You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


nmm 22 4500ICPSR09924MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1993 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR09924MiAaIMiAaI
Anticipating Community Drug Problems in Washington, DC, and Portland, Oregon, 1984-1990
[electronic resource]
Adele Harrell
,
Keiko Powers
,
Yih-Ing Hser
1994-02-17Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1993ICPSR9924NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09924.v1
arrestsicpsrcommunitiesicpsrcommunity developmenticpsrcommunity healthicpsrcrime ratesicpsrdrug abuseicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug overdoseicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrdrug testingicpsrplanningicpsrpredictionicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeHarrell, AdelePowers, KeikoHser, Yih-IngInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)9924Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09924.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR02826MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1999 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR02826MiAaIMiAaI
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 1998
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice
1999-11-10Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1999ICPSR2826NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program measures
levels of and trends in drug use among persons arrested and booked in
the United States. The ADAM Program is a redesigned version of the Drug
Use Forecasting (DUF) Program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN
THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]), upgraded methodologically
and expanded to include 35 cities. 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 ADAM/DUF interview
instrument (used for part of the 1995 DUF data and all of the DUF
1996, DUF 1997, and ADAM 1998 data) also collected information about
the 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 new interview instrument also included
information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs and
whether they were influenced by drugs when they allegedly committed
the crimes for which they were arrested. 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 prior arrests in
the last 12 months. Data that continue to be collected with the new
version of the ADAM/DUF interview provide information about arrestees'
histories of drug/alcohol treatment, including whether they ever
received drug/alcohol treatment and whether they needed drug/alcohol
treatment. As part of the ADAM program, arrestees were asked to
provide a urine specimen, which was screened for the presence of the
following ten drug types: marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone,
benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon),
barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines
were confirmed by gas chromatography).
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02826.v1
drug testingicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrdrug useicpsrdrugsicpsrjuvenile offendersicpsrsubstance abuseicpsrtrendsicpsrurinalysisicpsrADAM/DUF Programicpsralcohol abuseicpsrarrestsicpsrcrime patternsicpsrdemographic characteristicsicpsrdrug dependenceicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of JusticeInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)2826Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02826.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR02994MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2000 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR02994MiAaIMiAaI
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 1999
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice
2006-03-30Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2000ICPSR2994NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, the
successor to the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program (DRUG USE
FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR
9477]), measures levels of and trends in drug use among persons
arrested and booked in 35 sites across 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 modified ADAM/DUF interview
instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of the 1996, 1997,
1998, and 1999 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), age at first use, and whether the arrestee had ever been
dependent on drugs. As part of the ADAM program, 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).
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02994.v1
ADAM/DUF Programicpsralcohol abuseicpsrarrestsicpsrcrime patternsicpsrdemographic characteristicsicpsrdrug dependenceicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrdrug testingicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrdrug useicpsrdrugsicpsrsubstance abuseicpsrtrendsicpsrurinalysisicpsrNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of JusticeInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)2994Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02994.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR03270MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2001 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR03270MiAaIMiAaI
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2000
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice
2006-03-30Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2001ICPSR3270NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
thadone, methaqualone,
barbiturates, amphetamines, and methamphetamine. The adult data files
include several derived variables. The male data also include four
sampling weights, and stratum identifications and percents. For the
juvenile data, demographic variables include age, race, sex,
educational attainment, employment status, and living
circumstances. Data also include each juvenile arrestee's
self-reported use of 15 drugs (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, powder
cocaine, crack, heroin, PCP, amphetamines, barbiturates, quaaludes,
methadone, crystal methamphetamine, Valium, LSD, and inhalants). For
each drug type, arrestees reported whether they had ever used the
drug, age of first use, whether they had used the drug in the past 30
days and past 72 hours, number of days they used the drug in past
month, whether they tried to cut down or quit using the drug, if they
were successful, whether they felt dependent on the drug, whether they
were receiving treatment for the drug, whether they had received
treatment for the drug in the past, and whether they thought they
could use treatment for that drug. Additional variables include
whether juvenile respondents had ever injected drugs, whether they
were influenced by drugs when they allegedly committed the crime for
which they were arrested, whether they had been to an emergency room
for drug-related incidents, and if so, whether in the past 12 months,
and information on arrests and charges in the past 12 months. As with
the adult data, urine test results are also provided. Finally,
variables covering precinct (precinct of arrest) and law (penal law
code associated with the crime for which the juvenile was arrested)
are also provided for use by local law enforcement officials at each
site.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03270.v1
ADAM/DUF Programicpsralcohol abuseicpsrarrestsicpsrcrime patternsicpsrdemographic characteristicsicpsrdrug dependenceicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrdrug testingicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrdrug useicpsrdrugsicpsrsubstance abuseicpsrtrendsicpsrNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of JusticeInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)3270Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03270.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR03688MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2003 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR03688MiAaIMiAaI
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2001
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice
2006-03-30Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2003ICPSR3688NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM)
Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use
in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were
collected in 2001 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year
in 33 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program
adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male
(Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in
juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile
instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE
FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2001 also
continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in
adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male
adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling
stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into
one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2)
ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the
case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of
admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs,
(5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence (6) drug
acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs,
(7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains
demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued
use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03688.v1
ADAM/DUF Programicpsralcohol abuseicpsrarrestsicpsrcrime patternsicpsrdemographic characteristicsicpsrdrug dependenceicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrdrug testingicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrdrug useicpsrdrugsicpsrsubstance abuseicpsrtrendsicpsrurinalysisicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeUnited States Department of Justice. National Institute of JusticeInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)3688Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03688.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR03815MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2004 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR03815MiAaIMiAaI
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2002
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice
2006-03-30Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2004ICPSR3815NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program
is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the
population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in
2002 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 36
metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new
instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and
female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention
facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from
previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series
(ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2002 also continued the use of
probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which
was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes
weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For
the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1)
demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based)
data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a
verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and
mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use,
abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most
commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights.
