nmm 22 4500 ICPSR03688 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130620s2003 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR03688 MiAaI MiAaI Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2001 [electronic resource] United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice 2006-03-30 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2003 ICPSR 3688 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-20. 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://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03688.v1 ADAM/DUF Program icpsr alcohol abuse icpsr arrests icpsr crime patterns icpsr demographic characteristics icpsr drug dependence icpsr drug offenders icpsr drug related crimes icpsr drug testing icpsr drug treatment icpsr drug use icpsr drugs icpsr substance abuse icpsr trends icpsr urinalysis 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 United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 3688 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03688.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR03815 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130620s2004 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR03815 MiAaI MiAaI Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2002 [electronic resource] United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice 2006-03-30 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2004 ICPSR 3815 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-20. 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://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03815.v1 ADAM/DUF Program icpsr alcohol abuse icpsr arrests icpsr crime patterns icpsr demographic characteristics icpsr drug dependence icpsr drug offenders icpsr drug related crimes icpsr drug testing icpsr drug treatment icpsr drug use icpsr drugs icpsr substance abuse icpsr trends icpsr urinalysis icpsr NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program NACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and Crime ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 3815 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03815.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR04020 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130620s2004 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR04020 MiAaI MiAaI Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2003 [electronic resource] United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice 2006-03-30 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2004 ICPSR 4020 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-20. 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://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04020.v1 demographic characteristics icpsr drug offenders icpsr drug related crimes icpsr drug testing icpsr drug treatment icpsr drug use icpsr drugs icpsr substance abuse icpsr trends icpsr urinalysis icpsr drug dependence icpsr ADAM/DUF Program icpsr alcohol abuse icpsr arrests icpsr crime patterns 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 United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 4020 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04020.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR03541 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130620s2003 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR03541 MiAaI MiAaI 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 2003-06-05 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2003 ICPSR 3541 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-20. 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://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03541.v1 drug treatment icpsr inmate classification icpsr inmates icpsr psychological evaluation icpsr recidivism icpsr substance abuse icpsr testing and measurement icpsr treatment outcome icpsr treatment programs icpsr addiction icpsr drug abuse icpsr drug dependence icpsr drug 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 Knight, Kevin D. Simpson, Dwayne Rhodes, Janis Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 3541 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03541.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR02564 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130620s2000 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR02564 MiAaI MiAaI Crack, Powder Cocaine, and Heroin [electronic resource] Drug Purchase and Use Patterns in Six Cities in the United States, 1995-1996 K. Jack Riley 2012-08-22 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2000 ICPSR 2564 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-20. 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://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02564.v1 crack cocaine icpsr crime patterns icpsr demographic characteristics icpsr drug abuse icpsr drug dependence icpsr drug offenders icpsr drug related crimes icpsr drug testing icpsr drug traffic icpsr drug treatment icpsr drug use icpsr drugs icpsr heroin icpsr substance abuse icpsr trends icpsr urinalysis icpsr ADAM/DUF Program icpsr arrests icpsr cocaine icpsr NACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and Crime NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System Riley, K. Jack Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 2564 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02564.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR27963 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130620s2011 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR27963 MiAaI MiAaI Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS) [electronic resource] The Criminal Justice Co-Occurring Disorder Screening Instrument (CJ-CODSI), 2002-2008 [United States] Stanley Sacks , Gerald Melnick 2011-07-19 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2011 ICPSR 27963 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-20. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. Currently, there exists an inadequacy in mental and substance use disorder screening instruments. This inadequacy stems from two reasons. First, the instruments are untested for widespread use with criminal justice populations. Second, most test for only one disorder at a time. The Criminal Justice Co-Occurring Disorder Screening Instrument (CODSI) study addresses this issue, investigating new methods by which to quickly, accurately, and easily evaluate individuals in the criminal justice population for COD (Co-Occurring Disorders). After determining that the Texas Christian University Drug Screen (TCUDS) would be the appropriate substance abuse screening component for a COD screen, researchers tested three possible mental disorder screening components: the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GSS, version 1.0); the Mental Health Screening Form (MHSF); and the Modified MINI Screen (MMS). The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID), generally accepted as an accurate measure of mental disorder, was used as a reference by which to evaluate the three different screeners. Researchers also used items from the three different screeners to create two additional instruments: the CODSI-MD for any mental disorder and the CODSI-SMD for severe mental disorder. Actual testing was conducted at four different sites, taking a total of 280 new admissions to prison-based substance abuse treatment programs. Instruments were evaluated based on their sensitivity (ability to correctly identify those with COD), specificity (ability to correctly identify those without COD), and overall accuracy (percentage of correct identification across all people). Researchers also conducted a study using a sample comprised of a greater proportion of Latinos and African Americans, in order to evaluate the effect of race on the results of the instruments. