data include: (1) Do students who commit crimes differ in their use of drugs and alcohol from students who do not commit crimes? (2) Do students who are victims of crimes differ in their use of drugs and alcohol from students who are not victims? (3) How do multiple offenders differ from single offenders in their use of drugs and alcohol? (4) How do victims of violent crimes differ from victims of nonviolent crimes in their use of drugs and alcohol? (5) What types of student crimes are more strongly related to drug or alcohol use than others? (6) Other than drug and alcohol use, in what ways can victims and perpetrators of crimes be differentiated from students who have had no direct experiences with crime? Variables include basic demographic information, academic information, drug use information, and experiences with crime since becoming a student.

Curated

Restricted

The Dynamic Context of Teen Dating Violence in Adolescent Relationships, Baltimore, Maryland, 2014-2016 (ICPSR 36869)

Released/updated on: 2018-05-23

Geographic coverage: Baltimore, United States, Maryland

Time period: 2014-01-01--2016-01-01

Teenage adolescent females residing in Baltimore, Maryland who were involved in a relationship with a history of violence were sought after to participate in this research study. Respondents were interviewed and then followed through daily diary entries for several months. The aim of the research was to understand the context regarding teen dating violence (TDV). Prior research on relationship context has not focused on minority populations; therefore, the focus of this project was urban, predominantly African American females.

The available data in this collection includes three SAS (.sas7bdat) files and a single SAS formats file that contains variable and value label information for all three data files. The three data files are:

final_baseline.sas7bdat (157 cases / 252 variables)
final_partnergrid.sas7bdat (156 cases / 76 variables)
hart_final_sas7bdata (7004 cases / 23 variables)

Curated

Dynamics of Retail Methamphetamine Markets in New York City, 2007-2009 (ICPSR 29821)

Released/updated on: 2014-01-06

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 2007-01-01--2009-12-31

The study was conducted to provide information about markets for, distribution of, and use of methamphetamine in New York City, both inside and outside of the MSM (men who have sex with men)/gay community. The study used Respondent Driven Sampling to recruit 132 methamphetamine market participants. Each respondent participated in a one to two hour structured interview combining both qualitative and quantitative responses. Each respondent was invited to recruit three additional eligible participants. Data collected included demographics, social network data, the respondent's market participation in obtaining and providing methamphetamine, consumption of methamphetamine, and experience with the criminal justice system and crime associated with participation in methamphetamine markets.

Curated

Effects of Drug Testing on Defendant Risk in Dade County, Florida, 1987 (ICPSR 9791)

Released/updated on: 1999-08-20

Geographic coverage: United States, Florida

Time period: 1987-06-09--1987-07-24

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.

Curated

Empirical Investigation of "Going to Scale" in Drug Interventions in the United States, 1990, 2003 (ICPSR 26101)

Released/updated on: 2009-08-26

Geographic coverage: United States

Despite a growing consensus among scholars that substance abuse treatment is effective in reducing offending, strict eligibility rules have limited the impact of current models of therapeutic jurisprudence on public safety. This research effort was aimed at providing policy makers some guidance on whether expanding this model to more drug-involved offenders is cost-beneficial. Since data needed for providing evidence-based analysis of this issue were not readily available, micro-level data from three nationally representative sources were used to construct a 40,320 case synthetic dataset -- defined using population profiles rather than sampled observation -- that was used to estimate the benefits of going to scale in treating drug involved offenders. The principal investigators combined information from the NATIONAL SURVEY ON DRUG USE AND HEALTH, 2003 (ICPSR 4138) and the ARRESTEE DRUG ABUSE MONITORING (ADAM) PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES, 2003 (ICPSR 4020) to estimate the likelihood of drug addiction or dependence problems and develop nationally representative prevalence estimates. They used information in the DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT OUTCOME STUDY (DATOS), 1991-1994 (ICPSR 2258) to compute expected crime reducing benefits of treating various types of drug involved offenders under four different treatment modalities. The project computed expected crime reducing benefits that were conditional on treatment modality as well as arrestee attributes and risk of drug dependence or abuse. Moreover, the principal investigators obtained estimates of crime reducing benefits for all crimes as well as select sub-types. Variables include age, race, gender, offense, history of violence, history of treatment, co-occurring alcohol problem, criminal justice system status, geographic location, arrest history, and a total of 134 prevalence and treatment effect estimates and variances.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