The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's
self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other
drug-related behaviors.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03815.v1
ADAM/DUF Programicpsralcohol abuseicpsrarrestsicpsrcrime patternsicpsrdemographic characteristicsicpsrdrug dependenceicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrdrug testingicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrdrug useicpsrdrugsicpsrsubstance abuseicpsrtrendsicpsrurinalysisicpsrNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemUnited States Department of Justice. National Institute of JusticeInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)3815Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03815.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR04020MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2004 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR04020MiAaIMiAaI
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2003
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice
2006-03-30Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2004ICPSR4020NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program
is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the
population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in
2003 up to four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 39
metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new
instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and
female (Part 2) arrestees. The ADAM program in 2003 also continued the
use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult
facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult
sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification
of the data. For the adult male and female files, variables fell into
one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM
facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case,
including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of
admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5)
data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug
acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7)
urine test results, and (8) for males, weights.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04020.v1
demographic characteristicsicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrdrug testingicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrdrug useicpsrdrugsicpsrsubstance abuseicpsrtrendsicpsrurinalysisicpsrdrug dependenceicpsrADAM/DUF Programicpsralcohol abuseicpsrarrestsicpsrcrime patternsicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeUnited States Department of Justice. National Institute of JusticeInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)4020Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04020.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR28141MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2011 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR28141MiAaIMiAaI
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Project in Rural Nebraska, 1998
[electronic resource]
Denise C. Herz
2011-01-28Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2011ICPSR28141NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR28141.v1
ADAM/DUF Programicpsralcohol abuseicpsrarrestsicpsrcrime patternsicpsrdemographic characteristicsicpsrdrug abuseicpsrdrug dependenceicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrdrug testingicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrdrug useicpsrdrugsicpsrmethamphetamineicpsrsubstance abuseicpsrtrendsicpsrurinalysisicpsrNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeHerz, Denise C.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)28141Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR28141.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR25821MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2009 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR25821MiAaIMiAaI
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2007
[electronic resource]
Dana Hunt
2010-01-28Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2009ICPSR25821NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25821.v2
ADAM/DUF Programicpsraddictionicpsralcoholismicpsrcocaineicpsrdrug abuseicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug useicpsrheroinicpsrmarijuanaicpsrmethamphetamineicpsrurinalysisicpsrNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemHunt, DanaInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)25821Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25821.v2 nmm 22 4500ICPSR27221MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2010 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR27221MiAaIMiAaI
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2008
[electronic resource]
Dana Hunt
,
William Rhodes
2010-03-31Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2010ICPSR27221NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27221.v1
addictionicpsralcoholismicpsrcocaineicpsrdrug abuseicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug useicpsrheroinicpsrmarijuanaicpsrADAM/DUF ProgramicpsrmethamphetamineicpsrurinalysisicpsrNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemHunt, DanaRhodes, WilliamInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)27221Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27221.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR30061MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2011 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR30061MiAaIMiAaI
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2009
[electronic resource]
Dana Hunt
,
William Rhodes
2011-02-24Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2011ICPSR30061NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR30061.v1
ADAM/DUF Programicpsralcohol abuseicpsrarrestsicpsrcrime patternsicpsrdemographic characteristicsicpsrdrug abuseicpsrdrug dependenceicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrdrug testingicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrdrug useicpsrdrugsicpsrsubstance abuseicpsrtrendsicpsrurinalysisicpsrNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramHunt, Dana Rhodes, WilliamInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)30061Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR30061.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR32321MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2011 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR32321MiAaIMiAaI
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2010
[electronic resource]
Dana Hunt
,
William Rhodes
2011-11-04Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2011ICPSR32321NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR32321.v1
ADAM/DUF Programicpsralcohol abuseicpsrarrestsicpsrcrime patternsicpsrdemographic characteristicsicpsrdrug abuseicpsrdrug dependenceicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrdrug testingicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrdrug useicpsrdrugsicpsrsubstance abuseicpsrtrendsicpsrurinalysisicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeHunt, DanaRhodes, WilliamInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)32321Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR32321.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR03922MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2004 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR03922MiAaIMiAaI
Assessing the Efficacy of Treatment Modalities in the Context of Adult Drug Courts in Four Jurisdictions in the United States, 1997-2002
[electronic resource]
Donald F. Anspach
,
Jeff Bouffard
,
Andrew S. Ferguson
2006-03-30Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2004ICPSR3922NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This study examined adult drug treatment courts. Drug
treatment courts are intended to reduce the recidivism of drug-involved
offenders by changing their drug-use habits. These courts provide a
connection between the criminal justice and treatment systems by
combining treatment with structured sanctions and rewards. Researchers
collected data between February 2001 and May 2002 on drug court
participants, treatment services and staff, and organizations involved
in drug court operations in four jurisdictions: Bakersfield, California,
Jackson County, Missouri, Creek County, Oklahoma, and St. Mary Parish,
Louisiana. Part 1, Retrospective Participant Data, contains recidivism
and treatment data on 2,357 drug treatment court participants who were
enrolled in one of the drug courts between January 1997 and December