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27963.v1 correctional facilities icpsr drug abuse icpsr inmate populations icpsr mental disorders icpsr substance abuse treatment icpsr treatment programs icpsr NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program ICPSR XVII. Social Institutions and Behavior Sacks, Stanley Melnick, Gerald Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 27963 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27963.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR02706 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130620s2000 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR02706 MiAaI MiAaI Differences in the Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use Across Five Factors in Indianapolis, Fort Lauderdale, Phoenix, and Dallas, 1994 [electronic resource] Andre B. Rosay , University of Maryland at College Park , Denise C. Herz 2000-09-11 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2000 ICPSR 2706 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-20. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. This study investigated the accuracy of self-reported drug use in three ways. First, the researchers examined differences in the accuracy of self-reported drug use across five factors: gender, race, age, type of drug, and offense seriousness. Second, an attempt was made to determine the specific sources of inaccurate self-reports in terms of differences in underreporting and overreporting. Third, the researchers sought to explain differences in underreporting and overreporting in terms of true differences or differences in opportunity to underreport or overreport. This study used data collected in 1994 as part of the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program [DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 (ICPSR 9477)]. The DUF drug testing and measurement methodology allows the accuracy of self-reported drug use to be checked with a biological criterion, namely urine tests. The sample for this study consisted of 4,752 white and Black adults from Indianapolis, Ft. Lauderdale, Phoenix, and Dallas. The five exogenous measures included in this study were type of drug (marijuana vs. crack/cocaine), age (18 through 30 vs. 31 or over), offense seriousness (misdemeanor vs. felony), race (Black vs. white), and gender (male vs. female). The endogenous measures were accuracy (self-report and drug test both positive or both negative vs. otherwise), underreporting (self-report negative but drug test positive vs. otherwise), and overreporting (self-report positive but drug test negative vs. otherwise). Variables include result of marijuana urine test, result of cocaine/crack urine test, marijuana self-report, cocaine/crack self-report, age group, sex, race, offense category, and ethnic/gender group. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02706.v1 African Americans icpsr age icpsr crack cocaine icpsr drug law offenses icpsr drug offender profiles icpsr drug testing icpsr drug use icpsr gender icpsr marijuana icpsr race icpsr urinalysis icpsr White Americans 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 RCMD I. Crime Rosay, Andre B. University of Maryland at College Park Herz, Denise C. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 2706 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02706.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR02686 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130620s2000 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR02686 MiAaI MiAaI Evaluation of the Children at Risk Program in Austin, Texas, Bridgeport, Connecticut, Memphis, Tennessee, Savannah, Georgia, and Seattle, Washington, 1993-1997 [electronic resource] Adele V. Harrell , Shannon Cavanagh , Sanjeev Sridharan 2006-03-30 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2000 ICPSR 2686 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-20. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. s about the police, occasions of skipping school and why, if the youth thought he or she would be promoted to the next grade, would graduate from high school, or would go to college, knowledge of children engaging in various problem activities and if the youth was pressured to join them, and experiences with and attitudes toward consumption of cigarettes, alcohol, and various drugs. Three sections of the questionnaire were completed by the youths. Section A asked questions about the youth's attitudes toward various statements about self, life, the home environment, rules, and norms. Section B asked questions about the number of times that various crimes had been committed against the youth, his or her sexual activity, number of times the youth ran away from home, number of times he or she had committed various criminal acts, and what weapons he or she had carried. Items in Section C covered the youth's alcohol and drug use, and participation in drug sales. Part 3 provides data from both caretaker interviews (baseline and end-of-program). Questions elicited the caretaker's assessments of the presence of various positive and negative neighborhood characteristics, safety of the child in the neighborhood, attitudes toward and interactions with the police, if the caretaker had been arrested, had been on probation, or in jail, whether various crimes had been committed against the caretaker or others in the household in the past year, activities that the youth currently participated in, curfews set by the caretaker, if the caretaker had visited the school for various reasons, school performance or problems by the youth and the youth's siblings, amount of the caretaker's involvement with activities, clubs, and groups, the caretaker's financial, medical, and personal problems and assistance received in the past year, if he or she was not able to obtain help, why not, and information on the caretaker's education, employment, income level, income sources, and where he or she sought medical treatment for themselves or for the youth. Two sections of the data collection instruments were completed by the caretaker. Section A dealt with the youth's personal problems or problems with others, and the youth's friends. Additional questions focused on the family's interactions, rules, and norms. Section B items asked about the caretaker's alcohol and drug use, and any alcohol and drug use or criminal justice involvement by others in the household older than the youth. Part 4 consists of data from schools, police, and courts. School data include the youth's grades, grade-point average (GPA), absentee rate, reasons for absences, and whether the youth was promoted each school year. Data from police records include police contacts, detentions, violent offenses, drug-related offenses, and arrests prior to recruitment in the CAR program and in Years 1-4 after recruitment, court contacts and charges prior to recruitment and in Years 1-4 after recruitment, and how the charges were disposed. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02686.v1 intervention icpsr intervention strategies icpsr case management icpsr juvenile offenders icpsr neighborhoods icpsr program evaluation icpsr student attitudes icpsr student behavior icpsr treatment programs icpsr youths at risk icpsr children icpsr cities icpsr crime prevention icpsr delinquent behavior icpsr drug use icpsr family services icpsr ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NACJD II. Community Studies NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program Harrell, Adele V. Cavanagh, Shannon Sridharan, Sanjeev Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 2686 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02686.