Search results

Showing 1 – 50 of 319 results.
Curated

2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (USTS) (ICPSR 37229)

Released/updated on: 2019-05-22
Geographic coverage: United States

The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (USTS) was conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) to examine the experiences of transgender adults in the United States. The USTS questionnaire was administered online and data were collected over a 34-day period in the summer of 2015, between August 19 and September 21. The final sample included respondents from all fifty states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and U.S. military bases overseas. The USTS Public Use Dataset (PUDS) features survey results from 27,715 respondents and details the experiences of transgender people across a wide range of areas, such as education, employment, family life, health, housing, and interactions with police and prisons.

The survey instrument had thirty-two sections that covered a broad array of topics, including questions related to the following topics (in alphabetical order): accessing restrooms; airport security; civic participation; counseling; family and peer support; health and health insurance; HIV; housing and homelessness; identity documents; immigration; intimate partner violence; military service; police and incarceration; policy priorities; public accommodations; sex work; sexual assault; substance use; suicidal thoughts and behaviors; unequal treatment, harassment, and physical attack; and voting.

Demographic information includes age, racial and ethnic identity, sex assigned at birth, gender and preferred pronouns, sexual orientation, language(s) spoken at home, education, employment, income, religion/spirituality, and marital status.

There are no publicly available data files for this study. The naming conventions were maintained from the original pre-ICPSR release and the PUDS file is restricted use along with the qualitative data (MS Excel) file.

Before applying for access to these data please refer to the Approved Requests for USTS Data. These abstracts describe work currently in progress, and we provide them to help reduce the risk of duplication of research efforts.

Curated

ABC News "Nightline" Drugs and Alcohol Poll, August 1988 (ICPSR 9180)

Released/updated on: 2006-11-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1988-08-30--1988-09-01
Focusing on drug and alcohol abuse, this survey solicited respondents" opinions on the most important problem facing the country, government prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s, the use of drugs or alcohol for enjoyment, the relative severity of drug and alcohol abuse in the respondent"s community, federal spending on drug abuse, and the relative effectiveness in controlling the use of drugs of strategies such as stopping illegal importation, arresting drug sellers, arresting drug users, and educating the public. In addition, respondents were asked if various substances (e.g., marijuana, LSD, alcohol, and cigarettes) were dangerous to their health, which caused the most trouble in society, and if substances such as cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and heroin should be legal or illegal for an adult to buy. They also were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the following statements: (1) Drug abuse wouldn"t stop because people continue to want drugs, (2) People should be allowed to take drugs as long as they don"t hurt someone else, (3) Current fears about an illegal drug crisis were inflated, and (4) Illegal drug use had become a central part of American society. Other topics covered include the possible outcomes of legalization of various drugs. The results of the poll were announced on the ABC television program "Nightline." Background information on respondents includes education, age, race, sex, and state/region of residence.
Curated

ABC News/Washington Post Drug Poll, February 1997 (ICPSR 2175)

Released/updated on: 2008-04-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This special topic poll, conducted February 20-24, 1997, solicited responses from parents and their teenage children, aged 12-17, on the topic of illegal drug use among America's youth. One parent and one child from each household were asked a series of questions covering illegal drugs, violence in school, underage drinking, academic challenges, and parent-child communication. Respondents were asked to assess their understanding of the presence of drugs and drug users in their local schools, throughout the community, across the nation, among the teen's peer group, and within their own family. A series of topics covered the availability and effectiveness of school-sponsored anti-drug programs. Parents were asked how their possible past and present use and/or experimentation with marijuana and other illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco products influenced the manner in which they approached drug use with their own children. Teenage respondents were asked for their reaction to the use of drugs and alcohol by their friends, the seriousness of the contemporary drug problem, and whether they believed that their parents had used or experimented with illegal drugs. Other questions asked about teenage respondents' plans after high school and whether they attended a public or private school. Demographic variables for parental respondents included age, race, sex, education level, household income, political party affiliation, and type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural). Demographic variables for teenage respondents included age, race, sex, residential area, and grade level in school.
Curated

ABC News/Washington Post Poll, May 1985 (ICPSR 8634)

Released/updated on: 2008-02-20
Geographic coverage: United States
This survey covers a variety of national issues with special emphasis on drug and alcohol abuse. Respondents were asked to rate Reagan's performance as president and to give their opinions on the state of the economy. They were also questioned about the federal budget deficit and possible ways to reduce it. Questions in the drug and alcohol section examined the use of alcohol by the respondent and his or her friends and relatives. Specific questions included whether the respondent had ever had a drug or alcohol problem, whether or not he or she had received treatment for substance abuse, and whether or not drugs or alcohol had caused problems in the respondent's family. Opinions were also elicited on the legalization of certain drugs, on a uniform federal drinking age, and on the prohibition of all alcoholic beverages. Additional topics covered included income taxes and Reagan's trip to Europe including his visit to the Bitburg cemetery. Respondents were also asked if they perceived that public opinion polls affected the way they voted in the last presidential election. Demographic characteristics were recorded.
Curated
Restricted

Abstinence Reinforcing Contingency Management to Suppress HIV Viral Load (Project First), New York City, 2012 (ICPSR 39785)

Released/updated on: 2026-04-20
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

This study is part of the Seek, Test, Treat and Retain (STTR) Collaboration Project that involved over twenty studies in the fields of HIV and drug abuse. All studies were independently developed, but were chosen for the collaboration because they focused on one or more steps of the HIV treatment cascade: Seek, Test, Treat and Retain. As part of STTR Collaboration Project, the studies were grouped into Criminal Justice-related studies and Vulnerable Population-related studies. The data collected by these studies included twelve common domains (e.g., Demographic characteristics, Mental Health) in each of which a shared questionnaire or instrument was taken up by the studies and adapted to fit the study.

Using a randomized controlled study design, this study tested the efficacy of an abstinence-reinforcing CM intervention compared with a control condition (performance feedback) on HIV viral load (VL) suppression. The intervention CM group could receive up to $1320 in vouchers over the 16-week intervention based on drug-free urine. Participants were followed for 28 weeks (44 visits), with research visits occurring twice weekly during the Baseline Period (weeks 1-4, visits 1-8) and Intervention Period (weeks 5-20, visits 9-40), then every two weeks during the Post-Intervention Period (weeks 21-28, visits 41-44).

Curated

Addiction Health Evaluation and Disease (AHEAD) Management Study in Boston, Massachusetts, 2006-2010 (ICPSR 33581)

Released/updated on: 2017-03-31
Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts, Boston
Time period: 2006-09-01--2010-01-01

Substance dependence (SD) is a chronic disease that requires specialty drug and alcohol treatment, primary care (PC), and management of related problems. Although patients with SD may be linked with specialty care and PC, their health care often remains episodic and fragmented, rather than longitudinal, comprehensive, integrated, and coordinated. As a result, adults with SD often enter addiction treatment later and require acute medical care, rather than entering the system earlier when interventions of lower intensity but longer duration might prevent catastrophes. Chronic disease management (CDM) is a collaborative, longitudinal approach to treatment of certain chronic medical illnesses proven to be more effective than routine care. CDM addresses individual patient and health systems barriers to receipt of needed treatment. However, the effectiveness of CDM for SD has not been tested. The objective of this Addiction Health Evaluation and Disease management (AHEAD) study, was to test the effectiveness of CDM for SD in PC.

