DOI: 10.3886/icpsr02023
title: Community Supervision of Drug-Involved Probationers in San Diego County, California, 1991-1993
title: Archival Version

description: The Probationers in Recovery (PIR) program, developed by the San Diego County Probation Department, targeted high-risk, drug-abusing offenders with the goal of controlling offender behavior without increasing risks to communities. This evaluation of PIR was based on a quasiexperimental design that compared program activities and outcomes for two matched groups of high-risk probationers receiving different levels of service and supervision. The assessment included both a process evaluation to discover if expected service levels were implemented as designed, and an impact evaluation to assess the effectiveness of drug treatment within an intensive community supervision program. The experimental group included 209 PIR participants who received intensive community supervision and drug treatment, and the control group consisted of 151 probationers who were assigned to regular high-risk probation caseloads and who met the PIR screening criteria. The samples were selected from probationers entering community supervision from February to December 1991. The length of the PIR program varied, but for purposes of analysis the minimum time in the program to represent the intervention period was set at eight months, including relapse prevention. A comparable period was used for the control group. The subsequent six-month period was used to measure the effects of PIR and regular high-risk probation after intervention. Intake interviews were conducted with a subsample of 96 probationers in PIR and 80 in the control group (Part 1). The interviews were conducted within the first two weeks after intake. Follow-up interviews were conducted with these probationers after they had completed eight months of PIR or regular high-risk probation to measure experiences on probation and changes in behavior and attitudes (Part 2). Follow-up interviews were completed with 47 probationers from the experimental group in the PIR program and 35 in the control group. The case tracking portion of the study involved the review of probation, treatment, and state and local criminal history files (Part 3). Data on technical violations and arrests for new crimes were compiled for the following time periods: (1) six months prior to the instant offense (the baseline), (2) the first eight months of community supervision (the in-program period), (3) the six months after intervention, and (4) the combined 14-month period. The initial interview (Part 1) included questions regarding sociodemographic characteristics, current offense, awareness of probation conditions ordered, perceived consequences for violations of probation, drug use and drug history, prior drug treatment and treatment needs, criminal history, expectations regarding the probation term, opinions regarding probation and treatment, daily activities prior to the current offense, current life satisfaction, and prospects for the future. Questions on the follow-up interview (Part 2) focused on changes in probationers' personal lives (e.g., employment, income, education, marital status, living situation, and relationships with family and friends), technical probation violations and new offenses committed during the eight-month period, sanctions imposed by probation staff, contacts with probation and treatment staff, changes in drug use and daily activities, expectations with regard to remaining crime- and drug-free in the future, attitudes regarding probation and treatment, treatment needs, and significant life changes over the 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.
description: To cope with the demands of the increasing custody and community supervision populations, a majority of which are under the influence of drugs upon arrest, criminal justice officials in San Diego County searched for innovative and effective approaches to assess, manage, control, and treat offenders. Specifically, the Probationers in Recovery (PIR) program, developed by the San Diego County Probation Department, targeted high-risk, drug-abusing offenders with the goal of controlling offender behavior without increasing risks to communities. To address the research issues resulting from limitations inherent in prior studies, this evaluation of PIR matched experimental and control groups using PIR screening criteria to ensure comparability between groups, analyzed extensive and detailed information to determine which aspects of the program were effective, based the definition of "program success" upon issues raised in prior literature and on information obtained through lengthy discussions with program personnel, and clearly defined the program goals, organizational structure, program operations, and evaluation design in order to make informed cross-program generalizations. This evaluation tested two hypotheses: (1) the provision of drug treatment within the PIR program would reduce subsequent drug use and criminal behavior of high-risk probationers, and (2) successful outcomes of reduced drug use and criminality would also be associated with characteristics of offenders and of program services. Specifically, the data address the following questions: (a) What types of interventions, including drug testing and treatment, lead to better results for high-risk probationers? (b) What are the characteristics of probationers who remain drug-free after intervention? (c) Is there an association between reducing drug use and criminal behavior after intervention? (d) How does intervention affect daily life patterns of offenders? (e) What specific intervention strategies are effective with particular types or classifications of offenders? (f) Which graduated sanctions are effective alternatives to revocation for probation violators? and (g) What are the appropriate measures of improvement during and after intervention?
description: This evaluation was based on a quasiexperimental design comparing program activities and outcomes for two matched groups of high-risk probationers receiving different levels of service and supervision. The assessment included both a process evaluation to discover if expected service levels were implemented as designed, as well as an impact evaluation to assess the effectiveness of drug treatment within an intensive community supervision program. The experimental group included 209 PIR participants who received intensive community supervision and drug treatment, and the control group consisted of 151 probationers who were assigned to regular high-risk probation caseloads and who met the PIR screening criteria. The samples were selected from probationers entering community supervision from February to December 1991. The length of the PIR program varied, but for purposes of analysis the minimum time in the program to represent the intervention period was set at eight months, including relapse prevention. A comparable period was used for the control group. The subsequent six-month period was used to measure the effects of PIR and regular high-risk probation after invention. Intake interviews were conducted with a subsample of 96 probationers in PIR and 80 in the control group (Part 1). The interviews were conducted within the first two weeks after intake. Follow-up interviews were conducted with these probationers after they had completed eight months of PIR or regular high-risk probation to measure experiences on probation and changes in behavior and attitudes (Part 2). Follow-up interviews were completed with 47 probationers from the experimental group in the PIR program and 35 for the control group. The case tracking portion of the study involved the review of probation, treatment, and state and local criminal history files (Part 3). Data on technical violations and arrests for new crimes were compiled for the following time periods: (1) six months prior to the instant offense (the baseline), (2) the first eight months of community supervision (the in-program period), (3) the following six months after intervention, and (4) the combined 14-month period.
description: The initial interview (Part 1) included questions regarding sociodemographic characteristics, current offense, awareness of probation conditions ordered, perceived consequences for violations of condition, drug use and drug history, prior drug treatment and treatment needs, criminal history, expectations regarding the probation term, opinions regarding probation and treatment, daily activities prior to the current offense, current life satisfaction, and prospects for the future. Questions on the follow-up interview (Part 2) focused on changes in probationers' personal lives (e.g., employment, income, education, marital status, living situation, and relationships with family and friends), technical probation violations and new offenses committed during the eight-month period, sanctions imposed by probation staff, contacts with probation and treatment staff, changes in drug use and daily activities, expectations with regard to remaining crime- and drug-free in the future, attitudes regarding probation and treatment, treatment needs, and significant life changes over the 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.
description: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used.
description: Response Rates: The refusal rate for the initial interview was less than 1 percent. Only one probationer refused to be interviewed. For the follow-up interview, the response rate was 49 percent for the experimental group and 44 percent for the control group. The reasons for the low response rate for both groups included: probationers absconding or not showing up for appointments with the interviewer, incarceration outside San Diego County, relocation with probation permission (e.g., witness relocation, transfer to supervision in another county due to employment), delays in gaining access to those incarcerated in the Metropolitan Correctional Center facility, releases from probation supervision, and participation in residential treatment programs to which interviewers were denied access. The exact number of interviewees in each category was not documented.
description: Datasets: 
 
 DS0: Study-Level Files 
 DS1: Initial Interview Data 
 DS2: Follow-up Interview Data 
 DS3: Case Tracking Data
description: All probationers entering community supervision in San Diego County from February to December 1991.
description: Sample selection was based on a nonequivalent control group design. Experimental and control groups were matched using the PIR screening criteria. The subsample for the initial intake interview was selected from the first probationers available from new assignments to PIR and regular high-risk probation at the Probation Department's Central Office during the 11-month sample selection period.