An Evaluation of 24/7 Sobriety Program Implementation, North Dakota, 2001-2015 (ICPSR 37369)

Released/updated on: 2024-01-30

Geographic coverage: United States, North Dakota

Time period: 2001-01-01--2015-01-01

The 24/7 Sobriety Program was created in South Dakota in 2005 to reduce repeat driving under the influence (DUI) offenses and jail populations, with the idea being to compel DUI defendants to abstain from alcohol and/or drug use for a period of time (Jackley and Long, 2017). The evidence-based program works as a continuous monitoring program where DUI defendants submit to scheduled and/or random testing for controlled substances. If a participant does not appear for testing or tests positive, they are subject to swift, certain, proportional, and consistent sanctions (e.g., immediate short-term incarceration). Compliant participants receive immediate positive feedback. As of March 2017, 24/7 Sobriety programs were authorized in 9 states: South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Utah, and Alaska.

In this study, the research team examined the implementation of the 24/7 Sobriety program in South Dakota, Montana, North Dakota, Jacksonville (Duval County), Florida, and Yavapai County, Arizona. The researchers sought to answer questions about the program's mechanics and effectiveness across several states, and to illuminate what aspects of program delivery are central to achieving outcomes that are relevant to criminal justice researchers and practitioners, such as recidivism, public safety, and alternatives to incarceration. This multi-site, mixed-methods evaluation consisted of secondary analysis of administrative program data and arrest records from North Dakota, case studies of pilot programs in Jacksonville and Yavapai County involving stakeholder interviews and on-site observations, and secondary analysis of breathalyzer test results from South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana.

The North Dakota 24/7 Sobriety implementation and outcomes data are a county-by-month panel of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) arrest events compiled from state Department of Transportation reports and a set of variables based on restricted 24/7 Sobriety program data describing program implementation by county in North Dakota from 2008 to 2015, with pre-program arrest data dating back to 2001.

Curated

Evaluation of Arizona Pretrial Services Drug Testing Programs, 1987-1989 (ICPSR 9807)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12

Geographic coverage: United States, Arizona

Time period: 1987-01-01--1989-01-01

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.

Curated

Restricted

Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Demonstration Programs, 2002-2006 (ICPSR 25741)

Released/updated on: 2015-01-20

Geographic coverage: United States, Washington

Time period: 2002-01-01--2006-01-01

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.

Curated

Evaluation of the Impact of System-Wide Drug Testing in Multnomah County, Oregon, 1991-1992 (ICPSR 2589)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States

Time period: 1991-01-01--1992-10-01

The Multnomah County Drug Testing and Evaluation (DTE) program was established to help clients rid themselves of drug abusing behavior. To that end, the DTE program provided random, weekly drug tests to all clients in the program. These urinalysis tests allowed DTE to monitor each client's compliance with release conditions and progress in treatment programs, and to intervene appropriately when a client showed signs of a drug abuse problem. The DTE program supplemented drug testing with client drug evaluations and treatment recommendations, which were provided to the client's probation officer or case manager. This study was a program evaluation of two of DTE's divisions: the Pretrial Release Supervision Program (PRSP) and the probation and parole program. The pretrial division was chosen because it was the first opportunity for the criminal justice system to supervise and control the drug use of potential DTE clients. The probation and parole program was selected for three reasons: it was the largest component of the DTE program, it linked the pretrial and post-sentence DTE programs, and the experience of this program could be readily applied to the development of other such programs in other jurisdictions. The programs were evaluated using administrative data collected by corrections technicians, case managers, probation and parole officers, and the DTE central office. Part 1 (Pretrial Data) variables include dates of entry into and exit from the program, number of drug tests, number of positive tests for various drugs, type of offense and arrest date for each offense, and need assessment rating for medical, employment, legal, family, psychological, and drug addiction problems. Part 2 (Probation and Parole Data) variables include a probation or parole indicator, prior drug arrests, prior non-drug arrests, prior convictions, technical violations, drug use, and new drug crimes committed during the program. Demographic variables for both files include age, race, and gender.

