Search results

The Adolescent Substance Abuse Prevention Study (ASAPS) was a randomized field trial designed to test the effectiveness of a new school-based substance abuse prevention program called Take Charge of Your Life (TCYL). The program consisted of two curricula, one for middle schools and the other for high schools, which were delivered through the Drug Abuse Resistance Education network of law enforcement officers (D.A.R.E.). TCYL was developed building on existing D.A.R.E. seventh/eighth grade and tenth/eleventh grade curricula and applied principles and strategies suggested by published literature on effective drug abuse prevention programming and effective middle and high school curricula design. ASAPS was conducted among a 2001-2002 multi-site cohort of seventh graders who were followed for five years until the 2005-2006 school year when they were in the eleventh grade. The first TCYL curriculum was delivered in the treatment schools when the students were in seventh grade and the second was delivered when they were in the ninth grade.

Over the five-year study period, the treatment and control students responded to seven self-administered surveys: (1) at baseline in the seventh grade, (2) post-intervention in the seventh grade, (3) in the eighth grade, (4) pre-intervention in the ninth grade, (5) post-intervention in the ninth grade, (6) in the tenth grade, and (7) in the eleventh grade. Topics covered by the surveys include normative beliefs, social skills, attitudes toward drug use, and self-reported use of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and other illicit drugs. The ASAPS data also include measures of implementation fidelity of the seventh and ninth grade TCYL curricula, which were obtained from trained observers who rated the D.A.R.E. officers' delivery in the classroom. The fidelity measures encompass content coverage and instructional strategy.

This data collection comprises two data files, both with public- and restricted-use versions. The first (the Main Data File) contains the students' survey responses and the seventh grade curriculum fidelity measures, while the second (the 9th Grade Officer Observations Data) contains the ninth grade curriculum fidelity measures.

These data were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of CASAWORKS for Families (CWF), a multiservice intervention designed to move substance abusing women on welfare to sobriety and self-sufficiency by addressing their substance abuse, domestic violence, employment, and basic needs. Conducted at 11 sites across the country, the evaluation was designed as a repeated measures, pre-during-post field evaluation with no pre-specified control or comparison groups. The results of this evaluation were primarily intended to guide a proposed second-stage experimental study of the effectiveness of an enhanced and refined CWF model.

When the potential participant presented herself at the CWF site, a research technician administered a specially modified version of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), referred to as the Welfare to Work ASI (WTW-ASI). This version retained the ASI 5th edition as the core instrument but added questions in an addendum. The baseline WTW-ASI measured the severity of problems in nine areas: employment, medical status, alcohol use, drug use, legal status, family and social relationships, children and child care, basic needs, and psychiatric symptoms. In addition, the four-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), the Parenting Dimensions Inventory (PDI), and the Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale (PDS) were used to assess depression, parenting style, and posttraumatic stress disorder, respectively. The PDI, CES-D, and a follow-up version of WTW-ASI were also administered 6 and 12 months after intake.

Two instruments were used at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postbaseline to record the services provided by CWF: Welfare to Work version of the Treatment Services Review (TSR-WTW) and Case Management Review (CMR). The former mostly collected data on the number of treatment services received, such as doctor visits, therapy sessions, and days of inpatient treatment in the prior 30 days, while the latter collected data on the activities of the case management sessions and topics covered with the case managers. Activities recorded by the CMR included working on self-sufficiency plans, arrangement of follow-up services, skills development, crisis response, and advocating for the client. Topics covered included employment, substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, parenting and child care, basic needs, life skills, and social support.

In order to compare the characteristics of the CWF clients with the general population of women who received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the study also collected WTW-ASI data from women in the general TANF population in the CWF locales regardless of their substance-use status.

The Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS, formerly known as the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study) follows a cohort of nearly 5,000 children born in large, U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000. The study oversampled births to unmarried couples; and, when weighted, the data are representative of births in large U.S. cities at the turn of the century. The FFCWS was originally designed to address four questions of great interest to researchers and policy makers:

1. What are the conditions and capabilities of unmarried parents, especially fathers?
2. What is the nature of the relationships between unmarried parents?
3. How do children born into these families fare?
4. How do policies and environmental conditions affect families and children?

The FFCWS consists of interviews with mothers, fathers, and/or primary caregivers at birth and again when children are ages 1, 3, 5, 9, 15, and 22. The parent interviews collected information on attitudes, relationships, parenting behavior, demographic characteristics, health (mental and physical), economic and employment status, neighborhood characteristics, and program participation. Beginning at age 9, children were interviewed directly (either during the home visit or on the telephone). The direct child interviews collected data on family relationships, home routines, schools, peers, and physical and mental health, as well as health behaviors.

