nmm 22 4500 ICPSR03541 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130525s2003 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 2013-05-25. 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 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 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 ICPSR03141 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130525s2003 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 2013-05-25. 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 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 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 130525s2012 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 2013-05-25. 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 ICPSR02765 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130525s2003 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 2013-05-25. 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 recidivism icpsr residential programs icpsr substance abuse icpsr substance abuse treatment icpsr treatment outcome icpsr treatment programs icpsr process evaluation icpsr addiction icpsr alcohol abuse icpsr correctional facilities icpsr drug related crimes icpsr drug use icpsr inmate programs icpsr outcome 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