2000. Part 2, Treatment Observation Data, contains data collected from
observations of treatment sessions at each site from May through July
2001. Part 3, Staff Survey Data, provides data obtained through surveys
of 54 treatment service staff members.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03922.v1
courtsicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrrecidivismicpsrtreatment programsicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeAnspach, Donald F.Bouffard, JeffFerguson, Andrew S.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)3922Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03922.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR03541MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2003 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR03541MiAaIMiAaI
Assessing the Texas Christian University Drug Screen Instrument with Texas Department of Criminal Justice Inmates, 1999-2000
[electronic resource]
Kevin D. Knight
,
Dwayne Simpson
,
Janis Rhodes
2003-06-05Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2003ICPSR3541NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03541.v1
drug treatmenticpsrinmate classificationicpsrinmatesicpsrpsychological evaluationicpsrrecidivismicpsrsubstance abuseicpsrtesting and measurementicpsrtreatment outcomeicpsrtreatment programsicpsraddictionicpsrdrug abuseicpsrdrug dependenceicpsrdrug offendersicpsrNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemKnight, Kevin D.Simpson, DwayneRhodes, JanisInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)3541Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03541.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR09790MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1992 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR09790MiAaIMiAaI
Changing Patterns of Drug Abuse and Criminality Among Crack Cocaine Users in New York City
[electronic resource]Criminal Histories and Criminal Justice System Processing, 1983-1984, 1986
Jeffrey Fagan
,
Steven Belenko
,
Bruce D. Johnson
2005-11-04Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1992ICPSR9790NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09790.v1
imprisonmenticpsrarrest recordsicpsrcase processingicpsrcrack cocaineicpsrconvictions (law)icpsrcriminal historiesicpsrcriminal justice systemicpsrcriminalityicpsrdisposition (legal)icpsrdrug abuseicpsrdrug offendersicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeFagan, JeffreyBelenko, StevenJohnson, Bruce D.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)9790Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09790.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR02023MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2000 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR02023MiAaIMiAaI
Community Supervision of Drug-Involved Probationers in San Diego County, California, 1991-1993
[electronic resource]
Darlanne Hoctor
,
Susan Pennell
,
Christine Curtis
2006-03-30Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2000ICPSR2023NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
he eight-month period. Variables in the tracking
data file (Part 3) include sociodemographic characteristics, current
offense and sentence imposed, probation conditions ordered, drug use
history, offense and probation violations occurring before, during,
and after an eight-month probation period, custody time, changes in
level of probation supervision, and program interventions such as drug
tests, services delivered, and sanctions imposed.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02023.v1
communitiesicpsrcrime preventionicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug treatmenticpsroutcome evaluationicpsrpostrelease programsicpsrprobation conditionsicpsrprobationersicpsrprocess evaluationicpsrrisk assessmenticpsrsupervised libertyicpsrtreatment outcomesicpsrNACJD III. CorrectionsICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemHoctor, DarlannePennell, SusanCurtis, ChristineInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)2023Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02023.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR09990MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1993 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR09990MiAaIMiAaI
Comparison of Drug Control Strategies in San Diego, 1989
[electronic resource]
Susan Pennell
,
Christine Curtis
2000-03-21Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1993ICPSR9990NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This study assesses the consequences for offenders of
various drug enforcement strategies employed by the San Diego Police
Department and profiles the factors that characterize street-level and
mid-level dealers, drug users, and the drug market. The drug
enforcement strategies examined include the use of search warrants,
body wires, police decoys, surveillance, officer buys and sells,
wiretaps, and sweeps. Measures of the consequences of arrests include
drug and property seizures, convictions, and sentences. The data were
drawn from police and court records of drug arrests made by three
special sections of the police department in San Diego, California.
Additionally, data were collected through personal interviews
conducted at the time of arrest with a subsample of persons arrested
for drug charges. The arrest tracking file, Part 1, contains
demographic information about the offenders, including criminal
history and gang membership, as well as data on each arrest through
final disposition, charges, and sentencing. The interview portion of
the study, Part 2, provides information about the demographics and
characteristics of drug users and dealers, criminal history and drug
use history, current arrest information, and offenders' opinions about
drug use, drug sales, police strategies, and the drug market.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09990.v2
drug lawsicpsrdrug offender profilesicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug trafficicpsrpolice departmentsicpsrsearch warrantsicpsrsentencingicpsrsurveillanceicpsrarrestsicpsrconvictions (law)icpsrdrug law enforcementicpsrNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemPennell, SusanCurtis, ChristineInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)9990Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09990.v2 nmm 22 4500ICPSR02564MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2000 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR02564MiAaIMiAaI
Crack, Powder Cocaine, and Heroin
[electronic resource] Drug Purchase and Use Patterns in Six Cities in the United States, 1995-1996
K. Jack Riley
2012-08-22Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2000ICPSR2564NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02564.v1
ADAM/DUF Programicpsrarrestsicpsrcocaineicpsrcrack cocaineicpsrcrime patternsicpsrdemographic characteristicsicpsrdrug abuseicpsrdrug dependenceicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrdrug testingicpsrdrug trafficicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrdrug useicpsrdrugsicpsrheroinicpsrsubstance abuseicpsrtrendsicpsrurinalysisicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeRiley, K. JackInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)2564Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02564.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR06122MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1994 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR06122MiAaIMiAaI
Criminal Histories and Criminal Justice Processing of Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Sample Members in Washington, DC, 1989-1991
[electronic resource]
Jay Carver
,
Eric Wish
,
Douglas A. Smith
,
Christina Polsenberg
2006-01-12Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1994ICPSR6122NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
These data provide information on the relationship between
arrestee drug tests and future criminality once other risk factors,
such as prior criminal history, are accounted for. Also explored is
whether the association between drug test results and future offending
varies depending upon the attributes of individual offenders. The
dataset contains information drawn from the Pretrial Services Agency
(PSA) in Washington, DC, and the National Institute of Justice's Drug
Use Forecasting (DUF) program. Data are available from each source for
1989 and 1990 with subsequent arrest data provided by PSA through
August 1991. The 1989-1990 data supplied by PSA contain information on
criminal history and drug test results taken at the time of arrest.