A collaborative study of the FFCWS, the In-Home Longitudinal Study of Pre-School Aged Children (In-Home Study) collected data from a subset of the FFCWS Core respondents at the Year 3 and 5 follow-ups to ask how parental resources in the form of parental presence or absence, time, and money influence children under the age of 5. The In-Home Study collected information on a variety of domains of the child's environment, including: the physical environment (quality of housing, nutrition and food security, health care, adequacy of clothing and supervision) and parenting (parental discipline, parental attachment, and cognitive stimulation). In addition, the In-Home Study also collected information on several important child outcomes, including anthropometrics, child behaviors, and cognitive ability. This information was collected through interviews with the child's primary caregiver, and direct observation of the child's home environment and the child's interactions with his or her caregiver.

Similar activities were conducted during the Year 9 follow-up. At the Year 15 follow-up, a condensed set of home visit activities were conducted with a subsample of approximately 1,000 teens. Teens who participated in the In-Home Study were also invited to participate in a Sleep Study and were asked to wear an accelerometer on their non-dominant wrist for seven consecutive days to track their sleep (Sleep Actigraphy Data) and that day's behaviors and mood (Daily Sleep Actigraphy and Diary Survey Data).

An additional collaborative study collected data from the child care provider (Year 3) and teacher (Years 9 and 15) through mail-based surveys. Saliva samples were collected at Year 9 and 15 (Biomarker file and Polygenic Scores). The Study of Adolescent Neural Development (SAND) COVID Study began data collection in May 2020 following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It included online surveys with the young adult and their primary caregiver.

The FFCWS began its seventh wave of data collection in October 2020, around the focal child's 22nd birthday. Data collection and interviews continued through January 2024. The Year 22 wave included a young adult (YA) survey with the original focal child and a primary caregiver (PCG) survey. Data were also collected on the children of the original focal child (referred to as Generation 3, or G3).

In 2017, the FFCWS team announced the Fragile Families (FF) Challenge, a collaborative effort in which participants were tasked with using machine learning methods and FFCWS data (Baseline to Year 9) to build a model that would predict six key outcomes at Year 15. Materials used in the FF Challenge have been archived in this collection.

Documentation for these files is available on the FFCWS website under Data and Documentation. For details of updates made to the FFCWS data files, please see the project's Data Alerts page.

Data collection for the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers R01HD36916, R01HD39135, and R01HD40421, as well as a consortium of private foundations.

Below is the citation for use of the FFCWS data accessed through ICPSR. For information on additional citation requirements when using FFCWS in publications, please refer to this FAQ on the FFCWS project site.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigators if further information is needed.

This study is a secondary analysis (syntax only, no data) of Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Subject Measures, 2000-2010 (ICPSR 29961) and Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Calendar Data, 2000-2010 [Restricted] (ICPSR 32282).

The purpose of this study was to further existing knowledge of juvenile justice intervention and how juvenile justice intervention is related to positive outcomes during the transition to adulthood. This study examines three main aims using data from the Pathways to Desistance study, which followed a sample of serious adolescent offenders for seven years to examine the desistance process. First, trajectories of secure institutional placement for serious offenders during the study period were identified. Second, trajectories of gainful activities for serious adolescent offenders during the study period were identified. Gainful activities were defined as working or attending school. Third, factors associated with turning points in the gainful activities trajectories were explored. In the course of estimating the gainful activities trajectories, there appeared to be a key moment, around year 3, where multiple trajectories with moderate levels of engagement in gainful activities diverged. Together, these three aims will inform how juvenile justice intervention is related to positive outcomes during the transition to adulthood and identify factors that may be related to positive outcomes and critical turning points in the trajectories of serious adolescent offenders.

Group differences were examined by testing bivariate differences in a broad range of variables: demographic variables (gender, age, and race/ethnicity); study site and year of interview; characteristics of prior service receipt at baseline (location and orientation); school, family and neighborhood characteristics; characteristics of the offense and offense history; individual factors (mental health and substance use symptoms); and risk scores.

The NCS-2 was a re-interview of 5,001 individuals who participated in the Baseline (NCS-1). The study was conducted a decade after the initial baseline survey. The aim was to collect information about changes in mental disorders, substance use disorders, and the predictors and consequences of these changes over the ten years between the two surveys. The collection contains three major sections: the main survey, demographic data, and diagnostic data.