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR03141 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130620s2003 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR03141 MiAaI MiAaI Evaluation of the Texas Youth Commission's Chemical Dependency Treatment Program, 1998-1999 [electronic resource] William R. Kelly 2003-03-11 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2003 ICPSR 3141 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-20. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. This study consists of data from both the process evaluation and the outcome evaluation of the Texas Youth Commission's (TYC) Chemical Dependency Treatment Program (CDTP). The research goal of the first part of the study was to provide a systematic and empirical process evaluation of appropriate program placement and whether and to what extent selected individual-level factors were related to key measures of program progress, as well as to variations in process outcomes across each of five treatment sites. The research goal of the second part of the study was to provide a systematic and empirical outcome evaluation of the impact of the TYC Chemical Dependency Treatment Program, including determination of the extent to which certain risk, need, amenability, program performance and delivery, and aftercare factors affected treatment impact. Data were obtained from the Texas Youth Commission, the state corrections agency responsible for serving violent and serious delinquent youth committed to the custody of the state. TYC collects a range of information on the risk, needs, and treatment amenability of its youths. Also, program performance is measured through the use of an exit assessment conducted by program staff, which essentially provides a report card summarizing each youth's involvement and progress in treatment. Data in this evaluation cover all juveniles who entered the CDTP from January through October 1998, and who were discharged by April 1, 1999. The treatment group consists of youths who invariably had a high need for chemical dependency treatment. The control group consists of youths who were eligible for treatment in the CDTP during this same time period but who did not receive it due to limited CDTP bed space. To obtain measures of drug use/abuse relapse, aftercare participation, and parole performance, a parolee data worksheet was created. TYC was able to provide information on who received chemical dependency treatment while on parole. Five core variables of the process evaluation data are program completion, program expulsion, days to completion, days to expulsion, and number of behavior infractions. The process evaluation includes the following variables from individual exit assessments: the youth's overall participation, whether the youth understood the curriculum, understood addiction, sought help, acknowledged addiction, and acknowledged impact, the youth's performance grade, whether the youth committed to be drug-free, family involvement, special circumstances, and performance index. Demographic variables are race, age, parents' marital status, and gender. Variables addressing risk factors include classifying offense, offender class, risk level, number of felony referrals, number of felony adjudications, number of previous TYC commitments, and number of parole revocations. Other variables in the process evaluation address the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI), the Diagnostic Statistical Manual IV (DSM-IV) chemical dependency treatment need, TYC treatment amenability score, and the Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES). Variables available in the outcome evaluation data address issues of rearrest, higher custody level, aftercare sessions, drug tests, and parole compliance. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03141.v1 addiction icpsr juvenile offenders icpsr process evaluation icpsr outcome evaluation icpsr residential programs icpsr substance abuse treatment icpsr treatment compliance icpsr treatment facilities icpsr treatment outcome icpsr ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and Crime NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program Kelly, William R. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 3141 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03141.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR33161 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130620s2012 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR33161 MiAaI MiAaI Helping Young Smokers Quit [electronic resource] Identifying Best Practices for Tobacco Cessation, Phase II National Program Evaluation, 2003-2006 Robin J. Mermelstein , Susan J. Curry 2012-04-04 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2012 ICPSR 33161 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-20. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. information in Dataset 8 into one summary record for each community. The unit of observation for Datasets 1-4 is the participant, for Datasets 5 and 7 the smoking cessation program/offering organization, for Dataset 6 the program delivery/program cohort, for Dataset 8 the ordinance, and for Dataset 9 the community. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR33161.v1 addiction icpsr adolescents icpsr smoking icpsr smoking cessation icpsr tobacco products icpsr tobacco use icpsr youths icpsr NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program ICPSR IX. Health Care and Health Facilities HMCA III. Substance Abuse and Health Mermelstein, Robin J. Curry, Susan J. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 33161 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR33161.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR22140 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130620s2011 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR22140 MiAaI MiAaI HIV Transmission Network Metastudy Project [electronic resource] An Archive of Data From Eight Network Studies, 1988--2001 Martina Morris , Richard Rothenberg 2011-08-09 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2011 ICPSR 22140 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-20. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The purpose of this project was to establish a collection of datasets that could be used (1) to analyze the influence of partnership networks on the transmission of sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections, and (2) to examine the influence of study design on estimation of network properties and impacts. Eight studies contributed datasets to the collection. They include: Colorado Springs Project 90, 1988-1992 Bushwick [Brooklyn, NY] Social Factors and HIV Risk (SFHR) Study, 1991-1993 Atlanta Urban Networks Project, 1996-1999 Flagstaff Rural Network Study, 1996-1998 Atlanta Antiretroviral Adherence Study, 1998-2001 Houston Risk Networks Study, 1997-1998 Baltimore SHIELD (Self-Help in Eliminating Life-Threatening Diseases), 1997-1999 Manitoba Chlamydia Study, 1997-1998 Each study contains information on sexual, needle sharing, and/or social networks. Each dataset was harmonized to permit comparative analysis. Almost all of the studies were research projects funded by federal agency sources (e.g., United States Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health); one was funded by Canadian sources. These studies, all closed for further enrollment, provide a range of designs and study types as well as a range of transmitted diseases. This allows researchers to investigate the relative effect of personal behavior and network connections on the dynamics of disease transmission, and to explore the impact of sampling design on estimation of network properties. Respondents were asked questions about different test results such as HIV, chlamydia, syphilis and hepatitis. Demographic variables include race, ethnicity, marital status, age, and gender. