nmm 22 4500 ICPSR28921 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130619s2012 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR28921 MiAaI MiAaI Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) National Cross-Site Evaluation [Restricted Use] [electronic resource] United States Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 2012-06-21 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2012 ICPSR 28921 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-19. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) National Cross-Site Evaluation was conducted to evaluate the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)'s SPF SIG initiative, which sought to: (1) prevent the onset and reduce the progression of substance abuse, including childhood and underage drinking; (2) reduce substance abuse-related problems in communities; and (3) build prevention capacity and infrastructure at the state and community levels. This cross-site evaluation included the 21 states and territories CSAP funded in FY2004 (Cohort 1) and an additional 5 States funded in Cohort 2 in FY2005 that were funded for up to 5 years to implement the SPF. The SPF is a five-step prevention planning model that requires states to: (1) conduct a statewide needs assessment, including the establishment of a State Epidemiological and Outcomes Workgroup (SEOW); (2) mobilize and build state and community capacity to address needs; (3) develop a statewide strategic plan for prevention; (4) implement evidence-based prevention, policies, and practices (EBPPP) to meet state and community needs; and (5) monitor and evaluate the implementation of their SPF SIG project. Under contract to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) with funding provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Westat, in collaboration with the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) and The MayaTech Corporation, implemented a multilevel, multi-method quasi-experimental design to evaluate SPF SIG's impact. The scope of the evaluation encompassed national, state, and community levels. The design included comparison conditions at both the state and community levels. These data represent Phase I of the restricted use data release and contains extensive data on state-level implementation, community-level implementation, and state-level infrastructure, as well as other reference elements. A subsequent release (Phase II) will include state- and community-level outcomes, as well as data on community-level implementation, community-level implementation fidelity, state-level sustainability, and mediating variables. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR28921.v1 alcohol abuse icpsr client characteristics icpsr college students icpsr community participation icpsr community health icpsr community involvement icpsr community service programs icpsr continuing education icpsr African Americans icpsr counties icpsr crime icpsr delinquent behavior icpsr demographic characteristics icpsr drug dependence icpsr health policy icpsr human services icpsr illigal drugs icpsr intervention icpsr juveniles icpsr labor force icpsr law enforcement icpsr liquor law violations icpsr middle school icpsr Native Americans icpsr needs assessment icpsr organizational structure icpsr outcome evaluation icpsr outreach programs icpsr parents icpsr planning icpsr policies and procedures icpsr pregnancy icpsr program evaluation icpsr public health icpsr race icpsr risk factors icpsr schools icpsr skill development icpsr substance abuse icpsr substance abuse treatment icpsr tobacco use icpsr training icpsr treatment programs icpsr young adults icpsr zip code areas icpsr ICPSR IX. Health Care and Health Facilities ICPSR XVII. Social Institutions and Behavior NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program United States Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 28921 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR28921.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR02765 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130619s2003 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR02765 MiAaI MiAaI Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program in Kyle, Texas, 1993-1995 [electronic resource] Kevin Knight , Matthew Hiller , D. Dwayne Simpson 2006-03-30 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2003 ICPSR 2765 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-19. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. drug use, and arrests within the last six months, whether the counselor was easy to talk to, helped in motivating or building confidence, or assisted in making a treatment plan, whether the respondent felt a sense of family or closeness, if his family got along, enjoyed being together, got drunk together, used drugs together, or had arguments or fights, if the respondent had a job in the last six months to a year and if he enjoyed working, whether he was on time for his job, whether he had new friends or associated with old friends, and which specific drugs he had used in the last six months (e.g., hallucinogens, heroin, methadone, or other opiates). Part 10 (Treatment Background Data, Comparison Group): Treatment condition of the comparison group. Part 11 (Educational Demographic Data, Comparison Group): Whether respondents completed a GED and their highest grade completed. Parts 12 and 13 (Six-Month Follow-Up Interview Data, Comparison Group, and One-Year Follow-Up Interview Data, Comparison Group): How important church was to the respondent, whether the respondent had any educational or vocational training, if he had friends that had used drugs, got drunk, dealt drugs, or had been arrested, if within the