In the main survey, respondents were asked about general physical and mental health. Questions focused on a variety of health issues, including limitations caused by respondents' health issues, substance use, childhood health, life-threatening illnesses, chronic conditions, medications taken in the past 12 months, level of functioning and symptoms experienced in the past 30 days, and any services used by the respondents since the (NCS-1). Additional questions focused on mental disorders including depression, bipolar disorder, specific and social phobias, generalized anxiety, intermittent explosive disorder, suicidality, post-traumatic stress disorder, neurasthenia, pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, and separation anxiety. Respondents were also asked about their lives in general, with topics including employment, finances, marriage, children, their social lives, and stressful life events experienced in the past 12 months. Additionally, two personality assessments were included consisting of respondents' opinions on whether various true/false statements accurately described their personalities. Another focus of the main survey dealt with substance use and abuse, nonmedical use of prescription drugs, and polysubstance use. Interview questions in the NCS-2 Main Survey were customized to each respondent based on previous responses in the Baseline (NCS-1).

The middle section contains demographic and other background information including age, education, employment, household composition, household income, marital status, and region.

The last section of the collection focused on whether respondents met diagnostic criteria for psychological disorders asked about in the main survey.

The NCS-2 was a re-interview of 5,001 individuals who participated in the Baseline (NCS-1). The study was conducted a decade after the initial baseline survey. The aim was to collect information about changes in mental disorders, substance use disorders, and the predictors and consequences of these changes over the ten years between the two surveys. The collection contains four major sections: the main survey, demographic data, diagnostic data, and state, county, and tract FIPS data.

In the main survey, respondents were asked about general physical and mental health. Questions focused on a variety of health issues, including limitations caused by respondents' health issues, substance use, childhood health, life-threatening illnesses, chronic conditions, medications taken in the past 12 months, level of functioning and symptoms experienced in the past 30 days, and any services used by the respondents since the (NCS-1). Additional questions focused on mental disorders including depression, bipolar disorder, specific and social phobias, generalized anxiety, intermittent explosive disorder, suicidality, post-traumatic stress disorder, neurasthenia, pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, and separation anxiety. Respondents were also asked about their lives in general, with topics including employment, finances, marriage, children, their social lives, and stressful life events experienced in the past 12 months. Additionally, two personality assessments were included consisting of respondents' opinions on whether various true/false statements accurately described their personalities. Another focus of the main survey dealt with substance use and abuse, nonmedical use of prescription drugs, and polysubstance use. Interview questions in the NCS-2 Main Survey were customized to each respondent based on previous responses in the Baseline (NCS-1).

The second part contains demographic and other background information including age, education, employment, household composition, household income, marital status, and region.

The third part focuses on whether respondents met diagnostic criteria for psychological disorders asked about in the main survey.

The fourth part contains respondents' state, county, and tract FIPS data.

The Calendar data files are comprised of 47 total parts spread across 13 distinct topical domains.

• Academic Achievement
• Antisocial Activity
• Community-Based Services
• Contact With the Justice System
• Court Monitoring
• Gainful Activity
• Head Injury
• Living Situation
• Making and Spending Money
• Medication
• Out of Community Placement
• Romance
• School

Each topical domain contains multiple reference periods for looking at the topic across the entire data collection period of the study.

Users who request these restricted data should first review the documentation available from NAHDAP (user guide and frequency codebooks) and from the Pathways Website (domain content codebooks). This review will help determine which specific datasets will be needed for your project. The "Research Description" in ICPSR's Data Access Request System (IDARS) must include a specific explanation of why you need each topic domain selected on the "Data Selection" page in IDARS. Most projects should only require one reference period per topic domain being requested. Data requests for all reference periods within a given domain will not be approved without a satisfactory explanation of why all of the reference periods are required for your project. Since the Calendar data collection is very extensive and Restricted Data Use Agreements are only for 2 years, data requests are not expected to need the entire Calendar data collection.

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

Respondents were enrolled and baseline interviews conducted from November 2000 to January 2003. Follow-up interviews were then scheduled with the respondents at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, 60, 72 and 84 months past their baseline interview.

The enrolled youth were at least 14 years old and under 18 years old at the time of their committing offense and were found guilty of a serious offense (predominantly felonies, with a few exceptions for some misdemeanor property offenses, sexual assault, or weapons offenses).

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700) from 2000 through 2010.