Curated

Evaluation of the Juvenile Breaking the Cycle Program in Lane County, Oregon, 2000-2002 (ICPSR 4339)

Released/updated on: 2006-09-21

Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States

Time period: 2000-04-01--2002-11-01

This study was conducted between April 15, 2000 and November 15, 2002 to evaluate the effects of the Juvenile Break the Cycle program (JBTC) in Lane County, Oregon on the interim and longer-term outcomes for juvenile offenders who were deemed high risk and had a history of alcohol and/or other drug use. The study was conducted using three waves of interviews as well as administrative data. The baseline interview was given to and administrative data were collected on 306 juveniles. The 6-month follow-up interview was completed by 208 juveniles and the 12-month follow-up interview was completed by 183 juveniles. Variables included in the study are history of alcohol and/or other drug use, diagnosis of mental health problems, history of previous contact with the juvenile justice system, substance abuse risk score, total risk score, and history of substance abuse treatment or mental health counseling. Variables related to JBTC include program assignment, the number of drug test administered between interviews, and the number of positive drug tests.

Curated

Evaluation of the New York City Department of Probation's Drug Treatment Initiative, 1991-1994 (ICPSR 2652)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 1991-01-01--1994-01-01

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).

Curated

Evaluation of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) Transit Police Serving a Vulnerable Entity (SAVE) Initiative, 2022-2023 (ICPSR 39658)

Released/updated on: 2026-04-16

Geographic coverage: United States, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Time period: 2022-06-01--2023-06-30

This study evaluated the Serving A Vulnerable Entity (SAVE) initiative operated by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) Transit Police. The initiative tested whether pairing a uniformed police officer with a contracted civilian outreach specialist increased the likelihood that individuals experiencing homelessness, addiction, mental illness, or other vulnerability conditions would accept transportation to a treatment or shelter facility. Variables include histories between SAVE participants and vulnerable individuals, primary condition of vulnerable individuals, reasons for refusing treatment, and reasons for unsuccessful transport. Race, gender, and relative age of vulnerable individuals were also collected.

Curated

Evaluation of the Washington, DC, Superior Court Drug Intervention Program, 1994-1998 (ICPSR 2853)

Released/updated on: 2000-12-04

Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States

Time period: 1994-01-01--1998-01-01

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 any time in jail or prison, and whether the respondent was ever physically or sexually abused. (6) Alcohol and drug use and treatment, specifically, the type of drug used (marijuana, crack cocaine, other cocaine, heroin, PCP, and LSD), whether alcohol was consumed, the amount of each that was typically used/consumed, and whether any rehabilitation programs were attended. (7) Other services, programs, and probation conditions, such as whether any services were received for emotional or mental health problems, if any medications were prescribed, and whether the respondent was required to participate in a mental health services program, vocational training program, educational program, or community service program.

Curated

Evaluation of the Weed and Seed Initiative in the United States, 1994 (ICPSR 6789)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

