Annual Survey of Jails: Jurisdiction-Level Data, 1998 (ICPSR 2682)
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 1998 (ICPSR 2826)
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 1999 (ICPSR 2994)
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2000 (ICPSR 3270)
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2001 (ICPSR 3688)
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2002 (ICPSR 3815)
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2003 (ICPSR 4020)
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Project in Rural Nebraska, 1998 (ICPSR 28141)
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2009 (ICPSR 30061)
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2010 (ICPSR 32321)
Assessing the Validity of Voice Stress Analysis (VSA) Tools in a Jail Setting in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 2006 (ICPSR 20625)
Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012 (ICPSR 36717)
With the creation of the first drug court in Miami-Dade County, Florida in 1989, problem-solving courts emerged as an innovative effort to close the revolving door of recidivism. Designed to target the social and psychological problems underlying certain types of criminal behavior, the problem-solving model boasts a community-based, therapeutic approach. As a result of the anecdotal successes of early drug courts, states expanded the problem-solving court model by developing specialized courts or court dockets to address a number of social problems. Although the number and types of problem-solving courts has been expanding, the formal research and statistical information regarding the operations and models of these programs has not grown at the same rate. Multiple organizations have started mapping the variety of problem-solving courts in the county; however, a national catalogue of problem-solving court infrastructure is lacking. As evidence of this, different counts of problem-solving courts have been offered by different groups, and a likely part of the discrepancy lies in disagreements about how to define and identify a problem-solving court. What is known about problem-solving courts is therefore limited to evaluation or outcome analyses of specific court programs.
In 2010, the Bureau of Justice Statistics awarded the National Center for State Courts a grant to develop accurate and reliable national statistics regarding problem-solving court operations, staffing, and participant characteristics. The NCSC, with assistance from the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI), produced the resulting Census of Problem-Solving Courts which captures information on over 3,000 problem-solving courts that were operational in 2012.
Combining LC-MS/MS Product-Ion Scan Technology with GC-MS Analysis to Identify Drugs and Poisons in Postmortem Fluids and Tissues, Florida, 2019-2022 (ICPSR 39085)
A Comprehensive Evaluation of a Drug Market Intervention Training Cohort in Roanoke, Virginia; Jacksonville, Florida; and Guntersville, Alabama, 2011-2013. (ICPSR 36322)
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.
Crack, Powder Cocaine, and Heroin: Drug Purchase and Use Patterns in Six Cities in the United States, 1995-1996 (ICPSR 2564)
Criminality Among Narcotic Addicts in Baltimore: The Role of Nonnarcotic Drugs, 1973-1978 (ICPSR 8604)
Cross-Border Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force Evaluation, San Diego and Imperial Counties, California, 2007-2012 (ICPSR 34904)
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.
The study involved a three-year evaluation of two efforts to target crime stemming from the Southern Border of the United States - one which funded greater participation by local officers on four FBI-led multi-jurisdictional task forces (MJTFs) and another that created a new multi-jurisdictional team. As part of this evaluation, researchers documented the level of inter-agency collaboration and communication when the project began, gathered information regarding the benefits and challenges of MJTF participation, measured the level of communication and collaboration, and tracked a variety of outcomes specific to the funded MJTFs, as well as three comparison MJTFs. Multiple methodologies were used to achieve these goals including surveys of task forces, law enforcement stakeholders, and community residents; law enforcement focus groups; program observations; and analysis of archival data related to staffing costs; task force activities; task force target criminal history; and prosecution outcomes.
The study is comprised of several data files in SPSS format:
- Imperial County Law Enforcement Stakeholder Survey Data (35 cases and 199 variables)
- Imperial County Resident Survey (402 cases and 70 variables)
- Imperial Task Force Survey (6 cases and 84 variables)
- Prosecution Outcome Data (1,973 cases and 115 variables)
- San Diego County Resident Survey (402 cases and 69 variables)
- San Diego Law Enforcement Stakeholder Survey (460 cases and 353 variables)
- San Diego Task Force Survey (18 cases and 101 variables)
- Staff and Cost Measures Data (7 cases and 61 variables)
- Criminal Activity Data (110 cases and 50 variables)
Additionally, Calls for Service Data, Countywide Arrest Data, and Data used for Social Network Analysis are available in Excel format.
Disorder and Community Decline in Forty Neighborhoods of the United States, 1977-1983 (ICPSR 8944)
Estimating the Flow of Methamphetamine and Other Synthetic Drugs from Quebec, Canada, 1999-2009 (ICPSR 35295)
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.
Evaluating a Presumptive Drug Testing Technology in Community Corrections Settings, 2011, Alabama, Florida and Wyoming (ICPSR 34494)
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 was a multi-site evaluation of a presumptive drug detection technology (PDDT) developed by Mistral Security Incorporated (MSI). The evaluation was conducted by Justice and Security Strategies, Inc. (JSS) in work release programs, probation and parole offices, and drug courts in three states: Alabama, Florida, and Wyoming. Also, interviews with the offenders, corrections staff, and program administrators were conducted.