This study looks at interviews conducted with the collateral informants who participated in the study. The collateral informants were nominated by the main study participant and represented individuals who "knew the study participant well". At the interview baseline the collateral informant was usually a biological parent. During the three follow-up interviews the majority of collaterals were a friend. Collateral informants could also be a sibling, significant other, or relative. Collaterals were asked questions in regards to the main study participant's life, allowing for comparison between responses provided by two sources. A baseline interview was conducted with the collateral after the baseline interview took place with the main participant. Additional waves of follow-up with collaterals took place at 12, 24, and 36 months. A collateral report is not present for all of the main study participant interviews across waves (see response rate below).

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

This study looks at interviews conducted with the collateral informants who participated in the study. The collateral informants were nominated by the main study participant and represented individuals who "knew the study participant well". At the interview baseline the collateral informant was usually a biological parent. During the three follow-up interviews the majority of collaterals were a friend. Collateral informants could also be a sibling, significant other, or relative. Collaterals were asked questions in regards to the main study participant's life, allowing for comparison between responses provided by two sources. A baseline interview was conducted with the collateral after the baseline interview took place with the main participant. Additional waves of follow-up with collaterals took place at 12, 24, and 36 months. A collateral report is not present for all of the main study participant interviews across waves (see response rate below).

The current Collateral Measures study primarily consists of the calculated scores from constructs asked about during the interview, but the individual scale items were withheld at that time. These additional datasets contain those individual items plus the calculated scores. These variables are typically consistent across the waves that the scale was asked about during the course of the entire project. Most of the files contain variables from all four waves of data collection. The table in the front of the User Guide will list which waves are present in each data file.

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654), and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

The official arrests records of all 1,354 youth were obtained from multiple sources. For arrest/petitions under the age of 18, this information is based on petitions appearing in the juvenile and adult court records in each site. In Philadelphia, this information was gathered based on a hand review of juvenile and adult court documents; in Phoenix, the information is based on reports from two computerized court tracking systems (JOLTS--Juvenile On-Line Tracking System for juvenile court information, ICIS--Maricopa County Superior Court database for adult court information). For arrests/petitions over 18, FBI arrest records are the source of information. There is no self-reported information contained in this set of data.

Information from these different data sources is consolidated into the following categories:

1. Information regarding petitions with a date that falls prior to the baseline interview date ("prior petitions").
2. Information regarding the study index petition (also called the "initial referring petition"; this is the adjudication that prompted study enrollment). Information regarding the study index petition can be found by accessing the "type" variable associated with the prior petitions (specific variable name: Official Record Prior PetitionXX: Petition type). Depending on the investigator's needs, this petition can remain combined with the "priors" or be used as a stand-alone petition.
3. Information regarding arrests and court petitions with a date which falls after the baseline interview date in the Pathways study ("rearrests").

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

The Release data portion of the Pathways study contains information from 1,130 interviews ("release interviews") reflecting the youths' perceptions regarding various aspects of the residential experience and institutional environment (e.g., accounts of program operations and services provided, ratings regarding the participant's feelings of his or her safety in the facility). The release interview was conducted within 30 days prior to or after release from a facility and in a separate session apart from the time point interview. This was done to minimize the burden on the research participant and to ensure adequate attention to institutional ratings. The restricted time period within which to conduct the release interview reduced the likelihood that intervening events and experiences would skew the participant's recall of the stay.

Study participants could contribute more than one release interview, depending upon the number of institutional placements he/she had over the seven-year follow-up period. The current release data reflects ratings from 686 unique individuals. It should be recognized that not every institutional stay for every youth produced a release interview. On the basis of the number of reported institutional stays in the sample, it is estimated that a release interview was obtained for approximately 54 percent of the total number of residential stays experienced by study participants. Release interviews were missed if the research interviewer was not aware of the institutional stay (e.g. it occurred between time point interviews) or if the interviewer only became aware of the institutional stay at a point that was too late to schedule a release interview within the required window surrounding the release date.

The 686 individuals reflected in the release data represent 51 percent of the Pathway study participants (n=1,354) and 56 percent of Pathways participants who had a least one institutional stay (n=1,234; 120 Pathways youths had no institutional stays). On average, these 686 youths had 1.6 interviews. The number of interviews per unique person ranges from one to eight.

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

The Release data portion of the Pathways study contains information from 1,130 interviews ("release interviews") reflecting the youths' perceptions regarding various aspects of the residential experience and institutional environment (e.g., accounts of program operations and services provided, ratings regarding the participant's feelings of his or her safety in the facility). The release interview was conducted within 30 days prior to or after release from a facility and in a separate session apart from the time point interview. This was done to minimize the burden on the research participant and to ensure adequate attention to institutional ratings. The restricted time period within which to conduct the release interview reduced the likelihood that intervening events and experiences would skew the participant's recall of the stay.

