Version Date: Jul 20, 2015 View help for published
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Steven Belenko, Temple University;
Bennett Fletcher, United States Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. National Institute on Drug Abuse;
Peter Friedmann, Brown University;
Linda Frisman, University of Connecticut;
Kevin Knight, Texas Christian University;
Carl Leukefeld, University of Kentucky;
Michael L. Prendergast, University of California-Los Angeles;
Stanley Sacks, National Development and Research Institute, Inc.;
Michael S. Shafer, Arizona State University;
Christy Visher, University of Delaware;
Tisha Wiley, United States Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. National Institute on Drug Abuse
Series:
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34983.v1
Version V1
The Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies 2 (CJ-DATS 2) was launched in 2008 with a focus on conducting implementation research in criminal justice settings. NIDA's ultimate goal for CJ-DATS 2 was to identify implementation strategies that maximize the likelihood of sustained delivery of evidence-based practices to improve offender drug abuse and HIV outcomes, and to decrease their risk of incarceration.
CJ-DATS 2 HIV Services Treatment Implementation in Corrections focused on implementing interventions to address the HIV continuum of care in correctional settings. There are 5 datasets associated with this study.
-Dataset 1 (DS1) contains data aggregated at the correction facility level that examines delivery of HIV services in the experimental and control study groups (215 cases).
-Dataset 2 (DS2) and Dataset 3 (DS3) detail survey responses from correctional staff about how the HIV services were changed and/or implemented at their facilities (DS2 has 68 cases and DS3 has 85 cases).
-Dataset 4 (DS4) contains survey responses from inmates about their perceptions of the HIV services provided at facilities in which they are incarcerated (2,301 cases).
-Dataset 5 (DS5) contains data merged together by the principal investigator from several surveys given to treatment staff, treatment directors, correctional officers and correctional directors. This dataset includes demographic information, staff perceptions of their work environment, perceptions of HIV infected individuals, evaluations of HIV workshops and perceptions of the delivery of HIV services at their facility (385 cases).
These 5 datasets contain a total of 889 variables.
Export Citation:
Users are reminded that these data are to be used solely for statistical analysis and reporting of aggregated information and not for the investigation of specific individuals.
ICPSR created the CASEID variable which is a unique case identifier in each of the 5 datasets.
ICPSR edited variable labels to provide users with more information and increase comparability across variables sets and datasets.
ICPSR recoded system missing values to -9 and labeled them "Missing".
ICPSR performed recodes on select variables to protect respondent confidentiality. See the "Processing/Confidentiality Notes" in each codebook for further details.
The HIV Services Treatment Implementation in Corrections study protocol tested a modified Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) process to facilitate site-specific improvements in the HIV services continuum. In both control sites and sites randomized to the modified NIATx process, criminal justice staff received training on the fundamentals of HIV prevention and treatment. Sites in the experimental condition formed a local change team to engage in a process improvement approach with external coaching to implement a more complete HIV services continuum. Within the overall parameters of the protocol - which emphasized HIV prevention, HIV testing and linkage to treatment - sites assessed local needs and existing services, set priorities for service improvements, and developed specific goals and strategies for achieving them. All sites participating in the HIV-STIC study targeted three goals:
(1) improving the perceived value of HIV services among corrections staff
(2) increasing service penetration for inmates with or at risk for HIV
(3) improving the quality of HIV service delivery.
During the 10 month intervention period data were obtained using survey instruments administered to staff members and aggregate services delivery data.
The unit of analysis for Dataset 1 (DS1) is the facility (prison or jail). Correctional or health service staff provided the researchers with records of delivery of HIV services to their offenders in aggregate form. These data distinguish between experimental and control group institutions.
The unit of analysis for Dataset 2 (DS2) was individual staff and administrative personnel from stakeholder agencies (correctional facilities, community HIV treatment providers, county health departments, case management, and substance abuse treatment organizations). The survey used for this dataset was the Change Team Assessment, which was administered around 10 months after baseline training was provided. This survey was only administered to the experimental group.
The unit of analysis for Dataset 3 (DS3) was individual staff and administrative personnel from stakeholder agencies (correctional facilities, community HIV treatment providers, county health departments, case management, and substance abuse treatment organizations). The survey administered was the Facility Impact Assessment, which was given around 10 months after baseline training.