Subject identification and recruitment occurred primarily at a local detoxification center, as well as by self and physician referral from the Boston Medical Center primary and ambulatory care clinics, emergency department, urgent care center, inpatient settings, and the community. The study enrolled 320 adults with drug dependence and 320 adults with alcohol dependence who were not in SD treatment, and randomized them to a SD CDM program (the AHEAD Clinic) integrated into a real-world PC clinic or to referral to standard PC. All subjects were assessed regarding SD diagnosis, substance use and problems, readiness to change, health-related quality of life, and medical and drug treatment utilization. Subjects were evaluated 3, 6, and 12 months later, and health services utilization data were collected for 2 years from a statewide database. Additionally, in order to better understand and explain the implementation and fidelity of the AHEAD Clinic, the primary care providers (PCPs) of AHEAD Clinic patients were surveyed. Each PCP was presented with a letter from the Principal Investigator explaining the purpose of the survey, the reason why s/he was being asked to complete the survey, compensation for completing the survey, and details about confidentiality and anonymity. The survey itself consisted of questions asking providers about their satisfaction and their attitudes towards caring for patients with alcohol and drug problems, their knowledge of services that the AHEAD Clinic provides, and their experience working with the AHEAD Clinic.

Primary outcomes were illicit drug use, alcohol use, substance-related problems, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. The proposal's hypothesis was that compared with standard care, a health services delivery intervention (CDM for SD integrated in PC) would decrease alcohol and illicit drug use and related problems, and improve health care utilization patterns. Improved outcomes using the AHEAD approach would support the adoption of a health services delivery strategy, CDM, to better care for patients with SD.

  • Dataset 1: 844 variables; 563 cases
  • Dataset 2: 607 variables; 500 cases
  • Dataset 3: 607 variables; 487 cases
  • Dataset 4: 713 variables; 532 cases
  • Dataset 5: 80 variables; 549 cases
  • Dataset 6: 59 variables; 1,435 cases
  • Dataset 7: 25 variables; 87 cases
  • Dataset 8: 25 variables; 87 cases
  • Dataset 9: 41 variables; 73 cases
  • Dataset 10: 9 variables; 11,018 cases
  • Dataset 11: 5 variables; 511 cases
Curated

Adolescent and Family Development Project, Erie County, New York, 2007-2017 (ICPSR 37620)

Released/updated on: 2020-06-18
Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state), Erie County
Time period: 2007-04-01--2017-05-31

The University of Buffalo Adolescent and Family Development Project (AFDP) includes a community sample of adolescents assessed in a 9-wave longitudinal study between 2007 and 2017. The 387 adolescents were 11-12 year old children at recruitment and were assessed annually. The data provide an opportunity to examine risk and protective factors from multiple levels of influences (individual differences, family, peers, community) that might contribute to adolescent substance use in order to inform the development of comprehensive preventive interventions for at-risk youth. The project was largely focused on understanding the development of an internalizing pathway to initiation and escalation of substance use, and eventual development of use-related problems. This was done by examining: 1) the intersection of externalizing and internalizing problems, 2) peer context and use-related motives as a potential mediating mechanism, and 3) whether motivational aspects of personality moderated the proposed mediational paths. Also of interest was whether risk for an internalizing pathway to substance use varied by chronological age or stage of use.

This collection is organized into 13 data parts. Waves 1 through 3 and Waves 7 through 9 each contain 2 datasets pertaining to either a child (DS1, DS3, DS5, DS8, DS10, DS12) or caretaker (DS2, DS4, DS6, DS9, DS11, DS13) interview. All child interview data from Waves 4 through 6 are contained in DS7. Various demographic information, such as age, gender, race, and ethnicity, is also included in the data.

Curated
Partially restricted

Adolescent Substance Abuse Prevention Study (ASAPS), 2001-2006 [Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Newark, New Orleans, St. Louis] (ICPSR 28641)

Released/updated on: 2012-02-29
Geographic coverage: Detroit, United States, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Newark, St. Louis, Houston
Time period: 2001-01-01--2006-01-01

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.

Curated

Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS), 1996-1999: [United States] (ICPSR 3088)

Released/updated on: 2009-04-01
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1996-01-01--1999-01-01
The Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS) was a national study of substance abuse treatment facilities and clients. The study was designed to develop estimates of the duration and costs of treatment and to describe the post-treatment status of substance abuse clients. ADSS continues and extends upon data collected in the Drug Services Research Survey, 1990: [United States] (ICPSR 3393) and the Services Research Outcome Study, 1995-1996: [United States] (ICPSR 2691) with a more complete sampling frame, an enhanced sampling design, and more detailed measures of treatment services provided, the costs of treatment, and clients in treatment. ADSS was implemented in three phases. In Phase I, a nationally representative sample of treatment facilities was surveyed to assess characteristics of treatment services and clients including treatment type, costs, program capacity, the number of clients served, waiting lists, and services provided to special populations. In Phase II, records were abstracted from a sample of clients in a subsample of Phase I facilities. This phase included four sub-components: (1) the Main Study, an analysis of abstracted records to assess the treatment process and characteristics of discharged clients, (2) the Incentive Study, which assessed the impact of varying financial payments on follow-up interview participation among non-methadone outpatient clients, (3) the In-Treatment Methadone Client study (ITMC), which assessed the treatment process of methadone maintenance, and (4) the comparison study of Early Dropout clients (EDO), which provided a proxy comparison group of records from substance abusers that went untreated. Phase III involved follow-up personal interviews with Phase II clients who could be located. This interview sought to determine post-treatment status in terms of substance use, economic condition, criminal justice involvement, and further substance abuse treatment episodes. Urine testing was conducted to validate self-reported drug use. Drugs included in the survey were alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, amphetamines, non-prescribed use of prescription medications, abuse of over-the-counter medications, and other drugs. ADSS also included a cost study, which involved obtaining additional financial information from the Phase II facilities. A computerized desktop audit was used in the cost study to conduct consistency and accuracy checks on selected questionnaire data from Phases I and II. Variables were subsequently updated to represent the most accurate data available. Additional analysis variables were then created using combinations of the revised Phase I and II data.
Curated

Annenberg Tobacco Risk Study, 1999: [United States] (ICPSR 3049)

Released/updated on: 2001-03-09
Geographic coverage: United States
The aim of this survey was to understand how well young people in the United States appreciate the many risks of smoking tobacco. To this end, 14 to 22-year-olds were interviewed about their views and practices concerning smoking. The survey elicited opinions on the health risks of smoking, including heart disease, lung cancer, shortened life spans, adverse birth outcomes caused by smoking during pregnancy, and the dangers of secondhand smoke. Respondents were asked if they thought tobacco was addictive, helped keep one's weight down, made it easier to relax and have a good time with friends, and if one should be allowed to smoke as a matter of personal choice. Smokers were asked how long and how much they smoked, which brand of cigarettes they smoked most, and if they considered themselves addicted to tobacco. The survey also gathered information on age, sex, education, race, and Hispanic origin.
Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 1998 (ICPSR 2826)

