Partially restricted

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

Partially restricted

Released/updated on: 2016-09-27

Drug Use Forecasting in 24 Cities in the United States, 1987-1997 (ICPSR 9477)

Released/updated on: 1998-07-15

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1987-06-01--1997-12-01

The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program measures levels of and trends in drug use among persons arrested and booked in the United States. The data address the following topics: (1) types of drugs used by arrestees (based on self-reports and urinalysis), (2) self-reported dependency on drugs, (3) self-reported need for alcohol/drug treatment, (4) the relationship between drug use and certain types of offenses, and (5) the relationship between self-reported indicators of drug use and indicators of drug use based on urinalysis. Participation in the project is voluntary, and all information collected from the arrestees is anonymous and confidential. The data include the arrestee's age, race, gender, educational attainment, marital status, and the charge at the time of booking. The recently modified DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of the 1996 and 1997 data) also collected information about the arrestee's use of 15 drugs, including recent and past use (e.g., 3-day and 30-day drug use) of each of these drugs, age at first use, and whether the arrestee had ever been dependent on drugs. In the original DUF interview instrument (used for the 1987 to 1994 data and part of the 1995 data), the information collected was the same as above except that the use of 22 drugs was queried, and the age at which the arrestee first became dependent on the drug was included. Arrestees also were questioned in the original instrument about their history of intravenous drug use, whether the consideration of AIDS influenced whether they shared needles, history of drug and alcohol treatment, their past and current drug treatment needs, and how many persons they had sex with during the past 12 months. Finally, arrestees were asked to provide a urine specimen, which was 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). The Gun Addendum Data (Parts 27, 35, and 37) contain variables on topics such as arrestees' encounters with guns, whether they agreed or disagreed with statements about guns, gun possession, how they obtained handgun(s), whether they were armed with a gun at their arrest or during crimes, and if they had ever used a gun against another person. The Heroin Addendum Data, 1995 (Part 29) contains information that was formerly covered in the main annual file in 1992-1994, but in 1995 was revised and prepared as a separate dataset.

Curated

Effects of Legal Supervision of Chronic Addict Offenders in Southern California, 1974-1981 (ICPSR 9974)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, California

Time period: 1974-01-01--1981-01-01

This study examined the effects of timing and level of legal supervision in controlling antisocial behavior and promoting prosocial behavior in chronic addict offenders. The study sought to answer several questions: (1) What is the effect of legal supervision on the criminal behavior of addicts? (2) Does legal supervision have time-course effects? (3) What are the differential effects of varying types of legal supervision (e.g., probation, parole, urinalysis, higher or lower number of contacts per month)? Data were obtained by conducting retrospective interviews with four separate groups of subjects from four distinct research projects previously conducted in Southern California (McGlothlin, Anglin, and Wilson, 1977, Anglin, McGlothlin, and Speckart, 1981, Anglin, McGlothlin, Speckart, and Ryan, 1982, and McGlothlin and Anglin, 1981). The first group were male patients in the California Civil Addict Program, admitted in 1962-1964, who were interviewed for this survey in 1974-1975. The second group was a sample of addicts drawn from male first admissions between the years 1971-1973 from Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Orange County methadone maintenance programs. These respondents were interviewed during the years 1978-1979, an average of 6.6 years after admission. The third group consisted of male and female methadone maintenance patients selected from rosters of clients active on June 30, 1976, at clinics in Bakersfield and Tulare, California. These subjects were interviewed during 1978 and 1979, an average of 3.5 years after admission. The fourth group of subjects consisted of males and females who were active on September 30, 1978, at San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange County clinics and were interviewed during the years 1980-1981, an average of six years after their admission. Subjects included Anglo-American and Mexican-American males and females. The samples were generally representative of California methadone maintenance patients except for the second sample, which had been selected to study the impact of civil commitment parole status on the behavior of patients receiving methadone and was not necessarily representative of the overall population of admitted patients receiving methodone. Before the interview, a schematic time line on each offender was prepared, which included all known arrests and intervals of incarceration, legal supervision, and methadone treatment, based on criminal justice system and treatment program records. In discussion with the subject, the interviewer established the date of the first narcotics use on the time line, then proceeded chronologically through the time line, marking a change in narcotics use from less-than-daily use to daily use (or vice versa), or a change in the respondent's legal or treatment status, as a time interval. The interviewer repeated this process for successive intervals up through the date of the interview. Parts 1-8 consist of the interview data, with Forms 2 and 3 corresponding to the various intervals. There can be multiple intervals for each individual. Variables cover drug use, employment, criminal behavior, legal status, conditions of parole or probation, and drug treatment enrollment. Form 1 data contain background information on offenders, such as family and substance abuse history, and Form 4 data include other personal information as well as self-reported arrest and treatment histories. Parts 9 and 10, Master Data, were created from selected variables from the interview data. Parts 11 and 12, Arrest Data, were collected from official criminal justice records and describe each offender's arrests, such as month and year of arrest, charge, disposition, and arrest category. The datasets are split between the Southern California (Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange County, Bakersfield, Tulare, and Riverside) and San Diego clinic locations.