Data provided from the DUF program include drug test results from a
sample of persons arrested as well as information obtained from
arrestee interviews on items such as family and work status. The
combined data contain the arrestees' demographic characteristics,
arrest and charge information, prior criminal history, and subsequent
offending. Drugs tested for include cocaine, opiates, methadone, PCP,
amphetamines, barbiturates, marijuana, methaqualone, Darvon, and
Valium. In addition, self-reported information regarding an
individual's use of and dependency on these drugs is supplied.
Demographic information includes age, sex, income, and employment
status. Due to changes in the DUF measurement instrument from 1989 to
1990, the variables contained in the two data files are not completely
identical.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06122.v1
substance abuseicpsrtrendsicpsrurinalysisicpsrADAM/DUF Programicpsralcohol abuseicpsrcriminal historiesicpsrcrime patternsicpsrdemographic characteristicsicpsrdrug dependenceicpsrdrug law offensesicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrdrug testingicpsrdrug useicpsrgun useicpsrhandgunsicpsrrecidivism predictionicpsrNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramCarver, JayWish, EricSmith, Douglas A.Polsenberg, ChristinaInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)6122Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06122.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR27382MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2010 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR27382MiAaIMiAaI
Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS)
[electronic resource]National Criminal Justice Treatment Program (NCJTP) Survey in the United States, 2002-2008
Faye S. Taxman
2010-08-09Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2010ICPSR27382NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27382.v1
addictionicpsralcohol abuseicpsrcocaineicpsrcontrolled drugsicpsrcorrectional facilities (adults)icpsrcorrectional facilities (juveniles)icpsrdrug abuseicpsrdrug dependenceicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug overdoseicpsrdrug testingicpsrdrug useicpsrhallucinogensicpsrheroinicpsrmarijuanaicpsrsteroid useicpsrsubstance abuse treatmenticpsrNACJD VII. Crime and DelinquencyNACJD III. CorrectionsNACJD VI. Criminal Justice SystemICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramTaxman, Faye S.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)27382Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27382.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR06628MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1998 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR06628MiAaIMiAaI
Drug Offender Treatment in Local Corrections in California and New York, 1991-1993
[electronic resource]
Sandra Tunis
,
James Austin
,
Mark Morris
,
Patricia Hardyman
,
Melissa Bolyard
2005-11-04Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1998ICPSR6628NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06628.v1
drug abuseicpsrdrug offendersicpsrprogram evaluationicpsrrecidivismicpsrtreatment complianceicpsrtreatment outcomeicpsrtreatment programsicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeTunis, SandraAustin, JamesMorris, MarkHardyman, PatriciaBolyard, MelissaInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)6628Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06628.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR06482MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1995 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR06482MiAaIMiAaI
Drugs and Police Response
[electronic resource] Survey of Public Housing Residents in Denver, Colorado, 1989-1990
Sampson O. Annan
,
Wesley G. Skogan
1995-08-16Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1995ICPSR6482NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This data collection is the result of an evaluation of the
NEPHU program, conducted by the Police Foundation under the
sponsorship of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). In August
1989, the Bureau of Justice Assistance supported a grant in Denver,
Colorado, to establish a special Narcotics Enforcement in Public
Housing Unit (NEPHU) within the Denver Police Department. The goal of
the Denver NEPHU was to reduce the availability of narcotics in and
around the city's public housing areas by increasing drug arrests.
NEPHU's six full-time officers made investigations and gathered
intelligence leading to on-street arrests and search warrants. The
unit also operated a special telephone Drug Hotline and met regularly
with tenant councils in the developments to improve community
relations. The program worked in cooperation with the Denver Housing
Authority and the uniformed patrol division of the Denver Police
Department, which increased levels of uniformed patrols to maintain
high visibility in the project areas to deter conventional crime.
Using a panel design, survey interviews were conducted with residents
in the Quigg Newton and Curtis Park public housing units, focusing on
events that occurred during the past six months. Respondents were
interviewed during three time periods to examine the onset and
persistence of any apparent program effects. In December 1989,
interviews were completed with residents in 521 households. In June
1990, 422 respondents were interviewed in Wave 2. Wave 3 was conducted
in December 1990 and included 423 respondents. In all, 642 individuals
were interviewed, 283 of whom were interviewed for all three waves.
Because of the evaluation's design, the data can be analyzed to reveal
individual-level changes for the 283 respondents who were interviewed
on all three occasions, and the data can also be used to determine a
cross-section representation of the residents by including the 359
"new" persons interviewed during the course of the evaluation.