Released/updated on: 1999-11-10
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1998-01-01--1998-12-31
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program measures levels of and trends in drug use among persons arrested and booked in the United States. The ADAM Program is a redesigned version of the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]), upgraded methodologically and expanded to include 35 cities. The data address the following topics: (1) types of drugs used by arrestees (based on self-reports and urinalysis), (2) self-reported dependency on drugs, (3) self-reported need for alcohol/drug treatment, (4) the relationship between drug use and certain types of offenses, and (5) the relationship between self-reported indicators of drug use and indicators of drug use based on urinalysis. Participation in the project is voluntary, and all information collected from the arrestees is anonymous and confidential. The data include the arrestee's age, race, gender, educational attainment, marital status, and the charge at the time of booking. The recently modified ADAM/DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 DUF data and all of the DUF 1996, DUF 1997, and ADAM 1998 data) also collected information about the arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs. For each drug type, arrestees were asked whether they had ever used the drug, the age at which they first used the drug, whether they had used the drug within the past three days, how many days they had used the drug within the past month, whether they had ever needed or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were dependent on the drug at the time of the interview. Data from the new interview instrument also included information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs and whether they were influenced by drugs when they allegedly committed the crimes for which they were arrested. The data also include information about whether the arrestee had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether he or she had prior arrests in the last 12 months. Data that continue to be collected with the new version of the ADAM/DUF interview provide information about arrestees' histories of drug/alcohol treatment, including whether they ever received drug/alcohol treatment and whether they needed drug/alcohol treatment. As part of the ADAM program, arrestees were asked to provide a urine specimen, which was screened for the presence of the following ten drug types: marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography).
Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 1999 (ICPSR 2994)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1999-01-01--1999-12-31
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, the successor to the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]), measures levels of and trends in drug use among persons arrested and booked in 35 sites across the United States. The data address the following topics: (1) types of drugs used by arrestees (based on self-reports and urinalysis), (2) self-reported dependency on drugs, (3) self-reported need for alcohol/drug treatment, (4) the relationship between drug use and certain types of offenses, and (5) the relationship between self-reported indicators of drug use and indicators of drug use based on urinalysis. Participation in the project is voluntary, and all information collected from the arrestees is anonymous and confidential. The data include the arrestee's age, race, gender, educational attainment, marital status, and the charge at the time of booking. The modified ADAM/DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of the 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 data) also collected information about the arrestee's use of 15 drugs, including recent and past use (e.g., 3-day and 30-day drug use), age at first use, and whether the arrestee had ever been dependent on drugs. As part of the ADAM program, arrestees were asked to provide a urine specimen, which was screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography).
Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2000 (ICPSR 3270)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2000-12-31
Beginning in 1996, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) initiated a major redesign of its multisite drug-monitoring program, the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) system (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]). The program was retitled Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) (see ARRESTEE DRUG ABUSE MONITORING (ADAM) PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES, 1998 [ICPSR 2628] and 1999 [ICPSR 2994]). ADAM extended DUF in the number of sites and improved the quality and generalizability of the data. The redesign was fully implemented in all sites beginning in the first quarter of 2000. The ADAM program implemented a new and expanded adult instrument in the first quarter of 2000, which was used for both the male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) data. The juvenile data for 2000 (Part 3) used the juvenile instrument from previous years. The ADAM program also moved to probability-based sampling for the adult male population during 2000. Therefore, the 2000 adult male sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. The shift to sampling of the adult male population in 2000 required that all 35 sites move to a common catchment area, the county. The core instrument for the adult cases was supplemented by a facesheet, which was used to collect demographic and charge information from official records. Core instruments were used to collect self-report information from the respondent. Both the adult and juvenile instruments were administered to persons arrested and booked on local or state charges relevant to the jurisdiction (i.e., not federal or out-of-county charges) within the past 48 hours. At the completion of the interview the arrestee was asked to voluntarily provide a urine specimen. An external lab used the Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Testing (EMIT) protocols to test for the presence of ten drugs or metabolites of the drug in the urine sample. All amphetamine positives were confirmed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) to determine whether methamphetamine was used. For the adult data, variables from the facesheet include arrest precinct, ZIP code of arrest location, ZIP code of respondent's address, respondent's gender and race, three most serious arrest charges, sample source (stock, flow, other), interview status (including reason the individual selected in the sample was not interviewed), language of instrument used, and the number of hours since arrest. Demographic information from the core instrument includes respondent's age, ethnicity, residency, education, employment, health insurance coverage, marital status, housing, and telephone access. Variables from the calendar provide information on inpatient and outpatient substance abuse treatment, inpatient mental health treatment, arrests and incarcerations, heavy alcohol use, use of marijuana, crack/rock cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other drug (ever and previous 12 months), age of first use of the above six drugs and heavy alcohol use, drug dependency in the previous 12 months, characteristics of drug transactions in past 30 days, use of marijuana, crack/rock cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine in past 30 days, 7 days, and 48 hours, heavy alcohol use in past 30 days, and secondary drug use of 15 other drugs in the past 48 hours. Urine test results are provided for 11 drugs -- marijuana, cocaine, opiates, phencyclidine (PCP), benzodiazepines (Valium), propoxyphene (Darvon), methadone, methaqualone, barbiturates, amphetamines, and methamphetamine. The adult data files include several derived variables. The male data also include four sampling weights, and stratum identifications and percents. For the juvenile data, demographic variables include age, race, sex, educational attainment, employment status, and living circumstances. Data also include each juvenile arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, powder cocaine, crack, heroin, PCP, amphetamines, barbiturates, quaaludes, methadone, crystal methamphetamine, Valium, LSD, and inhalants). For each drug type, arrestees reported whether they had ever used the drug, age of first use, whether they had used the drug in the past 30 days and past 72 hours, number of days they used the drug in past month, whether they tried to cut down or quit using the drug, if they were successful, whether they felt dependent on the drug, whether they were receiving treatment for the drug, whether they had received treatment for the drug in the past, and whether they thought they could use treatment for that drug. Additional variables include whether juvenile respondents had ever injected drugs, whether they were influenced by drugs when they allegedly committed the crime for which they were arrested, whether they had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents, and if so, whether in the past 12 months, and information on arrests and charges in the past 12 months. As with the adult data, urine test results are also provided. Finally, variables covering precinct (precinct of arrest) and law (penal law code associated with the crime for which the juvenile was arrested) are also provided for use by local law enforcement officials at each site.
Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2001 (ICPSR 3688)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Detroit, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Laredo, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Colorado, Honolulu, Missouri, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, Kansas City (Missouri), New York (state), Birmingham, Michigan, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Philadelphia
Time period: 2001-01-01--2001-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2001 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 33 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2001 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.
Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2002 (ICPSR 3815)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Washington, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Laredo, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia
Time period: 2002-01-01--2002-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2002 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 36 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2002 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.
Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2003 (ICPSR 4020)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Boston, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Tampa, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, District of Columbia, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, Miami, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Houston
Time period: 2003-01-01--2003-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2003 up to four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 39 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. The ADAM program in 2003 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult male and female files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) for males, weights.
Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Project in Rural Nebraska, 1998 (ICPSR 28141)

Released/updated on: 2011-01-28
Geographic coverage: Omaha, United States, Nebraska
Time period: 1998-10-01--1998-11-01
A pilot outreach project of the National Intstitute of Justice's Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program, the rural Nebraska ADAM program examined the prevalence and type of arrestee drug use in four rural Nebraska counties and compared the results to those found in Omaha, Nebraska, an established ADAM site. The data were collected in Madison (n=78), Dawson (n=50), Hall (n=53), and Scotts Bluff (n=149) counties, and Omaha, Nebraska, (n=202) in October and November of 1998. The catchment area for Omaha was the central city. The ADAM interview provided demographic and descriptive data, including race, age, marital status, source of income, screens of substance abuse and dependency, treatment history, arrest and incarceration experiences, and participation in local drug markets. At the conclusion of the interview, respondents were asked to provide a urine specimen. The current study included a supplemental questionnaire about methamphetamine use. The methamphetamine addendum included variables on why the respondent began and continued the use of methamphetamines, how often and how much methamphetamine was used, if and why the respondent had ever sought and completed treatment, source of the methamphetamine, and if the respondent had ever made or sold methamphetamine.
Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring II in the United States, 2011 (ICPSR 34362)