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

Estimating the Elasticities of Demand for Cocaine and Heroin with Data from 21 Cities from the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program, 1987-1991 (ICPSR 6567)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1987-01-01--1991-01-01

The objective of this research was to estimate the elasticity of the demand for cocaine and heroin with respect to the price. Price elasticity is the percentage of change in the dependent quantity corresponding to a one-percent change in price. The project involved the development of an econometric model to determine price elasticity, given that national- and city-level data on the consumption of cocaine and heroin are insufficient or nonexistent. The researchers circumvented this lack of data by partitioning the desired elasticity into the product of two elasticities, involving a measurable intermediate quantity whose relationship to the quantity of consumption could be modeled and estimated by measurable techniques. The intermediate quantity used for this project was the fraction of arrestees testing positive for cocaine or heroin as measured by the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) System. From the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA's) System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) data, expected purity was computed by regressing on log quantity and dummy variables for location and quarter. Price series were produced by finding the median standardized price per expected pure gram for each location and quarter. Variables for Part 1, National Data, include year, quarter, standardized prices for a gram of cocaine and a gram of heroin, and expected purity of cocaine and heroin. The Cities Data, Part 2, cover city, year, quarter, number of observations used to compute the median price of cocaine and heroin, standardized prices, and expected purity.

Curated

Partially restricted

Estimating the Flow of Methamphetamine and Other Synthetic Drugs from Quebec, Canada, 1999-2009 (ICPSR 35295)

Released/updated on: 2017-06-16

Geographic coverage: Canada, Quebec (province)

Time period: 1999-01-01--2009-01-01, 2007-06-01--2008-06-01

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.

In this study, researchers used capture-recapture sampling and multiple data sources to gauge the impact of drug trafficking in Quebec, Canada on the United States drug market. The main analyses were based on arrest data that were obtained for Quebec. In addition, analysis of the chemical composition and price assessments of the Quebec synthetic drugs was done.

The study includes one SPSS data file (Quebec Arrest Data (Synthetic Drugs Cases, September 2014; n=20261)-ICPSR.sav ; n=20,261 ; 13 variables) and one Excel data file (Chemical composition of seized synthetic drugs.xls ; n=365 ; 14 variables).

Spatial analyses of border seizure data was performed by the researchers, but these data are not available at this time. The data used for these analyses concerned synthetic drug seizures at Canadian borders from 2007 to 2012. The dataset was provided by the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA). For each seizure, the specific border crossing where the seizure was made was provided, as well as the value of the seizure (except for precursors), the country of origin and the type of drug seized. The types of drugs were classified into five types: (1) Precursors, (2) MDMA, (3) Amphetamine, (4) Methamphetamine and (5) Others. Most of the seizures (86.6 percent) were classified in this last category. The country of origin of the seizure was also provided.

Curated

Partially restricted

Evaluating a Presumptive Drug Testing Technology in Community Corrections Settings, 2011, Alabama, Florida and Wyoming (ICPSR 34494)

Released/updated on: 2016-04-12

Released/updated on: 2000-07-27

Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States

Time period: 1985-07-01--1986-06-01

This study examined differences in criminal career parameters that determine the potential incapacitative effects of alternative sentencing policies directed at drug-involved offenders. In particular, the researchers explored three key aspects of offenders' criminal careers: participation, frequency of offending, and termination rates from active offending. The study focused on differences in levels of serious offending by drug-using and nonusing drug offenders compared to drug-using and nonusing predatory offenders. Longitudinal arrest data for a sample of arrestees were collected to characterize the offending patterns of drug-using and nonusing drug offenders and predatory offenders. The sample was drawn from adults arrested in Washington, DC, on any charge from July 1, 1985, to June 30, 1986. Data were collected from case files maintained by the Washington, DC, Pretrial Services Agency for 883 arrestees and 5,387 arrests. Previous and subsequent arrests of the same individual were linked to form an arrest history. Within the sample of arrestees, three main types of offenders were distinguished based on offense charge at target arrest: (1) drug offenders, (2) predatory offenders (persons charged with robbery or burglary), and (3) all others. This study focused on the first two groups and distinguished drug users from non-users based on the results of a urine drug screen administered following the target arrest. Variables regarding arrests include date of arrest, drug test result, charges filed, disposition date, disposition type, and sentence length imposed. Demographic variables include race, sex, and place of birth.