Information collected includes years and months lived in the
development, assessments of changes in the neighborhood, whether the
respondent planned to stay in the development, interactions among
residents, awareness of anti-drug programs, ranking of various
problems in the development, concerns and reports of being a victim of
various crimes, perceived safety of the development, assessment of
drug use and availability, assessment of police activity and
visibility, and personal contacts with police. The unit of analysis is
the individual.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06482.v1
deterrenceicpsrdrug law enforcementicpsrdrug law offensesicpsrdrug offendersicpsrprogram evaluationicpsrpublic housingicpsrNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemAnnan, Sampson O.Skogan, Wesley G.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)6482Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06482.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR09477MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1991 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR09477MiAaIMiAaI
Drug Use Forecasting in 24 Cities in the United States, 1987-1997
[electronic resource]
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice
1998-07-15Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1991ICPSR9477NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09477.v2
drug related crimesicpsrtrendsicpsrurinalysisicpsrdrug testingicpsrdrug useicpsrgun useicpsrhandgunsicpsrrecidivism predictionicpsrsubstance abuseicpsrADAM/DUF Programicpsralcohol abuseicpsrcriminal historiesicpsrcrime patternsicpsrdemographic characteristicsicpsrdrug dependenceicpsrdrug law offensesicpsrdrug offendersicpsrNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemUnited States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of JusticeInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)9477Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09477.v2 nmm 22 4500ICPSR09974MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1998 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR09974MiAaIMiAaI
Effects of Legal Supervision of Chronic Addict Offenders in Southern California, 1974-1981
[electronic resource]
M. Douglas Anglin
,
Elizabeth P. Deschenes
,
George Speckart
2006-03-30Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1998ICPSR9974NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09974.v1
treatment programsicpsrdrug dependenceicpsrdrug law offensesicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrmethadone maintenanceicpsrsupervised libertyicpsrNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemAnglin, M. DouglasDeschenes, Elizabeth P.Speckart, GeorgeInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)9974Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09974.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR26101MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2009 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR26101MiAaIMiAaI
Empirical Investigation of "Going to Scale" in Drug Interventions in the United States, 1990, 2003
[electronic resource]
Avinash Singh Bhati
,
John Roman
2009-08-26Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2009ICPSR26101NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR26101.v1
drug offender profilesicpsrADAM/DUF Programicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrdrug useicpsrsimulation modelsicpsrsubstance abuse treatmenticpsrtherapeutic jurisprudenceicpsrtreatment programsicpsrtrendsicpsrcost effectivenessicpsrcrime patternsicpsrcrime reductionicpsrcriminality predictionicpsrdrug abuseicpsrdrug courtsicpsrdrug dependenceicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeBhati, Avinash SinghRoman, JohnInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)26101Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR26101.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR06567MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1997 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR06567MiAaIMiAaI
Estimating the Elasticities of Demand for Cocaine and Heroin with Data from 21 Cities from the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program, 1987-1991
[electronic resource]
Jonathan P. Caulkins
2006-03-30Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1997ICPSR6567NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06567.v1
ADAM/DUF Programicpsralcohol abuseicpsrcocaineicpsrconsumptionicpsrcriminal historiesicpsrcrime patternsicpsrdemographic characteristicsicpsrdrug dependenceicpsrdrug law offensesicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrdrug testingicpsrdrug trafficicpsrdrug useicpsrgun useicpsrhandgunsicpsrheroinicpsrprice fluctuationsicpsrrecidivism predictionicpsrsubstance abuseicpsrtrendsicpsrurinalysisicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeCaulkins, Jonathan P.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)6567Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06567.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR06374MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1996 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR06374MiAaIMiAaI
Evaluating the Incapacitative Benefits of Incarcerating Drug Offenders in Los Angeles and Maricopa [Arizona] Counties, 1986 and 1990
[electronic resource]
Jacqueline Cohen
,
Daniel Nagin
2006-01-12Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1996ICPSR6374NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The objective of this study was to examine the observable
offending patterns of recent and past drug offenders to assess the
crime control potential associated with recent increases in the
incarceration of drug offenders. The periods examined were 1986
(representing the second half of the 1980s, when dramatic shifts
toward increasing incarceration of drug offenders first became
evident), and 1990 (after escalating sentences were well under way).
Convicted offenders were the focus, since these cases are most
directly affected by changes in imprisonment policies, particularly
provisions for mandatory prison terms. Offending patterns of convicted
and imprisoned drug offenders were contrasted to patterns of convicted
robbers and burglars, both in and out of prison. The researchers used
data from the National Judicial Reporting Program (NJRP), sponsored by
the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS),
for information on the court processing of individual felony
convictions. The National Association of Criminal Justice Planners
(NACJP), which maintains data for the approximately 50 counties
included in the NJRP, was contracted to determine the counties to be
sampled (Los Angeles County and Maricopa County in Arizona were
chosen) and to provide individual criminal histories. Variables
include number of arrests for robbery, violent crimes, property
crimes, and other felonies, number of drug arrests, number of
misdemeanor arrests, rate of violent, property, robbery, weapons,
other felony, drug, and misdemeanor arrests, offense type (drug
trafficking, drug possession, robbery, and burglary), total number of
incarcerations, total number of convictions, whether sentenced to
prison, jail, or probation, incarceration sentence in months, sex,
race, and age at sampled conviction, and age at first arrest (starting
at age 17).