Gender, Mental Illness, and Crime in the United States, 2004 (ICPSR 27521)
The Historically Black College and University Campus Sexual Assault (HBCU-CSA) Study, 2008 (ICPSR 31301)
Monitoring Drug Markets in Manhattan [New York City], With the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, 1998-2002 (ICPSR 22381)
Monitoring the Future: Base Year & Follow-Up Core Panel Data, Ages 18-30, United States, 1976-2021 [Restricted-Use] (ICPSR 39223)
The Monitoring the Future (MTF) project is a long-term epidemiologic and etiologic study of substance use among youth and adults in the United States. It is conducted at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research and is funded by a series of investigator-initiated research grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
The MTF panel study consists of six different survey forms (five forms from 1976-1988), and each survey contains a "core" set of questions about demographics and substance use. This study contains the "core" data for these questions compiled across all survey forms and years in which they are included for the longitudinal panel participants. Each record in the core panel dataset includes the respondent's data for their base year (BY) 12th grade survey (modal age 18) and their young adult follow-up FU surveys (modal ages 19-30).
The core panel dataset should be selected by all researchers. Use the linking variable available on all datasets, MTFID, to link the core dataset with all other MTF panel datasets.
Here is a list of subjects included in the core dataset:
Administrative variables
- Year of administration
- Survey form
- Survey date
- BY survey weight, sampling stratum and cluster
- FU panel analysis weights
Demographics
BY only
- #Parents in household
- Parent education levels
- Respondent's age in months
- Sex
- Race/Ethnicity
- Region of the country (school location)
- Population density/Urbanicity (school location)
- High school Zip Code, State and County FIPS codes (can be linked to user-provided data; results can be reported at no unit smaller than US geographical region)
- Absenteeism (illness, cutting, skipping class)
- High school program, Grades, post-high school plans
FU only
- Pregnancy status
- Household type
- Urbanicity
- Absenteeism (missing work due to illness, other)
- Vocational/Technical education, Armed forces, College attendance
- College grades, attendance, Greek life
BY and FU
- Marital status
- Household composition
- Political preference
- Religious attendance, importance, preference
- Evenings out, Dating
- Employment
- Salary/earned Income and Other Income
- Driving, tickets, and accidents related to alcohol and other substance use
Substance use
- Cigarette use
- Alcohol use (including binge drinking (e.g. 5+ drinks in a row/2 weeks), drunkenness)
- Marijuana/cannabis, hashish use
- LSD use
- Hallucinogen use, other than LSD
- Cocaine use (including cocaine, crack, other forms)
- Amphetamine use
- Sedatives/Barbiturate use
- Tranquilizer use
- Heroin use (with and without needles)
- Narcotics use (other than Heroin)
- Inhalant use
- Steroid use
- Ice use
- Methamphetamine use
- MDMA use
- Vaping: nicotine, marijuana, flavoring
Please see the study documentation available on the MTF Panel series page for question-specific details.
More information about the MTF project can be accessed through the Monitoring the Future website. Annual reports are published by the research team, describing the data collection and trends over time.
Monitoring the Future: Restricted-Use Panel Data, United States, 1976-2019 (ICPSR 37072)
The Monitoring the Future (MTF) project is a long-term epidemiologic and etiologic study of substance use among youth and adults in the United States. It is conducted at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, and funded by a series of investigator-initiated research grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. MTF has two components: MTF Main and MTF Panel.
From its inception in 1975, the cross-sectional MTF Main study has collected data annually from nationally representative samples of 12,000-19,000 high school seniors in 12th grade located in approximately 135 schools nationwide. Beginning in 1991, similar annual cross-sectional surveys of nationally representative samples of 8th and 10th graders have been conducted. In all, approximately 45,000 students annually respond to about 100 drug use and demographic questions, as well as to about 200 additional questions divided among multiple survey forms on other topics such as attitudes toward government, social institutions, race relations, changing gender roles, educational aspirations, occupational aims, and marital plans.
The longitudinal MTF Panel study conducts follow-up surveys with representative subsamples of respondents from each 12th grade cohort participating in MTF Main. From each cohort, a sample of about 2,450 students are selected for longitudinal follow-up, with an oversampling of students who reported prior drug use during their 12th grade survey. Longitudinal follow-up currently spans modal ages 19-30 and 35-60. For surveys at modal ages 19-30, the sample is randomly split into two halves (approx. 1,225 each) to be followed every other year. One half-sample begins its first follow-up the year after high school (at modal age 19), and the other half-sample begins its first follow-up in the second year after high school (at modal age 20). Thus, six young adult follow-up (FU) surveys occur between modal ages 19-30, at modal ages 19/20 (FU1), 21/22 (FU2), 23/24 (FU3), 25/26 (FU4), 27/28 (FU5), and 29/30 (FU6). After age 30, respondents are surveyed every five years: 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, and 60 (these are referred to as FZ surveys). The FZ surveys cover many of the same topics as the 12th grade and FU surveys and include additional questions on life events and health.
MTF Panel surveys for the young adults (ages 19-30) were conducted using mailed paper surveys from 1977-2017. In 2018 and 2019, a random half of all those aged 19-30 received a mailed paper survey, while the other half were surveyed using a new procedure that encouraged participation using web surveys (web-push). The FZ surveys (ages 35-60) were conducted using mailed paper surveys through the 2019 data collection.
More information about the MTF project can be accessed through the Monitoring the Future website. Annual reports are published by the research team, describing the data collection and trends over time.