The Department of Justice launched Operation Weed and Seed in 1991 as a means of mobilizing a large and varied array of resources in a comprehensive, coordinated effort to control crime and drug problems and improve the quality of life in targeted high-crime neighborhoods. In the long term, Weed and Seed programs are intended to reduce levels of crime, violence, drug trafficking, and fear of crime, and to create new jobs, improve housing, enhance the quality of neighborhood life, and reduce alcohol and drug use. This baseline data collection effort is the initial step toward assessing the achievement of the long-term objectives. The evaluation was conducted using a quasi-experimental design, matching households in comparison neighborhoods with the Weed and Seed target neighborhoods. Comparison neighborhoods were chosen to match Weed and Seed target neighborhoods on the basis of crime rates, population demographics, housing characteristics, and size and density. Neighborhoods in eight sites were selected: Akron, OH, Bradenton (North Manatee), FL, Hartford, CT, Las Vegas, NV, Pittsburgh, PA, Salt Lake City, UT, Seattle, WA, and Shreveport, LA. The "neighborhood" in Hartford, CT, was actually a public housing development, which is part of the reason for the smaller number of interviews at this site. Baseline data collection tasks included the completion of in-person surveys with residents in the target and matched comparison neighborhoods, and the provision of guidance to the sites in the collection of important process data on a routine uniform basis. The survey questions can be broadly divided into these areas: (1) respondent demographics, (2) household size and income, (3) perceptions of the neighborhood, and (4) perceptions of city services. Questions addressed in the course of gathering the baseline data include: Are the target and comparison areas sufficiently well-matched that analytic contrasts between the areas over time are valid? Is there evidence that the survey measures are accurate and valid measures of the dependent variables of interest -- fear of crime, victimization, etc.? Are the sample sizes and response rates sufficient to provide ample statistical power for later analyses? Variables cover respondents' perceptions of the neighborhood, safety and observed security measures, police effectiveness, and city services, as well as their ratings of neighborhood crime, disorder, and other problems. Other items included respondents' experiences with victimization, calls/contacts with police and satisfaction with police response, and involvement in community meetings and events. Demographic information on respondents includes year of birth, gender, ethnicity, household income, and employment status.

Curated

Experiment to Enhance the Reporting of Drug Use by Arrestees in Cleveland, Detroit, and Houston, 1997 (ICPSR 2890)

Released/updated on: 2001-04-12

Geographic coverage: Detroit, United States, Texas, Ohio, Cleveland, Michigan, Houston

Time period: 1997-07-01--1997-11-01

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.

Curated

Exploring the Drugs-Crime Connection Within the Electronic Dance Music and Hip Hop Nightclub Scenes in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2005-2006 (ICPSR 21187)

Released/updated on: 2013-01-15

Geographic coverage: United States, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Time period: 2005-04-01--2006-12-01

To explore the relationship between alcohol, drugs, and crime in the electronic dance music and hip hop nightclub scenes of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, researchers utilized a multi-faceted ethnographic approach featuring in-depth interviews with 51 respondents (Dataset 1, Initial Interview Qualitative Data) and two Web-based follow-up surveys with respondents (Dataset 2, Follow-Up Surveys Quantitative Data). Recruitment of respondents began in April of 2005 and was conducted in two ways. Slightly more than half of the respondents (n = 30) were recruited with the help of staff from two small, independent record stores. The remaining 21 respondents were recruited at electronic dance music or hip hop nightclub events. Dataset 1 includes structured and open-ended questions about the respondent's background, living situation and lifestyle, involvement and commitment to the electronic dance music and hip hop scenes, nightclub culture and interaction therein, and experiences with drugs, criminal activity, and victimization. Dataset 2 includes descriptive information on how many club events were attended, which ones, and the activities (including drug use and crime/victimization experiences) taking place therein. Dataset 3 (Demographic Quantitative Data) includes coded demographic information from the Dataset 1 interviews.

Curated

Families As a Resource in Recovery From Drug Abuse in New York City, 1999-2001 (ICPSR 3490)

Released/updated on: 2005-01-11

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 1999-01-01--2001-01-01

This study examined La Bodega de la Familia, an experimental program for drug-abusing offenders and their families in New York City. The study evaluated the outcomes of substance abusers and their families who participated in La Bodega's family case management by comparing them to a group of similar families that did not participate in the program. Data were collected on 93 La Bodega participants and 88 comparison subjects. Data were gathered through structured interviews conducted when subjects entered the study and six months later. The first round of interviews was conducted from January 1999 through August 2000, and the second round was conducted between August 1999 and January 2001. The interviews were based on a standardized instrument that assessed self-reported physical and mental health, family functioning, and social support.