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06374.v1
crime patternsicpsrdrug offendersicpsrfelony offensesicpsrimprisonmenticpsrsentencingicpsrconvicted offender incapacitationicpsrcrime controlicpsrNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemCohen, JacquelineNagin, DanielInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)6374Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06374.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR02806MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2002 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR02806MiAaIMiAaI
Evaluating Recidivism Among Drug Offenders in Florida's Residential and Non-Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Programs, 1991-1997
[electronic resource]
Richard L. Linster
,
Pamela Lattimore
2006-03-30Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2002ICPSR2806NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This study was undertaken to investigate the relationship,
if any, between drug treatment and success or failure of drug-involved
offenders on probation/community supervision. Further, the researchers
sought to evaluate the outcomes of drug-involved offenders admitted to
(1) secure residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) programs, (2)
non-secure residential drug treatment programs, (3) non-residential
drug treatment programs, and (4) no drug treatment programs. Data were
collected from administrative records provided by the Florida
Department of Corrections, specifically case history records of
offenders admitted to supervision in the community from July 1, 1991,
through June 30, 1997. Part 1 is comprised of all cases admitted to
community supervision between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993 (fiscal
years 1991 and 1992) and treated in a secure residential drug treatment
program. Part 2 is comprised of all cases admitted to community
supervision from July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1995, receiving
treatment in a non-secure residential drug treatment program. Part 3
contains data on offenders admitted to non-residential drug treatment
programs, whose community supervision admissions were between July 1,
1991, and June 30, 1993. Part 4 contains data on offenders admitted to
non-residential drug treatment programs, whose community supervision
admissions were between July 1, 1993, and June 30, 1995 (fiscal years
1993 and 1994). Part 5 contains data on cases admitted to community
supervision between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993, who did not
receive drug treatment of any kind. Cases admitted to community
supervision between July 1, 1993, and June 20, 1995, receiving no drug
treatment are contained in Part 6. Each supervision admission record
contains a history of subsequent court actions that were complete
through December 31, 1997. Variables for all parts include population
estimates, unemployment rates, population by age-specific categories,
violent and nonviolent index offenses, per capita personal income,
clearance rates, split sentence flag, primary offense disposition,
primary offense felony level, current commitment years supervised,
supervision type, whether current offense included a drug charge,
number of prior supervision terms, number of prior commitments,
reasons for failure, treatment facility code, number of drug
sale/traffic offenses, outcome of supervision period, and reasons for
prison intake. Demographic variables include race and gender.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02806.v1
diversion programsicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug offender profilesicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrinterventionicpsroffendersicpsrprobationicpsrrecidivismicpsrsubstance abuse treatmenticpsrtreatment programsicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeLinster, Richard L.Lattimore, PamelaInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)2806Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02806.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR06214MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1999 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR06214MiAaIMiAaI
Evaluation of the Focused Offender Disposition Program in Birmingham, Phoenix, and Chicago, 1988-1992
[electronic resource]
John R. Hepburn
2006-03-30Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1999ICPSR6214NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The Drug Testing Technology/Focused Offender Disposition
(FOD) program was designed to examine two issues regarding drug users
in the criminal justice system: (1) the utility of need assessment
instruments in appropriately determining the level of treatment and/or
supervision needed by criminal offenders with a history of drug use,
and (2) the use of urinalysis monitoring as a deterrent to subsequent
drug use. This data collection consists of four datasets from three
sites. The FOD program was first established in Birmingham, Alabama,
and Phoenix, Arizona, in December 1988 and ran through August
1990. The Chicago, Illinois, program began in October 1990 and ended
in March 1992. These first three programs studied probationers with a
history of recent drug use who were not incarcerated while awaiting
sentencing. The subjects were assessed with one of two different
treatment instruments. Half of all clients were assessed with the
objective Offender Profile Index (OPI) created by the National
Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors (NASADAD). The
other half were assessed with the local instrument administered in
each site by Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC),
Inc. Regardless of which assessment procedure was used, offenders were
then randomly assigned to one of two groups. Half of all offenders
assessed by the OPI and half of the offenders assessed by the local
instrument were assigned to a control group that received only random
urinalysis monitoring regardless of the drug treatment intervention
strategy prescribed by the assessment instrument. The other half of
offenders in each assessment group were assigned to a treatment group
that received appropriate drug intervention treatment. The Phoenix
pilot study (Part 4), which ran from March 1991 to May 1992, was
designed like the first Phoenix study, except that the sample for the
pilot study was drawn from convicted felons who were jailed prior to
sentencing and who were expected to be sentenced to probation. These
data contain administrative information, such as current offense,
number of arrests, number of convictions, and prior charges. The need
assessment instruments were used to gather data on clients' living
arrangements, educational and vocational backgrounds, friendships,
history of mental problems, drug use history, and scores measuring
stakes in conformity. In addition, the study specifically collected
information on the monitoring of the clients while in the FOD program,
including the number of urinalyses administered and their results, as
well as the placement of clients in treatment programs. The files also
contain demographic information, such as age, race, sex, and
education.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06214.v1
criminal justice systemicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug testingicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrneeds assessmenticpsrprobationersicpsrprogram evaluationicpsrtreatment programsicpsrurinalysisicpsrNACJD III. CorrectionsICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemHepburn, John R.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)6214Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06214.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR27921MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2011 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR27921MiAaIMiAaI
Evaluation of the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Community Supervision Strategy, 2007-2009
[electronic resource]
Angela Hawken