last six months to a year the respondent had been arrested for drug use, drug sales, forgery, fencing, gambling, burglary, robbery, sexual offense, arson, or vandalism, whether drugs or alcohol affected the respondent's health, relations, attitude, attention, or ability to work, whether the respondent experienced symptoms of withdrawal, the number of drug treatment programs and AA or CA meetings the respondent attended, whether the respondent received help from parents, siblings, or other relatives, if treatment was considered helpful, and risky behavior engaged in (e.g., sharing needles, using dirty needles, and unprotected sex). Parts 14 and 16 (Probation Officer Data, Six-Month Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group, and Probation Officer Data, One-Year Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Date of departure from prison, supervision level, number of treatment team meetings, whether there was evidence of job hunting, problems with transportation, child care, or finding work, number of drug tests in the last six months, times tested positive for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, opiates, crack, or other drugs, and number of arrests, charges, convictions, and technicals. Parts 15 and 17 (Hair Specimen Data, Six-Month Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group, and Hair Specimen Data, One-Year Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Hair collection and its source at the six-month follow-up (Part 15) and one-year follow-up (Part 17) and whether parolee was positive or negative for cocaine or opiates. Part 18 (Texas Department of Public Safety Data, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Dates of first, second, and third offenses, if parolee was arrested, and first, second, and third offenses from the National Crime Information Center. Part 19 (Texas Department of Criminal Justice Data, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Treatment condition, date of release, race, and a Texas Department of Criminal Justice Salient Factor Risk Score. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02765.v2 addiction icpsr alcohol abuse icpsr correctional facilities icpsr drug related crimes icpsr drug use icpsr inmate programs icpsr outcome evaluation icpsr recidivism icpsr residential programs icpsr substance abuse icpsr substance abuse treatment icpsr treatment outcome icpsr treatment programs icpsr process evaluation icpsr ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program NACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and Crime Knight, Kevin Hiller, Matthew Simpson, D. Dwayne Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 2765 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02765.v2 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR03077 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130619s2003 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR03077 MiAaI MiAaI Process Evaluation of a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program in Dallas County, Texas, 1998-1999 [electronic resource] Matthew L. Hiller , Kevin Knight , Sandhya Rao , Dwayne Simpson 2003-06-05 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2003 ICPSR 3077 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-19. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. This study assessed the Dallas County Judicial Treatment Center (DCJTC) in Texas. The DCJTC is a residential substance abuse treatment center for drug-involved felony offenders. It provides a treatment program of approximately six months in three major phases: orientation, main treatment, and re-entry. Data were collected from 429 offenders admitted to the DCJTC between January and December 1998. During their first week of treatment, residents completed a comprehensive intake battery that included (1) the Texas Christian University (TCU) initial assessment, (2) the TCU self-rating form (SRF), and (3) the TCU intake interview. The initial assessment gauged mental status, background and psychosocial functioning, alcohol and other drug use, and psychological status. The SRF assessed psychological functioning, social functioning, and motivation for treatment. The intake interview included detailed questions on the resident's social background, family and peer relations, health and psychological status, criminal history, drug use problems, and behavioral risks for HIV/AIDS. Progress made during treatment was measured by the TCU Resident Evaluation of Self and Treatment (REST) and the TCU Counselor Rating of Client (CRC) forms. The REST included all questions on the SRF, plus questions on offenders' perceptions of the structure of the program and their experiences while in treatment, an evaluation of the counselor, an evaluation of their own personality, and ratings of group and individual treatment sessions. The CRC forms rated residents on a set of attributes related to residents' ability to benefit from treatment and indicated the extent to which counseling activities with each client had focused on certain activities. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03077.v1 process evaluation icpsr psychological evaluation icpsr residential programs icpsr substance abuse icpsr substance abuse treatment icpsr AIDS icpsr alcohol abuse icpsr alcohol consumption icpsr counseling icpsr felons icpsr HIV icpsr inmate classification icpsr mental health icpsr offenders icpsr NACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and Crime ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program Hiller, Matthew L. Knight, Kevin Rao, Sandhya Simpson, Dwayne Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 3077 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03077.v1