Study participants could contribute more than one release interview, depending upon the number of institutional placements he/she had over the seven-year follow-up period. The current release data reflects ratings from 686 unique individuals. It should be recognized that not every institutional stay for every youth produced a release interview. On the basis of the number of reported institutional stays in the sample, it is estimated that a release interview was obtained for approximately 54 percent of the total number of residential stays experienced by study participants. Release interviews were missed if the research interviewer was not aware of the institutional stay (e.g. it occurred between time point interviews) or if the interviewer only became aware of the institutional stay at a point that was too late to schedule a release interview within the required window surrounding the release date.

The 686 individuals reflected in the release data represent 51 percent of the Pathway study participants (n=1,354) and 56 percent of Pathways participants who had a least one institutional stay (n=1,234; 120 Pathways youths had no institutional stays). On average, these 686 youths had 1.6 interviews. The number of interviews per unique person ranges from one to eight.

The current Release Measures study primarily consists of the calculated scores from constructs asked about during the interviews, but the individual scale items were withheld at that time. This study contains those individual items plus the calculated scores.

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

Respondents were enrolled and baseline interviews conducted from November 2000 to January 2003. Follow-up interviews were then scheduled with the respondents at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, 60, 72 and 84 months past their baseline interview.

The enrolled youth were at least 14 years old and under 18 years old at the time of their committing offense and were found guilty of a serious offense (predominantly felonies, with a few exceptions for some misdemeanor property offenses, sexual assault, or weapons offenses).

The baseline interview was conducted within 75 days of the youth's adjudication hearing. For youths in the adult system, the baseline interview was conducted within 90 days of either (a) the decertification hearing in Philadelphia, a hearing at which it is determined if the case will remain in adult court or if it will be sent back to juvenile court; or (b) the adult arraignment hearing in Phoenix, the point in the Arizona adult system at which charges have been formally presented.

The aims of the investigation were to identify initial patterns of how serious adolescent offenders stop antisocial activity, to describe the role of social context and developmental changes in promoting these positive changes, and to compare the effects of sanctions and interventions in promoting these changes. The larger goals of the Pathways to Desistance study were to improve decision-making by court and social service personnel and to clarify policy debates about alternatives for serious adolescent offenders. The study relied primarily on self-report information from study participants.

Each wave of data collection covered six domains: (1) background characteristics (e.g., demographics, academic achievement, psychiatric diagnoses, offense history, neurological functioning, psychopathy, personality), (2) indicators of individual functioning (e.g., work and school status and performance, substance abuse, mental disorder, antisocial behavior), (3) psychosocial development and attitudes (e.g., impulse control, susceptibility to peer influence, perceptions of opportunity, perceptions of procedural justice, moral disengagement), (4) family context (e.g., household composition, quality of family relationships), (5) personal relationships (e.g., quality of romantic relationships and friendships, peer delinquency, contacts with caring adults), and (6) community context (e.g., neighborhood conditions, personal capital, and community involvement). Information about the measures used to capture this information can be found on the Pathways to Desistance website.

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

Respondents were enrolled and baseline interviews conducted from November 2000 to January 2003. Follow-up interviews were then scheduled with the respondents at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, 60, 72 and 84 months past their baseline interview.

The enrolled youth were at least 14 years old and under 18 years old at the time of their committing offense and were found guilty of a serious offense (predominantly felonies, with a few exceptions for some misdemeanor property offenses, sexual assault, or weapons offenses).

Each wave of data collection covered six domains: (1) background characteristics (e.g., demographics, academic achievement, psychiatric diagnoses, offense history, neurological functioning, psychopathy, personality), (2) indicators of individual functioning (e.g., work and school status and performance, substance abuse, mental disorder, antisocial behavior), (3) psychosocial development and attitudes (e.g., impulse control, susceptibility to peer influence, perceptions of opportunity, perceptions of procedural justice, moral disengagement), (4) family context (e.g., household composition, quality of family relationships), (5) personal relationships (e.g., quality of romantic relationships and friendships, peer delinquency, contacts with caring adults), and (6) community context (e.g., neighborhood conditions, personal capital, and community involvement). Information about the measures used to capture this information can be found on the Pathways to Desistance website.

The current Subject Measures study primarily consists of the calculated scores from constructs asked about during the interview, but the individual scale items were withheld at that time. These variables are typically consistent across the waves that the scale was asked about during the course of the entire study. Most of the files contain variables from all 11 waves of data collection. The table in the front of the User Guide will list which waves are present in each data file.