Curated

Mandatory Drug offender Processing Data, 1986: Alaska, California, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia (ICPSR 9420)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Iowa, United States, Alaska, Minnesota, California, New York (state), Virginia, Nebraska

The National Consortium for Assessing Drug Control Initiatives, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance and coordinated by the Criminal Justice Statistics Association, collected drug offender processing data from eight states: Alaska, California, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia. The purpose of the project was to track adult drug offenders from the point of entry into the criminal justice system (typically by arrest) through final court disposition, regardless of whether the offender was released without trial, acquitted, or convicted. These data allow researchers to examine how the criminal justice system processes drug offenders, to measure the changing volume of drug offenders moving through the different segments of the criminal justice system, to calculate processing time intervals between major decision-making events, and to assess the changing structure of the drug offender population. For purposes of this project, a drug offender was defined as any person who had been charged with a felony drug offense. The data are structured into six segments pertaining to (1) record identification, (2) the offender (date of birth, sex, race, ethnic origin), (3) arrest information (date of arrest, age at arrest, arrest charge code), (4) prosecution information (filed offense code and level, prosecution disposition and date), (5) court disposition information (disposition offense and level, court disposition, final disposition date, final pleading, type of trial), and (6) sentencing information (sentence and sentence date, sentence minimum and maximum). Also included are elapsed time variables. The unit of analysis is the felony drug offender.

Curated

Mandatory Drug Offender Processing Data, 1987: New York (ICPSR 9565)

Released/updated on: 1997-08-25

Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state)

The National Consortium for Assessing Drug Control Initiatives, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance and coordinated by the Criminal Justice Statistics Association, collected drug offender processing data from the state of New York. The purpose of the project was to track adult drug offenders from the point of entry into the criminal justice system (typically by arrest) through final court disposition, regardless of whether the offender was released without trial, acquitted, or convicted. These data allow researchers to examine how the criminal justice system processes drug offenders, to measure the changing volume of drug offenders moving through the different segments of the criminal justice system, to calculate processing time intervals between major decision-making events, and to assess the changing structure of the drug offender population. For purposes of this project, a drug offender was defined as any person who had been charged with a felony drug offense. The data are structured into six segments pertaining to (1) record identification, (2) the offender (date of birth, sex, race, and ethnic origin), (3) arrest information (date of arrest, age at arrest, arrest charge code), (4) prosecution information (filed offense code and level, prosecution disposition and date), (5) court disposition information (disposition offense and level, court disposition, final disposition date, final pleading, type of trial), and (6) sentencing information (sentence and sentence date, sentence minimum and maximum). Also included are elapsed time variables. The unit of analysis is the felony drug offender.

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

Partially restricted

Monitoring Drug Markets in Manhattan [New York City], With the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, 1998-2002 (ICPSR 22381)

Released/updated on: 2009-06-03

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

Time period: 1998-01-01--2002-01-01

The purpose of the study was to determine how much Manhattan (New York City) arrestees surveyed by the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program spend on drug expenses. The program obtained both self-report and urinalysis data from a total of 5,210 Manhattan arrestees surveyed by the ADAM program from 1998 to 2002. The principal investigators developed a formula for an episodic estimator of a respondent's drug expense for cash, noncash, and cash-combination transactions. The dataset contains a total of 267 variables relating to Manhattan arrestees' demographics, interview information, criminal history, urinalysis test results, drug use, drug market transactions, and drug expenses.

Curated

Partially restricted

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

Partially restricted

A Natural Experiment in Reform: Analyzing Drug Law Policy in New York City, New York, Quantitative Data, 2006-2012 (ICPSR 34883)

Released/updated on: 2020-09-30

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

Time period: 2006-10-01--2012-11-30

On January 1, 2011, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) launched "A Natural Experiment in Reform: Analyzing Drug Law Policy in New York," which was funded by the National Institute of Justice, and conducted by Vera, with the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York, and the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University. This study sought to analyze the effects of recent changes in drug offense sentencing laws in New York State (NYS) and chronicle New York City's experience with drug law reform (DLR). This includes changes in sentencing outcomes for felony drug cases, reoffending, and cost implications, with the hope of informing NYS policy makers, and provide other states across the nation with research to inform their own DLR efforts.

