nmm 22 4500 ICPSR27921 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130619s2011 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR27921 MiAaI MiAaI Evaluation of the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Community Supervision Strategy, 2007-2009 [electronic resource] Angela Hawken 2011-07-06 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2011 ICPSR 27921 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 purpose of the study was to evaluate the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) community supervision strategy for substance-abusing probationers. The study involved the administration of key stakeholder surveys as part of a process evaluation of the HOPE program and the comparison of HOPE probationers with control-group probationers on two primary outcome measures: no-shows for probation appointments and positive urine tests for illicit-substance use. For Part 1 and Part 2, data were collected from administrative data sources. Missed Appointments Data (Part 1) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on a total of 1,174 probationers including 1,078 HOPE probationers, 78 comparison probationers, and 18 probationers for which study group information was not available. Specifically, for Part 1, the research team compiled data on the proportion of missed appointments in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Drug Test Results Data (Part 2) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on the same 1,174 probationers. Specifically, for Part 2, the research team compiled data on the proportion of positive urine tests in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Stakeholder survey data were collected from September 2008 through March 2009 on 50 Integrated Community Sanctions or "Specialized Unit" probationers (Part 3), 28 probationers in treatment (Part 4), 16 probationers in jail (Part 5), 20 probation officers in the Integrated Community Sanctions Unit (Part 6), 11 public defenders (Part 7), 12 prosecutors (Part 8), 7 judges (Part 9), and 11 court staff (Part 10). Part 1 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean missed appointments scores for three periods. Part 2 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean positive urine tests for illicit-substance use scores for three periods. The Integrated Community Sanctions Probationers Survey Data (Part 3), the Probationers in Treatment Survey Data (Part 4), and the Probationers in Jail Survey Data (Part 5) each include variables about the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 3 contains 24 variables, Part 4 contains 30 variables, and Part 5 contains 30 variables. The Probation Officers Survey Data (Part 6), Public Defenders Survey Data (Part 7), Prosecutors Survey Data (Part 8), Judges Survey Data (Part 9), and Court Staff Survey Data (Part 10) include variables about workload issues and the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 6 contains 65 variables, Part 7 contains 45 variables, Part 8 contains 55 variables, Part 9 contains 36 variables, and Part 10 contains 36 variables. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27921.v1 drug offenders icpsr drug testing icpsr evaluation icpsr judges icpsr outcome evaluation icpsr probation icpsr probation conditions icpsr probation officers icpsr probationers icpsr process evaluation icpsr prosecuting attorneys icpsr public defenders icpsr sanctions icpsr urinalysis icpsr NACJD V. Courts NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System Hawken, Angela Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 27921 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27921.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR20349 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130619s2008 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR20349 MiAaI MiAaI Neuropsychological and Emotional Deficits as Predictors of Correctional Treatment Response in Maryland, 2003-2005 [electronic resource] RTI International 2008-03-31 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2008 ICPSR 20349 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 study was designed to elucidate underlying neuropsychological and emotional regulatory mechanisms in variable responses to a cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) program among prison inmates. This study tested the hypotheses that performance deficits in executive cognitive function (ECF) tasks and emotional responses will characterize aggressive and disruptive inmates and predict treatment response. All subjects were examined using noninvasive behavioral, psychological, ECF, and hormone tests. The data contain a total of 232 cases. Inmates volunteering to participate in the cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) program offered by the Maryland correctional system were recruited from three facilities using a pseudo-random selection procedure during intake into the program. Consenting inmates received an extensive baseline testing battery of several complementary dimensions of higher order neuropsychological functions as well as conditions that influence them: (1) three ECF tasks and one emotional perception task, (2) collection of salivary cortisol during an acute stress task and the Symptom Checklist 90 (SCL-90) taken beforehand, (3) a short general neuropsychological test, (4) three psychological questionnaires, (5) an historical inventory to assess prior drug use and child and family background, and (6) a treatment readiness, responsivity, and gain scale. An events inventory and a success inventory were also administered. Several additional tests were administered repeatedly throughout treatment. A record review was conducted after program completion to ascertain incidents of institutional misconduct as well as treatment performance outcomes. Variables include IQ, demographics, background information, prior drug use, early trauma, psychopathy, aggression, stressful events, success, reactions to provocation, treatment readiness, emotional perception/regulation, executive cognitive performance, cortisol measures, treatment gain, treatment responsivity, treatment completion, Maryland Offender Based State Correctional Information System (OBSCIS) data, institutional infractions, segregations, and several other computed variables. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR20349.v1 addiction icpsr aggression icpsr behavior modification icpsr behavior problems icpsr cognitive processes icpsr correctional facilities icpsr decision making icpsr emotional states icpsr evaluation icpsr human behavior icpsr inmates icpsr intervention strategies icpsr personality assessment icpsr program evaluation icpsr residential programs icpsr substance abuse icpsr treatment facilities icpsr treatment outcomes icpsr treatment programs icpsr NACJD III. Corrections ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program RTI International Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 20349 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR20349.v1