Curated

Gender, Mental Illness, and Crime in the United States, 2004 (ICPSR 27521)

Released/updated on: 2011-02-10

Geographic coverage: United States

The purpose of the study was to examine the gendered effects of depression, drug use, and treatment on crime and the effects of interaction with the criminal justice system on subsequent depression and drug use. The data for the study are from the NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ON DRUG USE AND HEALTH (NSDUH), 2004 [ICPSR 4373]. In addition to the 2004 NSDUH data, the study utilized new variables that were derived from the original dataset by the principal investigator, namely recoded variables, interaction variables, and computed indices. Information was provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 years and older. Respondents also provided detailed information regarding criminal activity, depression, and other factors. A total of 55,602 respondents participated in the study. The dataset contains a total of 3,011 variables. The first 2,690 variables are drawn from the 2004 NSDUH dataset and the remaining 321 variables were created by the principal investigator. Variables created by the principal investigator are manipulations of the first 2,690 variables. Specifically, these variables include depression indices, drug dependence indicators, interactions with gender and other demographic variables, and dichotomous recoded variables relating to types of drug abuse and criminal behavior.

Curated

Home Safety Project, 1987-1992: [Shelby County, Tennessee, King County, Washington, and Cuyahoga County, Ohio] (ICPSR 6898)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Tennessee, Ohio, Washington

Time period: 1987-01-01--1992-01-01

The Home Safety Project was a population-based case control study of homicide in the home with control households matched to cases by victim age range, race, gender, and neighborhood (a proxy for socioeconomic status). The study was conducted in the following locations: Shelby County, Tennessee (August 23, 1987-August 23, 1992), King County, Washington (August 23, 1987-August 23, 1992), and Cuyahoga County, Ohio (January 1, 1990-August 23, 1992). The purpose of the data collection was to study risk and protective factors for homicide in the home and to identify individual and household factors associated with homicide (both behavioral and environmental). Respondents were asked a series of questions related to alcohol consumption, such as whether drinking ever created problems between household members, whether any household members had had trouble at work because of drinking, whether any physical fights or other violence had occurred in the home or outside the home due to drinking, and whether any injuries or hospital stays had resulted from drinking/fighting episodes. Additional queries covered whether any adult in the household had ever been arrested for any reason, whether anyone in the household used illicit drugs, and, if so, which ones. Questions on home safety features included whether the home had a burglar alarm, bars on the windows, exterior door deadbolt, security door, dogs, and any restricted access to the residence. Items on gun ownership covered whether there were any guns in the home and, if so, what type. Information also was elicited on the homicide that had taken place in the home, including whether the suspect was intimate with the victim, whether there was evidence of forced entry or entry without consent, whether the victim attempted to resist, and the respondent's assumption of the method of death as well as the medical examiner's determination. Demographic information includes victims' age, sex, and race, and respondents' age and sex. The unit of analysis is individual cases of homicide.

Curated

Integrated Approaches to Manage Multi-Case Families in the Criminal Justice System in Maricopa County, Arizona, and Deschutes and Jackson Counties, Oregon, 1999-2005 (ICPSR 20358)

Released/updated on: 2009-07-31

Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Arizona

Time period: 1999-01-01--2005-01-01

The project goal was to collect data on approximately 100 Unified Family Court (UFC) cases at each of the three selected jurisdictions -- Maricopa County, Arizona, Deschutes County, Oregon, and Jackson County, Oregon -- that have developed systems to address the special needs of families with multiple court cases. The purpose of the study was to examine research questions related to: (1) dependency case processing and outcomes, (2) delinquency case processing and outcomes, (3) domestic relations/probate case processing and outcomes, and (4) criminal case processing and outcomes. The data used in this study were generated from a review of the court records of 602 families including 406 families served by the UFC as well as comparison groups of 196 non-UFC multi-case families. During the study's planning phase, an instrument was drafted for use in extracting this information. Data collectors were recruited from former UFC staff and current and former non-UFC court staff. All data collectors were trained by the principal investigator in the use of the data collection form. The vast majority of all data extraction required a manual review of paper files. Variables in this dataset are organized into the following categories: background variables, items from dependency/abuse and neglect filings, delinquency filings, domestic relations/probate filings, civil domestic violence/protection order filings, criminal domestic violence filings, criminal child abuse filings, other criminal filings, and variables from a summary across cases.