2011-07-06Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2011ICPSR27921NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) community supervision strategy for substance-abusing probationers. The study involved the administration of key stakeholder surveys as part of a process evaluation of the HOPE program and the comparison of HOPE probationers with control-group probationers on two primary outcome measures: no-shows for probation appointments and positive urine tests for illicit-substance use. For Part 1 and Part 2, data were collected from administrative data sources. Missed Appointments Data (Part 1) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on a total of 1,174 probationers including 1,078 HOPE probationers, 78 comparison probationers, and 18 probationers for which study group information was not available. Specifically, for Part 1, the research team compiled data on the proportion of missed appointments in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Drug Test Results Data (Part 2) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on the same 1,174 probationers. Specifically, for Part 2, the research team compiled data on the proportion of positive urine tests in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Stakeholder survey data were collected from September 2008 through March 2009 on 50 Integrated Community Sanctions or "Specialized Unit" probationers (Part 3), 28 probationers in treatment (Part 4), 16 probationers in jail (Part 5), 20 probation officers in the Integrated Community Sanctions Unit (Part 6), 11 public defenders (Part 7), 12 prosecutors (Part 8), 7 judges (Part 9), and 11 court staff (Part 10). Part 1 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean missed appointments scores for three periods. Part 2 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean positive urine tests for illicit-substance use scores for three periods. The Integrated Community Sanctions Probationers Survey Data (Part 3), the Probationers in Treatment Survey Data (Part 4), and the Probationers in Jail Survey Data (Part 5) each include variables about the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 3 contains 24 variables, Part 4 contains 30 variables, and Part 5 contains 30 variables. The Probation Officers Survey Data (Part 6), Public Defenders Survey Data (Part 7), Prosecutors Survey Data (Part 8), Judges Survey Data (Part 9), and Court Staff Survey Data (Part 10) include variables about workload issues and the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 6 contains 65 variables, Part 7 contains 45 variables, Part 8 contains 55 variables, Part 9 contains 36 variables, and Part 10 contains 36 variables.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27921.v1
drug offendersicpsrdrug testingicpsrevaluationicpsrjudgesicpsroutcome evaluationicpsrprobationicpsrprobation conditionsicpsrprobation officersicpsrprobationersicpsrprocess evaluationicpsrprosecuting attorneysicpsrpublic defendersicpsrsanctionsicpsrurinalysisicpsrNACJD V. CourtsNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemHawken, AngelaInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)27921Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27921.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR03075MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2003 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR03075MiAaIMiAaI
Evaluation of Pennsylvania's Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program for Drug-Involved Parole Violators, 1998
[electronic resource]
Douglas Young
,
Rachel Porter
2006-03-30Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2003ICPSR3075NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This study was a process evaluation of Pennsylvania's two
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) programs in their first
year of implementation. These programs were maintained through the
joint management of the state Department of Corrections (DOC), Board
of Probation and Parole, Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and
Delinquency, and two private sector providers that operated the
programs. Opened in early 1998 in two correctional facilities for men,
each of these programs could serve up to 60 male technical parole
violators (TPVs) with a history of substance abuse. Instead of the
nine- to 36-month terms typical for parolees recommitted for
violations, RSAT participants served six months in prison-based
intensive therapeutic communities (TCs), followed by six months of
aftercare in a DOC-sponsored Community Corrections Center (CCC),
similar to a halfway house. Both programs took a cognitive-behavioral
approach to drug treatment. This study focused on the prison-based
component of the RSAT programs. It examined the extent to which
components of RSAT treatment were in place and the integrity of
program operations. Interviews for this study were conducted between
February and December 1998. At intake, program staff interviewed RSAT
participants (Part 1, Intake Data), and Vera Institute of Justice
onsite researchers conducted participant interviews upon exit (Part 2,
Exit Data). Through December 31, 1998, 160 intake interviews and 77
exit interviews with program graduates were administered.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03075.v1
aftercareicpsrcorrectional facilitiesicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrparole violationicpsrparoleesicpsrprocess evaluationicpsrresidential programsicpsrtreatment programsicpsrtreatment outcomeicpsrNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemYoung, DouglasPorter, RachelInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)3075Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03075.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR02853MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2000 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR02853MiAaIMiAaI
Evaluation of the Washington, DC, Superior Court Drug Intervention Program, 1994-1998
[electronic resource]
Adele Harrell
,
Shannon Cavanagh
,
John Roman
2000-12-04Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2000ICPSR2853NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02853.v1
drug testingicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrinterventionicpsrpretrial proceduresicpsrtreatment outcomesicpsrtreatment programsicpsrcriminal historiesicpsrdrug abuseicpsrdrug offendersicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD XIV. Homicide StudiesNACJD VI. Criminal Justice SystemHarrell, AdeleCavanagh, ShannonRoman, JohnInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)2853Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02853.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR02741MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2000 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR02741MiAaIMiAaI
Incapacitation Effects of Incarcerating Drug Offenders
[electronic resource] Longitudinal Arrest Histories of Adults Arrested in Washington, DC, 1985-1986
Jacqueline Cohen
2000-07-27Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2000ICPSR2741NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02741.v1
adult offendersicpsralternatives to institutionalizationicpsrarrest recordsicpsrcareer criminalsicpsrcriminal historiesicpsrdrug offendersicpsrpolicies and proceduresicpsrrecidivismicpsrsentencingicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeCohen, JacquelineInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)2741Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02741.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR09420MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1992 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR09420MiAaIMiAaI
Mandatory Drug offender Processing Data, 1986
[electronic resource]Alaska, California, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia
Bureau of Justice Assistance and Criminal Justice Statistics Association
2006-01-12Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1992ICPSR9420NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09420.v1
acquittalsicpsrarrest proceduresicpsrconvictions (law)icpsrdisposition (legal)icpsrdrug law enforcementicpsrdrug offendersicpsrsentencingicpsrtrialsicpsrNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemBureau of Justice Assistance and Criminal Justice Statistics AssociationInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)9420Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09420.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR09565MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1992 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR09565MiAaIMiAaI
Mandatory Drug Offender Processing Data, 1987
[electronic resource] New York
Bureau of Justice Assistance and Criminal Justice Statistics Association
