{"@type": "dcat:Dataset", "accessLevel": "public", "bureauCode": ["011:21"], "contactPoint": {"@type": "vcard:Contact", "fn": "Open Data Office of Justice Programs (USDOJ)", "hasEmail": "mailto:opendata@usdoj.gov"}, "dataQuality": false, "description": "This study was undertaken to measure the impact of the\r\n standard, treatment, and sanction dockets, which comprise the Superior\r\n Court Drug Intervention Program (SCDIP), on drug-involved defendants\r\n in Washington, DC, while examining defendants' continued drug use and\r\n substance abuse, criminal activity, and social and economic\r\n functioning. Features common to all three dockets of the SCDIP program\r\n included early intervention, frequent drug testing, and judicial\r\n involvement in monitoring drug test results, as well as the monitoring\r\n of each defendant's progress. Data for this study were collected from\r\n four sources for defendants arrested on drug felony charges between\r\n September 1, 1994, and January 31, 1996, who had been randomly\r\n assigned to one of three drug dockets (sanction, treatment, or\r\n standard) as part of the SCDIP program. First, data were collected\r\n from the Pretrial Services Agency, which provided monthly updated drug\r\n testing records, case records, and various other administrative\r\n records for all defendants assigned to any of the three\r\n dockets. Second, data regarding prior convictions and sentencing\r\n information were collected from computer files maintained by the\r\n Washington, DC, Superior Court. Third, arrest data were taken from the\r\n Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Lastly, data on self-reported drug\r\n use, criminal and personal activities, and opinions about the program\r\n were collected from interviews conducted with defendants one year\r\n after their sentencing. Variables collected from administrative\r\n records included drug test results, eligibility date for the\r\n defendant, date the defendant started treatment, number of compliance\r\n hearings, prior conviction, arrest, and sentencing information, and\r\n program entry date. Survey questions asked of each respondent fell\r\n into one of seven categories: (1) Individual characteristics, such as\r\n gender, age, and marital status. (2) Current offenses, including\r\n whether the respondent was sentenced to probation, prison, jail, or\r\n another correctional facility for any offense and the length of\r\n sentencing, special conditions or restrictions of that sentence (e.g.,\r\n electronic monitoring, mandatory drug testing, educational programs,\r\n or psychological counseling), whether any of the sentence was reduced\r\n by credit, and whether the respondent was released on bail bond or to\r\n the custody of another person. (3) Current supervision, specifically,\r\n whether the respondent was currently on probation, the number and type\r\n of contacts made with probation officers, issues discussed during the\r\n meeting, any new offenses or convictions since being on probation,\r\n outcome of any hearings, and reasons for returning back to prison,\r\n jail, or another correctional facility. (4) Criminal history, such as\r\n the number of previous arrests, age at first arrest, sentencing type,\r\n whether the respondent was a juvenile, a youthful offender, or an\r\n adult when the crime was committed, and whether any time was served\r\n for each of the following crimes: drug trafficking, drug possession,\r\n driving while intoxicated, weapons violations, robbery, sexual\r\n assault/rape, murder, other violent offenses, burglary, larceny/auto\r\n theft, fraud, property offenses, public order offenses, and\r\n probation/parole violations. (5) Socioeconomic characteristics, such\r\n as whether the respondent had a job or business, worked part- or\r\n full-time, type of job or business, yearly income, whether the\r\n respondent was looking for work, the reasons why the respondent was\r\n not looking for work, whether the respondent was living in a house,\r\n apartment, trailer, hotel, shelter, or other type of housing, whether\r\n the respondent contributed money toward rent or mortgage, number of\r\n times moved, if anyone was living with the respondent, the number and\r\n ages of any children (including step or adopted), whether child\r\n support was being paid by the respondent, who the respondent lived\r\n with when growing up, the number of siblings the respondent had,\r\n whether any of the respondent's parents spent any time in jail or\r\n prison, and whether the respondent was ever physically or sexually\r\n abused. (6) Alcohol and drug use and treatment, specifically, the type\r\n of drug used (marijuana, crack cocaine, other cocaine, heroin, PCP,\r\n and LSD), whether alcohol was consumed, the amount of each that was\r\n typically used/consumed, and whether any rehabilitation programs were\r\n attended. (7) Other services, programs, and probation conditions, such\r\n as whether any services were received for emotional or mental health\r\n problems, if any medications were prescribed, and whether the\r\n respondent was required to participate in a mental health services\r\n program, vocational training program, educational program, or\r\ncommunity service program.", "distribution": [{"@type": "dcat:Distribution", "accessURL": "https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02853.v1", "title": "Evaluation of the Washington, DC, Superior Court Drug Intervention Program, 1994-1998   "}], "identifier": "3487", "issued": "2000-12-04T00:00:00", "keyword": ["criminal histories", "drug abuse", "drug offenders", "drug testing", "drug treatment", "intervention", "pretrial procedures", "treatment outcomes", "treatment programs"], "language": ["eng"], "license": "http://www.usa.gov/publicdomain/label/1.0/", "modified": "2000-12-04T00:00:00", "programCode": ["011:060"], "publisher": {"@type": "org:Organization", "name": "National Institute of Justice", "subOrganizationOf": {"acronym": "OJP", "id": 22, "name": "Office of Justice Programs", "parentOrganization": {"acronym": "DOJ", "id": 10, "name": "Department of Justice"}, "parentOrganizationID": 10}}, "title": "Evaluation of the Washington, DC, Superior Court Drug Intervention Program, 1994-1998   "}