Specifically, this study revolves around the following objectives: 1) describe how the DLR is reflected in actual sentencing outcomes and the extent to which practices of judges, lawyers, and defense attorneys have shifted in response to the reforms; 2) investigate how treatment diversion impacts reoffending and 3) analyze the cost implications of changing drug law sentencing policies. Researchers analyzed administrative data to describe the impacts of reforms on sentencing decisions, collected New York City arrest data for drug felonies between October 1, 2006 and September 30, 2011, and evaluated outcome data measuring recidivism and costs between pre and post DLR periods.

Numerous variables tracking offenders' progress through the criminal justice system were collected including admission to the Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program, arrest and disposition jurisdictions, charges, sentencing, and drug court screening and admission. Arrestees' criminal history and rearrest figures, as well as their sex, race, and ethnic demographics were collected also.

Curated

Partially restricted

Outcome Analysis Study of Drug Courts and State Mandated Drug Treatment in Los Angeles and San Joaquin Counties, California, 1998-2007 (ICPSR 25724)

Released/updated on: 2009-11-23

Geographic coverage: United States, California

Time period: 1998-07-01--2007-06-01

The California Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) of 2000 targeted nonviolent offenders who have a history of substance abuse and were primarily charged with misdemeanor or felony possession, excluding selling charges, for diversion from incarceration into community-based substance abuse programs. The two sites selected for this study (the El Monte Drug Court in Los Angeles County and San Joaquin County Drug Court) had SACPA programs that differed from each other and from the Drug Court model. The data for the outcome analysis were collected from administrative databases and from paper files where necessary and available. The data link an individial's criminal activity data, treatment data, and other program activity data. The outcome analysis consisted of Drug Court and Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) samples from San Joaquin and El Monte (Los Angeles) counties. Part 1, San Joaquin County Data, had a total of 725 participants and Part 2, El Monte (Los Angeles) County Data, had a total of 587 participants. The Drug Court cohort included pre- and post-SACPA Drug Court participants. The pre-SACPA Drug Court participants included all those who entered the Drug Court program July 1998 through June 1999 and included 202 participants in San Joaquin and 127 participants in El Monte. The post-SACPA Drug Court participants included all those who entered the Drug Court program in July 2002 through June 2003. This sample provided 128 participants in San Joaquin and 147 participants in El Monte who experienced the Drug Court program after any changes in eligibility and Drug Court processes due to SACPA, as well as allowing for outcome data for three years post-program entry. The SACPA samples in San Joaquin and El Monte consisted of all SACPA participants who were first time enrollees in SACPA programs between July 2002 and June 2003. These samples included 395 participants in San Joaquin and 313 participants in El Monte who experienced a reasonably well-established SACPA program while still allowing three years of outcomes post-program entry. The data for both San Joaquin county and El Monte (Los Angeles) county include the demographic variables age, race, gender, and drug of choice. Drug Court Treatment variables include dates or number of group sessions, dates or number of individual sessions, dates or number of days in residential treatment, other Drug Court service dates and types. Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) Treatment variables include dates or number of group sessions or episodes, dates or number of individual sessions or episodes, dates or number of urinalysis tests, dates or number of days in residential treatment, and other SACPA service dates and types. Other variables include arrest data, new court cases data, jail data, prison data, and probation data.

Curated

Released/updated on: 1996-01-22

Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States

Time period: 1985-07-01--1986-06-01

This data collection effort examined the influence of drug use on three key aspects of offenders' criminal careers in violence: participation, frequency of offending, and termination rate. A random sample of arrestees was taken from those arrested in Washington, DC, during the period July 1, 1985, to June 6, 1986. The sample was stratified to overrepresent groups other than Black males. Drug use was determined by urinalysis results at the time of arrest, as contrasted with previous studies that relied on self-reports of drug use. The research addresses the following questions: (1) Does drug use have an influence on participation in violent criminal activity? (2) Does drug use influence the frequency of violent offending? (3) Is there a difference in the types and rates of violent offending between drug-using offenders who use stimulants and those who use depressants? Variables regarding arrests include date of arrest, drug test result, charges filed, disposition date, disposition type, and sentence length imposed. Demographic variables include race, sex, birthdate, and place of birth.