Released/updated on: 2013-06-13
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
Time period: 2011-04-01--2011-09-01
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring II, 2011, is a collection of interview and bioassay data on over 5000 arrestees in 10 United States counties within 48 hours of their arrest. The collection took place between April 1 and September 30, 2011 and represents the fifth year of ADAM II data collection under the sponsorship of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The 10 current ADAM II sites are: Atlanta, GA (Fulton County); Charlotte, NC (Mecklenburg County); Chicago, IL (Cook County); Denver, CO (Denver County); Indianapolis, IN (Marion County); Minneapolis, MN (Hennepin County); New York, NY (Borough of Manhattan); Portland, OR (Multnomah County); Sacramento, CA (Sacramento County); and Washington, DC (District of Columbia). In 2011, 5,051 interviews and 4,412 urine tests were conducted in the 10 ADAM II sites over 14 consecutive days in each of two calendar quarters between April 1 and September 30. The samples across these sites represent 35,459 adult males arrested in the 10 sites during the data collection period. Demographic variables include arrest date and time, gender, date of birth, number and types of offenses, county of arrest, race, education, work status, and language of interview.
Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring II in the United States, 2012 (Restricted Use) (ICPSR 34821)

Released/updated on: 2013-08-29
Geographic coverage: New York City, Sacramento, United States, Chicago, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Denver, California, Georgia, New York (state)
Time period: 2012-04-30--2012-07-29
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring II, 2012 is a collection of interview and bioassay data provided by over 3000 arrestees from five county sites within the United States. Under the sponsorship of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the ADAM II program monitors drug use and related behaviors (treatment experiences, housing stability, drug market activity, age at first use, employment, etc.) in a probability based sample of male adult arrestees within 48 hours of their arrest. The five ADAM II sites for 2012 were: Atlanta, GA (Fulton County and the City of Atlanta); Chicago, IL (Cook County); Denver, CO (Denver County); New York, NY (Borough of Manhattan); and Sacramento, CA (Sacramento County). The 2012 survey represents the sixth year of ADAM II and includes data from 1,938 interviews and 1,736 urine tests that were conducted at the five ADAM II sites over a 21-day period, between April 30 and July 29, 2012. The samples from these sites were weighted to represent over 14,000 arrests of adult males in the five counties. ADAM II data include official records, arrestee responses from a 20-minute face-to-face interview, and results from voluntary urine samples which tested for the presence of nine different drugs. Identifying information on the arrestees was not retained or shared with law enforcement. Demographic variables include age, gender, race, arrest date and time, county of arrest, number and type(s) of offense(s), education, work status, and language of interview.
Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring II in the United States, 2013 (Restricted Use) (ICPSR 35169)

Released/updated on: 2014-08-01
Geographic coverage: New York City, Sacramento, United States, Chicago, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Denver, California, Georgia, New York (state)
Time period: 2013-05-05--2013-07-28
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring II, 2013 is a collection of interview and bioassay data provided by over 3000 arrestees from five county sites within the United States. Under the sponsorship of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the ADAM II program monitors drug use and related behaviors (treatment experiences, housing stability, drug market activity, age at first use, employment, etc.) in a probability based sample of male adult arrestees within 48 hours of their arrest. The five ADAM II sites for 2013 were: Atlanta, GA (Fulton County and the City of Atlanta); Chicago, IL (Cook County); Denver, CO (Denver County); New York, NY (Borough of Manhattan); and Sacramento, CA (Sacramento County). The 2013 survey represents the seventh year of ADAM II and includes data from 1,900 interviews and 1,681 urine tests that were conducted at the five ADAM II sites over a 21-day period, between May 5, 2013 and July 28, 2013. ADAM II data include official records, arrestee responses from a 20-minute face-to-face interview, and results from voluntary urine samples which tested for the presence of nine different drugs. Identifying information on the arrestees was not retained or shared with law enforcement. Demographic variables include age, gender, race, citizenship, marital status, arrest date and time, county of arrest, number and type(s) of offense(s), education, work status, and language of interview.
Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2009 (ICPSR 30061)

Released/updated on: 2011-02-24
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc., initiated a new data collection that replicated the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. A total of 7,794 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2009. Collection occurred in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2009, and ending September 30, 2009. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2010 (ICPSR 32321)

Released/updated on: 2011-11-04
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc., initiated a new data collection that replicated the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. A total of 8,332 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2010. Collection occurred in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2010, and ending September 30, 2010. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated

Assessing the Texas Christian University Drug Screen Instrument with Texas Department of Criminal Justice Inmates, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3541)

Released/updated on: 2003-06-05
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas
Time period: 1999-01-01--2000-01-01
The overall purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties and credibility of the Texas Christian University (TCU) Drug Screen as an instrument to assess drug use severity for treatment referral decisions in correctional settings. TCU Drug Screen data were collected on 18,364 Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) inmates (15,816 males and 2,548 females) who completed the screen between January 1 and April 30, 1999. Of the 18,364 subjects, 13,902 were Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID) inmates and 4,462 were State Jail Division (TDCJ-SJD) inmates. The TCU Drug Screen was administered by TDCJ staff almost exclusively in a small group setting (12-25 inmates per group) as part of a larger battery of assessments during the intake process at a TDCJ facility. The level and intensity of treatment services needed was then determined and a referral decision was made. As part of this study, the relationship between TCU Drug Screen information and post-release reincarceration was examined. Although one original goal in the study was to assess the comparability, or concurrent validity, of the TCU Drug Screen with the lengthier, more comprehensive Addiction Severity Index (ASI), TDCJ changed the administration protocol for the ASI so that it was given only to a subsample of 3,245 inmates who failed to disclose drug use problems on the TCU Drug Screen. The data include inmate responses to all items of the TCU Drug Screen and the overall drug screen score. There is also demographic information as well as incarceration, release, and reincarceration data.
Curated

Assessment of a Single-Purpose Substance Abuse Facility for Committed Juvenile Offenders in Virginia, 1995-1997 (ICPSR 2730)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Virginia
Time period: 1995-01-01--1997-01-01
The objective of this data collection was to provide a preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of treatment offered at the Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center, a substance abuse treatment facility in Virginia for convicted male offenders that began operation in late 1993. The center uses a holistic approach in the treatment of youth to identify the triggers for substance abuse and to investigate the relationship between substance abuse and delinquent behavior. For the facility assessment, various types of data from the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice were gathered. Baseline data on each juvenile were obtained from the department's Reception and Diagnostic Center and consisted of demographic information and I.Q. scores, criminal history, and substance abuse history. Demographic variables include the youth's race, last grade placement, and with whom the youth lived. Youths' scores on standardized tests were also compiled, including SASSI, verbal I.Q., performance I.Q., and full-scale I.Q. scores. Criminal histories covered whether the committing offense was a felony or misdemeanor, the type of committing offense, the total number of committing offenses, whether a prior offense was a felony or a misdemeanor, the type of prior offense, the total number of prior offenses, the age at first criminal adjudication, age at commitment, and degree of delinquency. Alcohol and drug use data focused on the age at which alcohol was first used, number of times alcohol was used in the past year, age at which marijuana was first used, number of times marijuana was used in the past month, and whether the youth ever used cocaine, crack, inhalants, speed, depressants, hallucinogens, or other drugs. Another source of information was the youths' parole officers, who provided data on youths' criminal offending status and substance abuse at three, six, and twelve months after release from the center. Data obtained from parole officers assessing youths' improvement after leaving the center include whether they were rearrested, the type of offense if rearrested, the total number of offenses rearrested for, disposition, most serious offense overall, and youths' overall drug use.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Athletic Involvement Study (of Students in a Northeastern University in the United States), 2006 (ICPSR 33661)

