Search results

Adoption of Innovations in Private Alcohol and Drug Treatment Centers is a multi-wave longitudinal study conducted between 2009 and 2013. The study goal was to measure the adoption and implementation of evidence-based treatment practices in treatment centers that received more than 50 percent of their total operational funding from sources that were not guaranteed from year to year. This definition is based on the concept of entrepreneurship, namely the necessity for the treatment organization to respond to changing conditions in the external political and economic environment in order to obtain half or more of its funding. The innovations considered are of three types usually specific to organizations treating substance use disorders:

• medication-assisted treatments
• psychosocial treatments
• managerial practices

This data set consists of one of the multiple "waves" of data collection. The data was collected at four points in time. The baseline data, collected from June 2009 through October 2011 from 327 treatment centers, were obtained through face-to-face onsite interviews ranging from 1 to 4 hours in duration. These interviews were conducted with administrators of the respective treatment centers. In 70 of the 327 treatment centers, an administrator of the overall center and the administrator of clinical operations separately completed administrative and clinical interviews. In the remaining 257 centers, all of the administrative and clinical data were collected from the administrator of the overall center since there was no specialized administrator of clinical operations. The baseline data available here merge the data collected through these two different procedures so that the variables measured are identical for all centers regardless of the procedure.

The collected data include detailed information on Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) and other treatment strategies used by the center to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD). In cases where medications were not used by a center questions were asked for reasons why available medications were not used in treatment. Other sections of the interviews covered data on the organizations, their management, and other clinical practices implemented for OUD, AUD, and substance use disorder (SUD).

Three follow-up interviews were conducted via telephone at six month intervals following the previous interview. These follow-up interviews were much shorter compared to the baseline interview. The interviews centered on key changes in the center's operation and on the adoption of key innovations. But a focus of the follow-up interviews still focused on medications provided for treatment.

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

To assess the current practices in cold-case investigations, this study utilized a national online survey of law enforcement agencies (Cold Case Survey Data, n = 1,051) to document the range of ways in which cold-case work is conducted and assess how this organization affects cold-case clearance rates. In November 2008, the chiefs of police in the sample were sent a letter explaining the purpose of the survey and inviting them to participate. Potential respondents were directed to the web-based survey instrument through a provided web address. The results from the national survey were used to select sites for an analysis of case files. Researchers chose three jurisdictions that conducted a large number of cold-case homicide investigations: the District of Columbia, Baltimore, Maryland, and Dallas, Texas (Cold Case Homicide Data, n = 429). To these three sites, researchers added Denver, Colorado (Cold Case Sexual Assault Data, n = 105) because it had received a Department of Justice grant to conduct testing of DNA material in sexual assault cold cases. At all four sites, cold cases were examined for seven categories of data including victim's characteristics, crime context, motivation, human capital, physical evidence, basis for cold-case investigations and cold-case actions.

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.

The Organizational Process Improvement Intervention (OPII) study (aka Assessment study) focused on implementing assessment and treatment planning processes. Screening and assessment were used to identify substance abuse-related problems and to develop programming to address the problems so identified.

The OPII study engaged corrections and treatment agencies to improve the quality of interagency communication through the effective use of assessment and case planning processes and treatment referrals. Both inter-agency and intra-agency change processes were targeted. A multi-phase implementation protocol was used, wherein agencies engaged in team development, needs assessment, planning, implementation, and sustainability in distinct steps. Early- and delayed-start sites allowed the research team to control for effects of environmental changes within states. The protocol targeted critical communications channels between otherwise often highly segregated correctional and treatment agencies.

Evaluation of the OPII used a multi-site cluster randomized design with multiple measures over the course of the intervention. Clusters consisted of a criminal justice agency and one or more community treatment providers that received referrals from that criminal justice agency. Each of the 9 centers had two clusters (one had three), and each cluster was randomized to an Early-Start or a Delayed-Start condition with multiple measures over the course of the intervention. After randomization, the Early-Start sites began the OPII, while the Delayed-Start sites conducted business as usual, without any additional intervention. After approximately 12 months, or when the Early-Start change team completed the Implementation phase, the Delayed-Start change team began to carry out the protocol.

Throughout the study period different subsets of individuals working at correctional facilities and treatment programs at the study sites were asked to complete surveys. During the Baseline period of the study survey data were collected from correctional staff, correctional directors, treatment staff, treatment directors, correctional executives and treatment executives. These data can be found in (DS1-DS12). The executive respondents provided information at the organizational level for the programs they oversaw (DS5, DS6). Next, Needs Assessments were completed by the change teams and their facilitators (DS13-DS14). The change teams and facilitators also responded to surveys on Process Improvement Planning (DS15-DS19). During the Implementation stage, surveys were administered to select substance abuse treatment programs, change team facilitators, change team members and the immediate supervisors of the change team members (DS20-DS27). Selected correctional and treatment staff members (in the Early-Start sites only) were asked to complete Follow-up surveys at the end of the OPII process (DS28-DS33). Staff members who completed surveys also provided demographic data (DS36-DS41). DS42 is a restricted use version of DS41. Change team members kept track of the time they spent on OPII activities (DS35). Change team success was evaluated by a subset of raters (DS34).

Surveys were administered at 21 study sites and there was a total of over 2,700 survey respondents.

A social work advisory group recently proposed 41 generalist-level palliative social work activities applicable to any venue, including hospital-based social work, but this applicability has not been empirically tested. The researchers used critical realist grounded theory analysis of qualitative interviews to explore whether the activities proposed by the advisory group reflect inpatient social workers' perceptions of their generalist-level palliative activities when caring for patients alongside specialist-level palliative social workers. Fourteen Masters-educated social workers from six hospitals in the state of Michigan participated.

The research demonstrated that inpatient social workers find it challenging to engage in specific generalist-level palliative social work activities; provision of generalist-level palliative services is shaped by discharge planning duties, the consultation model, and the concentrated role of specialist-level palliative social workers. Competency in cultural and spiritual aspects of care could be lacking.

This data collection provides detailed comparative information about the structure, policies, and procedures of state-wide trial and appellate court systems for the 50 states and the District of Columbia in the United States for 2011. Information gathered includes: the number of courts and judges, judicial selection, governance of court systems (including judicial funding, administration, staffing, and procedures), jury qualifications and verdict rules, and processing and sentencing procedures of criminal cases. Data collection was carried out by the National Center for State Courts. These data are part of a related collection from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands in the United States for the years 1980, 1987, 1993, 1998, and 2004.

In 2011, State Court Organization added new variables to the data collection process. The State Court Organization 2011 file contains the historical variables for 2011, as well as the new variables that were introduced in the 2004 collection. The new variables included data about the courts' information technology systems, including the functions of the court's IT staff, e-filing procedures, accessibility of court information through online systems, and the implementation of case management systems as a means of organizing and managing a court's caseload. The data are reported for trial and appellate courts.

The SCO Trial Court Level Data 2011 file includes a subset of the State Court Organization 2011 file, but only for trial level courts. Some variables in the State Court Organization 2011 file were recoded in the Trial Court Level Data 2011 file.