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR22140.v1 health behavior icpsr HIV icpsr sexual behavior icpsr sexual disease icpsr sexual orientation icpsr DATAPASS I. NDIIPP ICPSR IX. Health Care and Health Facilities NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program Morris, Martina Rothenberg, Richard Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 22140 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR22140.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR04672 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130620s2012 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR04672 MiAaI MiAaI Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000 [United States] [electronic resource] United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 2012-02-09 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2012 ICPSR 4672 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-20. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2000, the JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04672.v1 census data icpsr juvenile detention icpsr juvenile offenders icpsr juveniles icpsr mental health services icpsr pregnancy icpsr substance abuse treatment icpsr correctional education icpsr correctional facilities icpsr educational needs icpsr group homes icpsr health care services icpsr NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program ICPSR XVII. Social Institutions and Behavior NACJD III. Corrections ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 4672 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04672.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR23520 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130620s2012 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR23520 MiAaI MiAaI Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2002 [United States] [electronic resource] United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 2012-02-09 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2012 ICPSR 23520 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-20. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2002, the JRFC used two modules to collect information on the substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR23520.v1 census data icpsr correctional facilities icpsr group homes icpsr juvenile detention icpsr juvenile offenders icpsr juveniles icpsr mental health services icpsr substance abuse treatment icpsr ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program ICPSR XVII. Social Institutions and Behavior NACJD III. Corrections United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 23520 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR23520.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR25981 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130620s2012 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR25981 MiAaI MiAaI Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2006 [United States] [electronic resource] United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 2012-02-09 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2012 ICPSR 25981 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-20. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2006, the JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25981.v1 census data icpsr correctional education icpsr correctional facilities icpsr educational needs icpsr group homes icpsr health care services icpsr juvenile detention icpsr juvenile offenders icpsr juveniles icpsr mental health services icpsr pregnancy icpsr substance abuse treatment icpsr vaccines icpsr NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program NACJD III. Corrections ICPSR XVII. Social Institutions and Behavior ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 25981 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25981.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR34402 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130620s2012 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR34402 MiAaI MiAaI Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2008 [United States] [electronic resource] United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 2012-11-13 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2012 ICPSR 34402 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-20. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34402.v1 census data icpsr correctional facilities icpsr correctional facilities (juveniles) icpsr group homes icpsr juvenile detention icpsr juvenile offenders icpsr juveniles icpsr NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NACJD III. Corrections ICPSR XVII. Social Institutions and Behavior United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 34402 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34402.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR34449 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130620s2012 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR34449 MiAaI MiAaI Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2010 [United States] [electronic resource] United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 2012-11-13 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2012 ICPSR 34449 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-06-20. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2010, the JRFC used three modules to collect information on the educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34449.v1 census data icpsr correctional education icpsr correctional facilities icpsr educational needs icpsr group homes icpsr health care services icpsr juvenile detention icpsr juvenile offenders icpsr juveniles icpsr mental health services icpsr substance abuse treatment icpsr NACJD III. Corrections ICPSR XVII. Social Institutions and Behavior ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 34449 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34449.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR02765 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130620s2003 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 2013-06-20. 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 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 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 130620s2003 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 2013-06-20. 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 NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and Crime 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 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR28921 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130620s2012 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 2013-06-20. 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 NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program ICPSR XVII. Social Institutions and Behavior 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