Released/updated on: 2013-04-30
The Athletic Involvement Study interviewed 795 students in a large public university in the Northeastern United States to explore how or if participation in sports affects people's health-risk behavior. About a quarter of the sample did not report any participation in a sport during high school or college and no primary sport designation. For those who did identify with a sport there were five predictor areas of interest: (1) scales measuring strength of jock identity; (2) strength of athlete identity; (3) goal orientation in sport; (4) primary sport ratings; and (5) conformity to masculine norms.
Curated

Building Strong Families (BSF) Project Data Collection, 2005-2008, United States (ICPSR 29781)

Released/updated on: 2014-06-03
Geographic coverage: Oklahoma City, San Angelo, Indiana, Baton Rouge, United States, Oklahoma, Florida, Baltimore, Atlanta, Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Maryland, Houston
Time period: 2005-07-01--2008-03-01
The Building Strong Families (BSF) project examined the effectiveness of programs designed to improve child well-being and strengthen the relationships of low-income couples through relationship skills education. It surveyed couples 15 months and 36 months after having applied to and been accepted into a Building Stronger Families (BSF) program at one of eight locations offering services to unwed couples expecting, or having recently had a baby. Major topics included family structure, parental involvement with children, relationships, personal and parental well-being, utilization of services such as workshops to help their relationship and parenting skills, paternity and child support, and family self-sufficiency. Respondents were asked for information on recently born children and relationship status, how much time they spent with their children, their level of satisfaction with their current relationship, substance use, if they had attended relationship and parental counseling, whether they were legally required to provide child support, employment, and family background. Additional information was asked about domestic violence and child abuse, legal trouble, past sexual history, and child development. The 36-month data collection effort also included direct assessments of parenting and child development. The quality of the parenting relationship was assessed for both mothers and fathers and was based on a semi-structured play activity, "the two-bag task." This interaction was videotaped and later coded by trained assessors on multiple dimensions of parenting. During assessments with mothers, the focal child's language development was also assessed using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Demographic data includes race, education level, age, income, and marital status. The data collection is comprised of seven parts. Part 1: the BSF Eligibility and Baseline Survey Data file; Part 2: the BSF 15-Month Follow-up Survey Data file; Part 3: the program participation data file; Part 4: the BSF 15-month follow-up analysis file; Part 5: the BSF 36-Month Follow-up Survey Data file; Part 6: the mother-child in-home assessment; and Part 7: the BSF 36-Month Follow-up analysis file.
Curated

California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA), 1991-1993 (ICPSR 2295)

Released/updated on: 2008-10-07
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 1991-01-01--1993-01-01
The California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA) was designed to study the costs, benefits, and effectiveness of the state's alcohol and drug treatment infrastructure (recovery services) and specifically to assess (1) the effects of treatment on participant behavior, (2) the costs of treatment, and (3) the economic value of treatment to society. Data were collected on participants (clients) across four types of treatment programs, or modalities: residential, residential "social model," nonmethadone outpatient, and outpatient methadone (detoxification and maintenance). Data were collected in two phases. In Phase 1, treatment records were abstracted for clients who received treatment or were discharged between October 1, 1991, and September 30, 1992. In Phase 2, these clients were located and recruited for a follow-up interview. The CALDATA design and procedures included elements from several national treatment outcome studies including the Drug Services Research Survey (ICPSR 3393), Services Research Outcomes Study (ICPSR 2691), National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (ICPSR 2884), and Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (ICPSR 2258). The record abstract was designed to collect identifying and locating information for interview reference during the personal interviewing phase. The abstract also collected demographic, drug, or alcohol use, and treatment and service information. The follow-up questionnaire covered time periods before, during, and after treatment and focused on topics such as ethnic and educational background, drug and alcohol use, mental and physical health, HIV and AIDS status, drug testing, illegal activities and criminal status, living arrangements and family issues, employment and income, and treatment for drug, alcohol, and mental health problems. Drugs included alcohol, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cocaine powder, crack, downers, hallucinogens, heroin, illegal methadone, inhalants, LSD, marijuana/hashish/THC, methamphetamines and other stimulants, narcotics, over-the-counter drugs, PCP, ritalin or preludin, and sedatives/hypnotics. CALDATA was originally known as the California Outcomes Study (COS).
Curated

Census of Tribal Justice Agencies, 2002 (ICPSR 4439)

Released/updated on: 2006-07-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The study compiles data on the law enforcement, courts and administration, corrections and intermediate sanctions, criminal history records, and justice statistics of the federally recognized American Indian tribal governing bodies. The data determine which tribes have sworn law enforcement personnel and the source of authority, what the number and type of tribal court systems are, who performs the tribal detention function and what types of sanctions are imposed. It also looks at whether tribes have access to state and national criminal record systems.
Curated

Center for Education and Drug Abuse Research (CEDAR): Etiological and Prospective Family Study in Southwestern Pennsylvania, Baseline and Follow-Up Data, 1990-2014 (ICPSR 33444)

Released/updated on: 2021-06-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania
Time period: 1990-01-01--2014-01-01
The Center for Education and Drug Abuse Research (CEDAR) conducted research on 775 families enrolled in the Center's prospective investigations into the etiology of substance use disorder (SUD). The pro-bands are men with lifetime presence/absence of SUD consequent to use of an illicit drug who have a 10-12 year old biological son or daughter. The biological children of SUD men are assigned to the high average risk (HAR) group whereas offspring of men without SUD, having neither axis 1 disorder ("normal") nor SUD psychiatric disorder, are assigned to the low average risk (LAR) group. A second control group (Psych control) was also collected, in whom the fathers had a lifetime DSM-III-R diagnosis of any psychiatric disorder not related to substance use. The sample sizes are as follows: HAR = 344, LAR = 350, and Psych = 81. The children had follow-up evaluations conducted at ages 12-14, 16, 19, and annually thereafter until age 30. CEDAR has already shown that they can predict in 10-12 year old youth cannabis use disorder by age 22 with approximately 70 percent accuracy, thereby substantiating the paradigm, subject recruitment strategy, and measurement protocols. Multidisciplinary research was conducted on family members (father, mother, children) with the objective of elucidating the genetic, bio-behavioral, and environmental factors on development of SUD consequent to use of illegal drugs. Research protocols are organized into three thematically connected research modules (Neurogenetics, Developmental Psychopathology, and Translation) linking etiology and prevention. The research components thus align with the NIH Roadmap model such that basic science informs clinical research leading to prevention guided by an understanding of etiology. In addition to module-level research, faculty also participate in three organizational aims: (1) Devise a practical scale to quantify the transmissible liability to SUD; (2) Empirically test a bio-psychological theory of SUD etiology focusing on off-time maturation leading to psychological dysregulation predisposing to SUD; and, (3) Delineate SUD liability variants within an ontogenetic framework.
Curated