Curated

Integrating the Ion Mobility Spectrometer Into Drug Monitoring at the New Orleans Pretrial Diversion Program, 1996 (ICPSR 3213)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States, Louisiana, New Orleans

This project was designed to evaluate the use of a drug detection instrument, the ion mobility spectrometer (IMS), and to integrate its use into an ongoing pretrial diversion program for nonviolent, first-time, drug-abusing offenders. The Pretrial Diversion Program in Orleans Parish, Louisiana, targeted offenders with limited arrest histories of nonviolent felony or misdemeanor violations. The majority of eligible participants were violators of simple drug possession statutes, primarily crack/cocaine or marijuana. Persons charged with drug distribution offenses were not eligible. In order to qualify for diversion, persons had to admit guilt regarding the acts for which they were arrested. The program was entirely voluntary. One of the unique aspects of this program was its aggressive use of drug testing, including urinalysis and hair analysis. This project evaluated the ability of the IMS to provide complete drug profile information to supervising agencies and assessed its usefulness to field staff engaged in drug monitoring duties. The project was based on the premise that enhanced information on offenders diverted into this program could create or improve several key aspects of program operation, such as client assessment, monitoring of compliance and progress, dispositional decision-making, client motivation, and staff morale. The study was designed to integrate the IMS into the normal operation of the New Orleans Pretrial Diversion Program with as little modification of existing treatment and supervision protocols as possible. Each client in the diversion program underwent an intensive intake assessment including an intake radioimmunoassay (RIA) hair assay and an additional RIA hair assay every 60 days. Each client was urine-tested at intake and assigned to a random test pool. The modified protocol for the project added an IMS-based scan or a hair specimen, skin wipe, and ten-second vacuum scan of clothing, hands, and axillae at intake. At each subsequent visit each client had a repeat IMS scan utilizing a skin swab and a scan of clothing or body area. Variables include self-reported cocaine use, self-reported marijuana use, IMS date, urinalysis date, hair assay results, urinalysis results, IMS detection, nicotine use, maximum amplitude, delta, cumulative amplitude, number of detections, whether the IMS showed a positive result, and the age, sex, and race of the client.

Curated

Intra- and Intergenerational Aspects of Serious Domestic Violence and Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Buffalo, 1987 (ICPSR 9984)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12

Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state), Buffalo

These data examine the interrelationships among alcohol use, drug use, criminal violence, and domestic violence in a parolee population. More specifically, the data explore the contributions of parental substance abuse and domestic violence in prediction of parolee violence. The study also investigates the effects of drug and alcohol use on domestic violence for the parolee, the spouse, and the parents. The data were drawn from individual interviews conducted with parolees from the Buffalo, New York, area, half of whom were convicted of violent crimes and half of whom were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Interviews were also conducted with the spouses and partners of the parolees. In addition, data concerning the parolees' criminal histories were abstracted from arrest and parole records. Part 1, Demographic File 1, provides information on the demographic characteristics of offenders, arrests, convictions, and sentencing, institutional transfers, disciplinary reports, indications of psychiatric diagnosis or psychological disturbances, alcohol and drug use, criminal activity, and substance abuse while incarcerated. Part 2, Demographic File 2, includes the same variables as Part 1 (with the exception of information about psychiatric diagnoses, psychological disturbances, and disciplinary reports) for those individuals who declined to be interviewed and a random sample of those who could not be contacted. Part 3, the Interview File, contains information about childhood social histories (including sociodemographics, experience of family violence as a victim and as a witness, and parental drug and alcohol use), self-reported criminal histories, adult social histories (including data concerning violence in current relationships, and drug and alcohol use history), and information about the parolees' and spouses' discipline styles. The researchers discarded data on female parolees for the purposes of their analysis.

Curated

Monitoring Drug Epidemics and the Markets That Sustain Them, Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) and ADAM II Data, 2000-2003 and 2007-2010 (ICPSR 33201)

Released/updated on: 2012-12-13

Time period: 2000-01-01--2003-01-01, 2007-01-01--2010-01-01

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.

