Principal Investigator(s): Taxman, Faye S., George Mason University

Summary: The National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices (NCJTP) Survey provides a comprehensive inquiry into the nature of programs and services provided to adult and juvenile offenders involved in the justice system in the United States. Participants included key criminal justice administrators, operations managers, and staff. This survey was conducted in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey involved a myriad of state, regional, and local organizations employing a mix of their own s... (more info)

Series: Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS) Series

• This data is freely available.

Taxman, Faye S. Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): National Criminal Justice Treatment Program (NCJTP) Survey in the United States, 2002-2008. ICPSR27382-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2010-08-09. doi:10.3886/ICPSR27382.v1

Persistent URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27382.v1

Export Citation:

• RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
• EndNote XML (EndNote X4.0.1 or higher)

This survey was funded by:

• United States Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. National Institute on Drug Abuse

Summary:   The National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices (NCJTP) Survey provides a comprehensive inquiry into the nature of programs and services provided to adult and juvenile offenders involved in the justice system in the United States. Participants included key criminal justice administrators, operations managers, and staff. This survey was conducted in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey involved a myriad of state, regional, and local organizations employing a mix of their own staff and contracted personnel, and services that might involve multiple levels of government. It was a self-administrated, paper-and-pencil questionnaire. The methodology included a multilevel approach that captured the perspective of executives, front-line administrators, and line staff about current practices in a range of institutional and community correctional settings for adults and juveniles. The goals for this survey were: to describe current drug treatment practices, policies, and delivery systems for offenders on probation or parole supervision, and in jails, prisons, and youth institutions; to examine agency structures, resources, and other organizational factors that may affect service delivery, including mission, leadership, climate, culture, and beliefs about rehabilitation versus punishment; and to assess coordination and integration across criminal justice agencies and between corrections and treatment systems. Items in the survey included: respondent characteristics, organizational characteristics, correctional programs characteristics (e.g., size, nature, etc.), substance abuse treatment programs characteristics, social networks/agencies collaboration, integration of services with other agencies, attitudes toward punishment and rehabilitation (personal values), organizational needs assessment, organizational culture and climate for treatment, cynicism toward change, organizational commitment to treatment, and perspectives on intradepartmental coordination.

Subject Terms:   addiction, alcohol abuse, cocaine, controlled drugs, correctional facilities (adults), correctional facilities (juveniles), drug abuse, drug dependence, drug offenders, drug overdose, drug testing, drug use, hallucinogens, heroin, marijuana, steroid use, substance abuse treatment

Smallest Geographic Unit:   county

Geographic Coverage:   District of Columbia, United States

Time Period:  

• 2002--2008

Date of Collection:  

• 2002--2008
• 2008--2010

Universe:   The universe for Part 1 (Survey of Executives Data) includes all executives of state agencies, executives in correctional agencies responsible for programs and services. The universe for Part 2 (Survey of Administrators Data) includes administrators responsible for the facility, office, or program identified in adult prisons, juvenile residential facilities, and community sample. For Part 3 (Survey of Treatment Program Directors Data), the universe includes prison wardens, directors of juvenile facilities, jail wardens and directors (who were sheriffs in some counties), and administrators responsible for local probation and parole offices. The universe for Part 4 (Survey of Correctional, Probation, and Parole Staff Data) Include staff working in prison and community-based agencies and programs that were located in states covered by the Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS). And the universe for Part 5 (Survey of Treatment Staff Data) includes all the treatment staffs working in prisons and community-based agencies, and programs that were located in states covered by the CJ-DATS.

Data Types:   survey data

Data Collection Notes:

The survey involves a myriad of state, regional, and local organizations employing a mix of their own staff and contracted personnel, and the services may involve multiple levels of government.

Reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) overseeing research at each of the 11 research centers comprising National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) CJ-DATS network.

The sampling frame for S2: Survey of corrections clinical directors and alcohol and drug agency directors data was based on having one central person in each agency that was aware of the programs and services offered. It was determined that at the end the data provided could not be validated because most agencies did not have one central person who knew the agency programs and services. It was determined to use S3 data for the national estimates.

Study Purpose:   The objectives of this study were to describe the current drug treatment practices, policies, and delivery systems of offenders on probation or parole supervision, and in jails, prisons, and youth institutions. In addition, it was meant to examine agency structures, resources, and other organizational factors that may affect service delivery, including mission, leadership, climate, culture, and beliefs about rehabilitation versus punishment. Finally, it assesses the coordination and integration across criminal justice agencies and between corrections and treatment systems.

Study Design:   The mode of the survey was a self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire. This study consisted of a survey delivered to employees within correctional and treatment systems nationally, including agency administrators, wardens, program managers, and counselors and correctional officers. The survey included questions about the organizational structure and resources, the work environment, support for treatment, the value and purpose of substance abuse treatment, and the type and amount of treatment services offered. It was estimated the survey would take about 30 to 60 minutes to complete. Administrators also requested the permission of agency directors that staff who participate should be allowed to complete the survey during regular work hours. Participants were able to access the findings at the CJ-DATS (www.cjdats.org) Web site and by the researchers.

Sample:   The sampling for the study consisted of: (1) census of state correctional agency executives and clinical coordinators, and state alcohol and drug abuse directors, (2) adult prison sample, (3) juvenile residential facilities sample, and (4) community sample.

Mode of Data Collection:   mail questionnaire, mixed mode

Response Rates:   The response rate for Part 1 (Survey of Executives Data) was 70.8 percent. The response rate for Part 2 (Survey of Administrators Data) and Part 3 (Survey of Treatment Program Directors Data) totaled 62.5 percent. The response rate for Part 4 (Survey of Correctional, Probation, and Parole Staff Data) and Part 5 (Survey of Treatment Staff Data) totaled 33.9 percent.

Extent of Processing:  ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

• Standardized missing values.
• Created online analysis version with question text.
• Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Original ICPSR Release:  2010-08-09

• List all 2637 variables in this study

• Search the variables in this study

Browse Matching Variables

DS1: S1: Survey of Executives Data

DS2: S3A: Survey of Administrators Data

DS3: S3B: Survey of Treatment Program Directors Data

DS4: S4A: Survey of Correctional, Probation, and Parole Staff Data

DS5: S4B: Survey of Treatment Staff Data

Use any of the notification links to add this study to your RSS feed; you will then receive notification if the study is substantively updated.

• Citations exports are provided above.

• Export Study-level metadata (does not include variable-level metadata)

  • DDI Codebook or DDI Lifecycle

  • Dublin Core

  • MARC21 XML

  • DataCite XML

If you're looking for collection-level metadata rather than an individual metadata record, please visit our Metadata Records page.

• View Usage of this Study