Characteristics of Arrestees at Risk for Co-Existing Substance Abuse and Mental Disorder in Cleveland, Ohio, 2003 (ICPSR 20352)

Released/updated on: 2009-02-25
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio, Cleveland
Time period: 2003-04-01--2003-06-01
The current study was conducted as a supplemental study to the Cleveland/Cuyahoga County Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program in the second quarter of 2003 (April-June). A risk screening instrument was implemented to classify Cleveland/Cuyahoga County adult arrestees into four groups: arrestees at no risk for substance abuse or dependence or mental disorder; arrestees at risk for substance abuse or dependence with no risk for mental disorder; arrestees at risk for mental disorder with no risk for substance abuse or dependence; and arrestees at risk for both mental disorder and substance abuse or dependence. A total of 311 adult arrestees were interviewed and provided a urine sample submitted for testing. The dual risk screening instrument includes six mental disorder risk questions and six substance abuse risk questions. The mental disorder risk questions include questions on having feelings or emotions that make it difficult to complete normal day to day activities, feeling hopeless or depressed, having thoughts of hurting oneself or committing suicide, and hearing or seeing things that others cannot hear or see. The substance abuse risk questions include questions on problems caused by drinking or drug use, arrests due to alcohol or drug use, time spent on thinking about or trying to get alcohol or drugs, and feelings of guilt about drinking or drug use.
Curated

Chicago Male Drug Use and Health Survey (MSM Supplement), 2002-2003 (ICPSR 34303)

Released/updated on: 2012-08-01
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 2002-09-01--2003-01-01
In recent years, club drugs such as MDMA, Ketamine, GHB, and Rohypnol have emerged as major drugs of abuse. The national and local Chicago news media have publicized law enforcement actions and adverse health outcomes, including fatalities, related to the abuse of these substances. Media accounts and a limited body of research have identified use of these substances as prevalent in the gay male community. This prevalence coincides with recent increases in HIV seropositive incidence. There is a clear need for a more comprehensive understanding of the prevalence of club drug use in the general population, and particularly in the subgroup of sexually active gay men. Noting these research gaps and their considerable adverse public health implications, this supplemental study was designed to apply an expanded protocol developed from an earlier study conducted (Feasibility and Use of Biological Measurement in Drug Surveys; R01DA12425, SRL Study #860) to a sample of gay men in the city of Chicago (Michael Fendrich, Principal Investigator). This study evaluated whether findings regarding the feasibility and use of drug testing in drug surveys derived from general population samples are generalizable to a probability sample of 216 gay men in the city of Chicago. For this project, a supplemental module was added to the main study survey that asked detailed questions about involvement in the gay community, risky sexual activity and HIV seropositivity. The scope of biological measurement was also expanded to incorporate testing for Rohypnol and Ketamine in hair (MDMA was already being tested as part of the general sample hair screen). The dataset contains 676 variables.
Curated
Restricted

Collaborative National Network Examining Comparative Effectiveness Trials (CoNNECT) in 12 U.S. States, August 2010-July 2012 (ICPSR 34672)

Released/updated on: 2013-09-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Vermont, United States, Minnesota, New York (state), Arkansas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas, Colorado, Missouri, Virginia
Time period: 2010-08-01--2012-07-01

Purpose. The CoNNECT Project enables comparative effectiveness research on mental health, behavioral health, and substance use in primary care. CoNNECT tracked two main elements: (1) the number of patients identified with a comorbid mental health and physical health diagnosis; (2) the number of patients who initiate treatment secondary to a mental health diagnosis. CoNNECT created the capacity to build a base for mental health in primary care comparative effectiveness research using electronic connectivity to generate retrospective and in time prospective clinical data.

Data Access. CoNNECT data are not available from ICPSR. The data from this study are hosted at DARTNet.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

The Community Vulnerability and Responses to Drug-User-Related HIV/AIDS, 1990-2013 [96 Metropolitan Statistical Areas, United States] (ICPSR 36575)

Released/updated on: 2017-08-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Milwaukee, Indiana, Ocean (New Jersey), Fort Worth, Cincinnati, Austin, Monmouth (New Jersey), Utah, San Jose, Rock Hill, Gastonia, San Diego, Columbus (Ohio), Syracuse, Springfield (Massachusetts), North Little Rock (Arkansas), Arizona, Las Vegas, Arlington, Springfield (Ohio), Boston, San Bernardino, Providence, Seattle, Kentucky, St. Petersburg, Bethlehem, Niagara Falls (New York), Nashville, California, Florida, Delaware, Hunterdon (New Jersey), Boca Raton (Florida), Troy, Knoxville, Mississippi, Fresno, New Haven, Sarasota, Illinois, Newark, Georgia, Little Rock, Virginia, Maryland, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Suffolk County (New York), United States, Oklahoma, Grand Rapids, Louisville, Waukesha (Wisconsin), Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Albany (New York), Wichita, Mesa (Arizona), Carlisle (Pennsylvania), Fall River, Massachusetts, Missouri, Winston-Salem, Holland (Michigan), New Orleans, Scranton, Denver, Salt Lake City, Harrisburg, Dallas, St. Louis, Nevada, Schenectady, Allentown, Raleigh, San Antonio, Muskegon, St. Paul, Clearwater, Hawaii, Rochester (New York), Passaic, Ventura (California), Birmingham, Michigan, Lebanon, Baltimore, New Mexico, Orlando, Louisiana, Toledo, Middlesex (New Jersey), Philadelphia, Riverside, Oklahoma City, Akron, Greensboro, Detroit, Charlotte, High Point, Tucson, Albuquerque, Everett, Oakland, Bakersfield, New York City, Somerset (New Jersey), Petersburg, Memphis, Ogden, Jacksonville, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Nassau (New York), Orange County (California), Sacramento, El Paso, Greenville, Kansas, Meriden, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Chapel Hill (North Carolina), West Palm Beach, Iowa, Texas, Lorain, Portland (Oregon), Hazleton, Tampa, Durham, San Marcos (Texas), Indianapolis, Richmond, Oregon, Warwick, Bergen (New Jersey), Newport News, Ann Arbor, Alabama, Cleveland, Dayton, Nebraska, Omaha, Warren, West Virginia, Elyria, Tacoma, Minneapolis, Youngstown, Atlanta, Honolulu, Phoenix, Bradenton, Wilmington (Delaware), Gary, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Vancouver (Washington), Lodi (California), Chicago, Fort Lauderdale, Wilkes-Barre, Minnesota, Kansas City (Missouri), Bellevue, New York (state), Anderson, New Jersey, Miami, San Francisco, Charleston (South Carolina), Jersey City, Long Beach, Spartanburg (South Carolina), New Hampshire, Easton, Ohio, Los Angeles, Hartford, Stockton, Houston
Time period: 1990-01-01--2013-01-01

The Community Vulnerability and Responses to Drug-User-Related HIV/AIDS, 1990-2013 [96 Metropolitan Statistical Areas, United States] study (CVAR) was a research study of why large United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) vary over time in their vulnerability to HIV/AIDS among drug users and in MSA responses to HIV/AIDS. This collection contains estimates of HIV prevalence among people who injected drugs (PWID) and among sub-populations of PWID. This collection is comprised of ten datasets with differing amounts of variables and provides trend data that describe the following:

  • Epidemiologic outcomes including population prevalence of PWIDs and Non-injecting drug users (NIDUs), and particularly their prevalence among youth; and, among PWIDs, HIV prevalence, late-diagnosis HIV cases, and AIDS incidence and mortality.
  • Implementation of evidence-based drug-related interventions including drug abuse treatment, syringe exchange, HIV counseling and testing.
  • Implementation of non-evidence-based drug-related interventions including incarceration and arrests of drug users.