Dataset 4 (DS4) contains survey responses from individual inmates. Independent samples were drawn at the study baseline and the post-intervention follow-up. The surveys administered were the Anonymous Inmate Survey that examined the delivery of HIV services to inmates. Because the survey was administered anonymously, baseline and follow-up surveys are not longitudinal.
Dataset 5 (DS5) contains survey responses from individual staff members who completed at least one of the following surveys: Baseline Survey of Organization Characteristics, Tear-Off Sheet Demographics, Workshop Evaluation, HIV Staff Survey of Baseline Scales, HIV Services Delivery, and HIV Staff and Services Survey 12-month Follow-up Scales. Many staff who completed a baseline survey may not have completed a follow-up survey and staff who completed a follow-up survey may not have completed the baseline survey due to staff turnover for various reasons as well as simply failure to respond to survey requests. The protocol used allowed replacement staff in similar roles to respond at follow-up.
Sampling occurred within a state's correctional system. Facilities were purposively sampled to have pairs of similar facilities. One facility was randomly assigned to the control condition and the other facility assigned to the experimental condition.
DS1: The sampling procedures were not for administration of survey questions to individual staff or inmates. The procedures were for corrections staff or health services staff to report on the numbers of inmates who were targeted to be delivered a particular type of HIV service (e.g., HIV prevention or HIV testing while incarcerated or, for inmates who are HIV positive, linking them to post-release HIV treatment in the community) and on the numbers of inmates to whom that HIV service was actually delivered.
DS2: Random sampling was not used. The HIV-STIC Change Team Assessment was administered by a member of the research team to change team participants, at the close of the study (generally 10 months after baseline training). Agency personnel from prison and jail facility sites, both male and female facilities were eligible for inclusion in change team activities. Change team membership also included participants from identified community-based treatment and health organizations providing HIV care to reentering populations. Change team membership represented a stratified sample of roles within correctional agencies and community healthcare providers, included some or all of the following agency roles: administrators, facility medical director, health care staff involved with HIV testing, HIV counselors, qualified HIV interventionists, prison/jail pharmacists, the drug treatment coordinator, drug treatment staff, and corrections officer supervisors.
DS3: Random sampling was not used. The HIV-STIC Facility Impact Assessment was administered by a member of the research team to change team participants and non-change team staff at the experimental sites, at the close of the study (generally 10 months after baseline training). Agency personnel from prison and jail facility sites, both male and female facilities, were eligible for inclusion in change team activities. Change team membership also included participants from identified community-based treatment and health organizations providing HIV care to reentering populations. Change team membership represented a stratified sample of roles within correctional agencies and community healthcare providers, including some or all of the following agency roles: administrators, facility medical directors, health care staff involved with HIV testing, HIV counselors, qualified HIV interventionists, prison/jail pharmacists, drug treatment coordinators, drug treatment staff, and corrections officer supervisors.
DS4: The target was 50 inmates per facility per administration (baseline and follow-up). A non-probability convenience sampling method was used based on who was incarcerated at the facilities at the time of administration. Actual recruitment of subjects and administration of the survey varied somewhat among sites and facilities, depending on what kind of procedure the facilities could best accommodate. Some facilities employed a group administration method in which small or large groups of inmates were administered the survey at the same time in a large room with enough physical space between participants that they could only view their own surveys and no one else's. Other facilities recruited participants individually until the quota was reached. All potential participants were informed that the survey was completely voluntary and that they could choose to participate or not without consequence. Once surveys were administered, inmates placed the completed surveys (or blank surveys for those who chose not to participate) in an envelope, sealed it, and placed it in a secure box which was returned to the researchers. Surveys were administered by research assistants if IRBs permitted and otherwise by contract medical personnel.
DS5: Individual level data were collected as purposive samples. The samples included correctional, treatment and medical staff, mainly in institutions but some medical staff were located in the community. Randomization was done at the institutional level. Matched pairs of similar institutions (e.g. prisons, jails, probation offices, work release centers) were identified and the individual pairs were randomized to either experimental or control.
Criminal offenders in prisons or jails; treatment or correctional staff and the correctional institutions in the United States in 2010-2013.
(DS1) Not applicable - All records of services to individuals were used in aggregate form.
(DS2) 91.9 percent
(DS3) 87.6 percent
(DS4) Not applicable - Convenience sampling method employed.
(DS5) 92 percent
There were many psychometric measures used in this study. See the study user guide for more information.
Hide2015-07-20
2015-07-20 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:
The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.