Curated

Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE), 2003-2009 (ICPSR 30983)

Released/updated on: 2012-11-05

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, New York, United States, Illinois, Georgia, Florida, Washington, South Carolina, Pennsylvania

Time period: 2004-02-01--2004-06-01, 2005-03-01--2006-06-01, 2005-08-01--2006-12-01, 2006-09-01--2008-01-01, 2006-09-01--2008-01-01

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.

Curated

Multisite Evaluation of Shock Incarceration: [Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas], 1987-1992 (ICPSR 6986)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Illinois, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

This study analyzes shock incarceration (boot camp) programs in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. In each state, offenders who participated in boot camps were compared with demographically similar offenders who were sentenced to prison, probation, or parole. The impact of shock incarceration on offenders was assessed in two major areas: (1) changes in offenders' attitudes, expectations, and outlook during incarceration (self-report/attitude data), and (2) performance during and adjustment to community supervision after incarceration (community supervision data). The self-report/attitude data include variables measuring criminal history, drinking and drug abuse, and attitudes toward the shock incarceration program, as well as demographic variables, such as age, race, employment, income, education, and military experience. The community supervision data contain information on offenders' behaviors during community supervision, such as arrests, absconding incidents, jail time, drug use, education and employment experiences, financial and residential stability, and contacts with community supervision officers, along with demographic variables, such as age and race. In addition to these key areas, more detailed data were collected in Louisiana, including a psychological assessment, a risk and needs assessment, and a community supervision follow-up at two different time periods (Parts 11-18). For most states, the subjects sampled in the self-report/attitude survey were different from those who were surveyed in the community supervision phase of data collection. Data collection practices and sample structures differed by state, and therefore the data files are organized to explore the impact of shock incarceration at the state level. For each state, the unit of analysis is the offender.

Curated

National Evaluation of Operation Drug Test, 1998-1999 (ICPSR 3259)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1998-01-01--1999-01-01

This study is an evaluation of Operation Drug TEST (ODT), a pretrial intervention program that was implemented in fiscal year 1997 in 25 of the 94 federal judicial districts in the United States. The name of the program, "TEST," is both a reference to testing and an acronym representing the program's three objectives: (1) Testing to identify drug-involved defendants before their first court appearance, (2) Effective Sanctions when defendants on release were found to be using drugs, and (3) Treatment referrals for drug-using defendants, as needed. The program was based on the view that drug testing, when closely linked to sanctions and treatment placements in response to ongoing drug use, can reduce drug use among defendants on pretrial release. The overall goal of the program was to deter drug use and its adverse consequences among defendants on pretrial release. The purposes of the evaluation were to describe the process of program implementation and to document ODT's impact on sanctioning and treatment. Data for this evaluation were gathered from official records collected from the ODT database, which was maintained by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC). Parts 1 and 2 contain data from fiscal year 1998 for initial drug tests and subsequent drug tests, respectively. Data from fiscal year 1999 (Parts 3 and 4) were divided into two groups, depending on the model of ODT implementation and the stage at which initial drug testing took place. DOJ and AOUSC determined that districts could choose to implement the program under either of two models. Model 1 (Part 3) followed the original concept, namely, initial testing at the pre-bail stage. In Model 2 (Part 4), the initial test was to occur as soon as possible after the defendant's first court appearance, if he/she was being released, but before release into the community. Variables unique to Part 1 include date of birth, arrest date, initial hearing date, hearing date, decision date, and release date. Variables for all parts include the district name, its circuit and office, which model a defendant conformed to, current or prior drug charges, and drug history. Additional variables for all parts include whether the defendant tested positive for amphetamines, cocaine, cannabis, opiates, PCP, and other drugs, whether testing had increased, type of test administered, if treatment was added or had increased, whether a test was taken by pretrial services or by a contractor, and if by pretrial services, where it was taken, testing devices used, whether an outside laboratory was used, and if results were reported to the court.