The collection contains data on the MSA sub-populations including Black, Hispanic, White and "other" race categories. In addition, some statistics are presented in age range categories such as ages 15-29, 30-64 and 15-64.

Curated

Comprehensive Investigation of the Role of Individuals, the Immediate Social Environment, and Neighborhoods in Trajectories of Adolescent Antisocial Behavior in Chicago, Illinois, 1994-2002 (ICPSR 33921)

Released/updated on: 2012-12-19
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1994-01-01--2002-01-01
The overall goal of this study was to acquire a greater understanding of the development of adolescent antisocial behavior using data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN). Longitudinal cohort data from PHDCN were analyzed to assess patterns of substance use and delinquency across three waves for three age cohorts and 78 neighborhoods. This analysis of existing PHDCN data used multiple cohort and multilevel latent growth models as well as several ancillary approaches to answer questions pertinent to the development of adolescent antisocial behavior.
Curated

Contraband and Interdiction Modalities in Correctional Facilities, 6 U.S. states, 2018 (ICPSR 37976)

Released/updated on: 2023-01-12
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Wyoming, Texas, Tennessee, Florida, Arkansas
In 2015, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the Urban Institute, in partnership with the American Correctional Association (ACA), to conduct a study on the prevalence and types of contraband in correctional facilities in the United States, and the interdiction strategies and technologies in place to combat these issues. The goals of this study were to: (1) develop and field test the National Survey of Correctional Contraband (NSCC), targeting state Department of Corrections (DOC) across the U.S. with diverse populations and geographies to understand contraband prevalence and types of interdiction modalities; (2) conduct in-depth case studies to better understand the motivations of adopting contraband interdiction modalities, their implementation challenges, and effectiveness, with reference to the type, geographic location, size of facility, and governing statutes and regulations under which the facility operates; and (3) disseminate research findings and information on contraband and interdiction modalities to correctional facilities interested in selecting an interdiction modality, as well as to both practitioner and scholarly communities. To achieve these goals, the research team established connections with several DOCs around the country as site partners to provide administrative data and insights into contraband-related challenges and interdiction efforts.
Curated

Correlates and Consequences of Juvenile Exposure to Violence in the United States, 1995 (ICPSR 3986)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1995-01-01--1995-06-01
This study examined the effect of exposure to violence on juveniles. It was specifically concerned with juveniles' perceptions of violence in schools and communities and how exposure to violence served as a risk factor for juvenile drug and alcohol use and participation in other delinquent activities. It also sought to develop a more complete picture of the context and consequences of violence in schools. The data for this study were drawn from the NATIONAL SURVEY OF ADOLESCENTS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1995 (ICPSR 2833). The data were collected through a national probability telephone sample of 4,023 juveniles and their parents or guardians. The current study drew primarily on the questions that were asked about respondents' experiences witnessing violence, their own victimization, peer and family deviance, their own delinquent activities, and drug and alcohol use.
Curated

Crack, Powder Cocaine, and Heroin: Drug Purchase and Use Patterns in Six Cities in the United States, 1995-1996 (ICPSR 2564)

Released/updated on: 2012-08-22
Geographic coverage: New York City, Oregon, District of Columbia, San Diego, San Antonio, United States, Chicago, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), California, New York (state)
Time period: 1995-01-01--1996-01-01
This study was designed to address the practical and policy implications of various drug market participation patterns. In 1995, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) collaborated on a project called the Procurement Study. This study was executed as an addendum to NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]) with the goal of extending previous research in which heroin users were interviewed on various aspects of drug market activity. The present study sought to explore additional features of drug market participation and use, both within and across drug types and cities, and included two additional drugs -- powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Data were collected from recently arrested users of powder cocaine, crack cocaine, and heroin in six DUF cities (Chicago, New York, Portland, San Diego, San Antonio, and Washington, DC). Each of the three files in this collection, Crack Data (Part 1), Heroin Data (Part 2), and Powder Cocaine Data (Part 3), is comprised of data from a procurement interview, urine test variables, and a DUF interview. During the procurement interview, information was collected on purchase and use patterns for specific drugs. Variables from the procurement interview include the respondent's method of using the drug, the term used to refer to the drug, whether the respondent bought the drug in the neighborhood, the number of different dealers the respondent bought the drug from, how the respondent made the connection with the dealer (i.e., street, house, phone, beeper, business/store, or friends), their main drug source, whether the respondent went to someone else if the source was not available, how the respondent coped with not being able to find drugs to buy, whether the respondent got the drug for free, the means by which the respondent obtained money, the quantity and packaging of the drug, and the number of minutes spent searching for, traveling to, and waiting for their last purchase. Urine tests screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography). Data from the DUF interview provide detailed information about each arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs. For each drug type, arrestees were asked whether they had ever used the drug, the age at which they first used the drug, whether they had used the drug within the past three days, how many days they had used the drug within the past month, whether they had ever needed or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were dependent on the drug at the time of the interview. Data from the DUF interview instrument also included alcohol/drug treatment history, information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs, and whether they were influenced by drugs when the crime that they were charged with was committed. The data also include information about whether the arrestee had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether he or she had had prior arrests in the past 12 months. Demographic data include the age, race, sex, educational attainment, marital status, employment status, and living circumstances of each respondent.
Curated

Criminal Careers, Criminal Violence, and Substance Abuse in California, 1963-1983 (ICPSR 9964)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 1963-01-01--1983-01-01
The purpose of the study was to investigate the criminal career patterns of violent offenders. These data are intended to facilitate the development of models to predict recidivism and violence, and to construct parole supervision programs. Original data were collected on young male offenders in 1964 and 1965 as they entered the California Youth Authority (CYA). At this time, data were collected on criminal history, including current offenses, drug and alcohol use, psychological and personality variables, and sentencing, and demographics such as age, education, work experience, and family structure. The data collection also contains results from a number of standardized psychological instruments: California Psychological Inventory, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, California Achievement Test Battery, General Aptitude Test Battery, Army General Classification Test, and the Revised Beta Test. After release from the CYA and over the following 20 years, subsequent arrest information was collected on the offenders, including the nature of the offense, disposition, and arrest and parole dates.
Curated