1997-08-25Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1992ICPSR9565NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09565.v1
adultsicpsrarrestsicpsrcase processingicpsrcriminal justice systemicpsrdisposition (legal)icpsrdrug offendersicpsrprosecutionicpsrsentencingicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeBureau of Justice Assistance and Criminal Justice Statistics AssociationInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)9565Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09565.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR33201MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2012 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR33201MiAaIMiAaI
Monitoring Drug Epidemics and the Markets That Sustain Them, Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) and ADAM II Data, 2000-2003 and 2007-2010
[electronic resource]
Andrew Golub
,
Henry H. Brownstein
,
Eloise Dunlap
2012-12-13Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2012ICPSR33201NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR33201.v1
ADAM/DUF Programicpsrarrestsicpsrcocaineicpsrcrack cocaineicpsrcrime patternsicpsrdrug abuseicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrdrug testingicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrdrug useicpsrheroinicpsrmarijuanaicpsrmethamphetamineicpsrtrendsicpsrurinalysisicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeGolub, AndrewBrownstein, Henry H.Dunlap, EloiseInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)33201Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR33201.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR22381MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2009 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR22381MiAaIMiAaI
Monitoring Drug Markets in Manhattan [New York City], With the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, 1998-2002
[electronic resource]
Andrew Golub
,
Bruce D. Johnson
2009-06-03Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2009ICPSR22381NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR22381.v1
ADAM/DUF Programicpsrdrug testingicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrdrug useicpsrdrugsicpsrsubstance abuseicpsrtrendsicpsrurinalysisicpsralcohol abuseicpsrarrestsicpsrcrime patternsicpsrcriminal historiesicpsrdemographic characteristicsicpsrdrug law offensesicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemGolub, AndrewJohnson, Bruce D.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)22381Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR22381.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR30983MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2012 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR30983MiAaIMiAaI
Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE), 2003-2009
[electronic resource]
Shelli B. Rossman
,
John K. Roman
,
Janine M. Zweig
,
Michael Rempel
,
Christine H. Lindquist
2012-11-05Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2012ICPSR30983NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR30983.v1
cost effectivenessicpsrcourt systemicpsrcourtsicpsrcrime controlicpsrcrime control policiesicpsrcrime control programsicpsrdrug abuseicpsrdrug courtsicpsrdrug law enforcementicpsrdrug law offensesicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsroutcome evaluationicpsrprocess evaluationicpsrNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD VII. Crime and DelinquencyNACJD V. CourtsRossman, Shelli B.Roman, John K.Zweig, Janine M.Rempel, MichaelLindquist, Christine H.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)30983Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR30983.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR25724MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2009 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR25724MiAaIMiAaI
Outcome Analysis Study of Drug Courts and State Mandated Drug Treatment in Los Angeles and San Joaquin Counties, California, 1998-2007
[electronic resource]
Shannon M. Carey
2009-11-23Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2009ICPSR25724NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25724.v1
crime control programsicpsrdiversion programsicpsrdrug abuseicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrdrug testingicpsrdrug treatmenticpsroutcome evaluationicpsrsubstance abuseicpsrsubstance abuse treatmenticpsrurinalysisicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeCarey, Shannon M.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)25724Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25724.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR03499MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2003 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR03499MiAaIMiAaI
Pathological Gambling in Arrestee Populations in Des Moines, Iowa, and Las Vegas, Nevada, 2000-2001
[electronic resource]
Richard McCorkle
2003-06-05Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2003ICPSR3499NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This study sought to examine the extent, nature, and
consequences of pathological gambling disorders in arrestee
populations. Five research questions were addressed: (1) What is the
prevalence of pathological gambling in arrestee populations? (2) What
is the profile of the pathological gambler arrested for felony and
misdemeanor offenses? (3) How does the nature and level of criminal
activity among pathological gamblers compare to that of non-
pathological gamblers? (4) What proportion of the crime committed by
offenders with pathological gambling disorders is linked to their
gambling activities (either to fund gambling or pay off gambling
debts)? and (5) How does substance abuse interact with pathological
gambling to affect the nature and extent of criminal activity? The
data for this research were collected in conjunction with the National
Institute of Justice's Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM)
programs. Arrestees in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Des Moines, Iowa, who had
completed the ADAM interview and provided a urine specimen were asked
if they would be willing to answer an additional set of questions
concerning their gambling behavior. Data from the ADAM interview and
drug screening were merged with data collected using the gambling
addendum, producing the dataset for this study. Variables from the
ADAM instruments were comprised of demographic data on each arrestee,
calendar of admissions to drug treatment-related programs, data on
dependence and abuse, drug market and use data, and urine test
results. The gambling addendum was used to collect data on five
topics: (1) past-year gambling activity, (2) the use of alcohol and
illegal drugs prior to and during gambling, (3) substance abuse and/or
self-reported gambling problems, (4) past-year criminal activity
(property, drug, and violent offending), and (5) motivations for
criminal activity (gambling or non-gambling related).
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03499.v1
ADAM/DUF Programicpsraddictionicpsralcohol abuseicpsrarrestsicpsrcrime patternsicpsrdemographic characteristicsicpsrdrug dependenceicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrdrug testingicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrdrug useicpsrdrugsicpsrgamblingicpsrsubstance abuseicpsrtrendsicpsrurinalysisicpsrNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD VII. Crime and DelinquencyMcCorkle, RichardInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)3499Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03499.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR06254MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1996 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR06254MiAaIMiAaI
Violent Offending by Drug Users
[electronic resource]Longitudinal Arrest Histories of Adults Arrested in Washington, DC, 1985-1986
Jacqueline Cohen
1996-01-22Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1996ICPSR6254NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
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.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06254.v1
career criminalsicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug testingicpsrdrug useicpsrrecidivismicpsrviolenceicpsrviolent crimeicpsrNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemCohen, JacquelineInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)6254Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06254.v1