Criminal Histories and Criminal Justice Processing of Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Sample Members in Washington, DC, 1989-1991 (ICPSR 6122)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1989-01-01--1991-01-01
These data provide information on the relationship between arrestee drug tests and future criminality once other risk factors, such as prior criminal history, are accounted for. Also explored is whether the association between drug test results and future offending varies depending upon the attributes of individual offenders. The dataset contains information drawn from the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) in Washington, DC, and the National Institute of Justice's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program. Data are available from each source for 1989 and 1990 with subsequent arrest data provided by PSA through August 1991. The 1989-1990 data supplied by PSA contain information on criminal history and drug test results taken at the time of arrest. Data provided from the DUF program include drug test results from a sample of persons arrested as well as information obtained from arrestee interviews on items such as family and work status. The combined data contain the arrestees' demographic characteristics, arrest and charge information, prior criminal history, and subsequent offending. Drugs tested for include cocaine, opiates, methadone, PCP, amphetamines, barbiturates, marijuana, methaqualone, Darvon, and Valium. In addition, self-reported information regarding an individual's use of and dependency on these drugs is supplied. Demographic information includes age, sex, income, and employment status. Due to changes in the DUF measurement instrument from 1989 to 1990, the variables contained in the two data files are not completely identical.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): A Comparison of Two Reentry Strategies for Drug Abusing Juvenile Offenders, 2003-2009 [United States] (ICPSR 30143)

Released/updated on: 2015-08-03
Geographic coverage: United States, Florida, Delaware
Time period: 2003-01-01--2009-01-01
Despite progress in reducing crime, crime rates among juveniles, particularly non-white juveniles, remain high. A number of programs have been developed to address the process of reintegration into the community, known as aftercare, through resource efficiency, recidivism reduction, and public safety. This study attempts to evaluate the relative effectiveness of two strategies, extant aftercare services (AS) and Cognitive Restructuring (CR), in order to determine the differential effects on juveniles with varying problem profiles. 236 baseline interviews took place, after which 118 individuals were assigned to CR and 118 to AS. They were then interviewed at three months, two weeks prior to completion of the treatment, and nine months after the completion of the treatment. The two treatments were then compared for relative effectiveness and for relative quality of integration into the juvenile justice system. This data is public use. There are 62 variables and 65 cases in Recruitment(DS1). Intake (DS2) has 444 variables and 187 respondents. The Three Month Follow-Up (DS3) has 319 variables and 159 respondents. Finally, there are 319 variables and 137 respondents in the Nine Month Follow-Up (DS4).
Curated

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): HIV/HEPATITIS Prevention for Re-Entering Drug Offenders (ICPSR 29061)

Released/updated on: 2011-01-24
Geographic coverage: United States, Delaware
The development of the CJ-DATS Targeted Intervention program, targeting a policy change to incorporate public health concerns into the parole and release process, has prompted this study to analyze the effectiveness of the intervention and to determine how it might best be integrated into the current corrections administration. Primarily, the study seeks to consider the effectiveness of one-on-one peer intervention against group intervention moderated by a peer. The study is set up to interview former inmates as they re-enter society through parole or work release. The first phase of the study is to determine their history of drug use, before incarceration and during their time in a corrections facility. These respondents were chosen because of the particular danger faced by those re-entering to engage in "make up for lost time" behavior as access to illicit activity becomes more readily available. Additionally, this portion tests the respondents' knowledge of HIV/AIDS and their utilization of resources designed to improve their health. Following this survey, as well as a blood examination to determine whether they have the illnesses associated with the study, the subjects engaged in counseling based on the subgroup to which they had been randomly assigned. The control group received a standard one-hour, non-interactive CDC intervention, while the experimental group received the CJ-DATS Targeted Intervention. The intention was to determine if individual intervention is more effective, given the need for brief, effective interventions as a result of the large volume of the relevant population. Following the interventions, followup interviews were issued at 30 and 90 days. The intention was to determine not merely if there was an aggregate change in behavior as a result of the intervention, but furthermore, if the intervention led to a negative trend. Of particular concern to the outcome of the study and its analysis was the relative effectiveness of the peer interventions, as well as how officers and administration within the corrections and parole process might incorporate an attitude of public health into the process.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): Performance Indicators for Corrections (PIC), 2002-2006 [United States] (ICPSR 27942)

Released/updated on: 2013-05-08
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2002-01-01--2006-01-01

In 2002, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) funded the Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS) cooperative agreement. The Institute of Behavioral Research at Texas Christian University (TCU) was one of nine National Research Centers selected to study current drug treatment practices and outcomes in correctional settings and to examine strategies for improving treatment services for drug-involved offenders.

The specific aims of the PIC study were to:

  1. Cross sectionally test and adapt the TCU CJ-CEST, BOP, and NDRI CAI assessments for use in multiple correctional settings;
  2. To examine agency and program records of client progress relevant to treatment process; and to
  3. Revise the assessments as necessary for use in longitudinal assessment protocols and CJ Management Information Systems (MIS).

During the first data collection period, Wave 1, a total of 3,266 inmates were surveyed from research centers based out of Texas Christian University, the University of Delaware, the University of Kentucky, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and the National Development and Research Institute (NDRI). After psychometrics were run and the forms revised slightly, a second administration took place but this time only at two centers (TCU and Delaware). During Wave 2 a total of 1,421 clients participated in the survey.

Curated

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): Step 'N Out, 2002-2006 [United States] (ICPSR 30221)

Released/updated on: 2011-07-27
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Rhode Island, United States, Connecticut, Delaware, Virginia
Time period: 2002-01-01--2006-01-01
Step 'N Out is a research study designed to examine the potential of a new approach to address the re-entry needs of offenders who have substance abuse issues, one which integrates the systems of supervision and treatment. The study is a randomized clinical trial which enrolls subjects who are new to supervision. Those who are in the treatment arm of the study meet with their probation officer weekly for 12 weeks, with every other meeting including a treatment counselor. The PO and counselor have been trained to use motivational interviewing and collaborative behavioral techniques to explore the client's personal issues and triggers that may hamper his/her successful re-entry into the community. The probation officer and counselor work with the client to establish weekly recovery and social goals in the form of a written contract that enables the client to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions. In addition, the variables in this study generally cover topics on drug use and testing; demographics and criminal background; treatment programs and sessions; and finally, relationships between clients and their parole/probation officers.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): Transitional Care Management (TCM), Increasing Aftercare Participation for Parolees, 2004-2008 [United States] (ICPSR 31621)

Released/updated on: 2014-03-14
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, Connecticut, Kentucky, Los Angeles, Hartford, California, New York (state), Lexington
Time period: 2004-11-01--2008-05-01
In an effort to increase participation in community aftercare treatment for substance-abusing offenders who have paroled from prison, the Transitional Case Management (TCM) intervention tested a model of strengths-based case management consisting of (1) completion by the inmate of a strengths and goals assessment as part of discharge planning, (2) a telephone conference call that included the inmate and people central to the inmate's aftercare plan (including the parole officer), and (3) strengths case management for 12 weeks in the community to promote treatment participation and increase the client's access to needed services. (For a more detailed description, see Prendergast Law and Cartier, 2008). With four CJ-DATS Research Centers participating, the study randomized 812 prison treatment clients to the Transitional Case Management condition or to the Standard Referral condition. Detailed assessments occurred at baseline and at three and nine months following release to parole. Data from treatment and criminal justice records, including costs, were also collected. Treatment and criminal justice staff completed surveys on agency collaboration and cooperation. Respondents were asked questions regarding the barriers to treatment/recovery, education/job training, relationships, finance, living arrangement/housing, health and documentation. They were also asked question related to whether they needed or received certain services. Other variables included socio-demographic and family background, peer relation and criminal history, health and psychological status, drug and treatment history.
Curated

Cross-Site Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance Second Chance Act Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Programs, United States, 2011-2016 (ICPSR 37042)

Released/updated on: 2021-07-29
Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Minnesota, California, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2011-01-01--2016-01-01

The cross-site evaluation of the Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects (AORDP) was a seven-site study designed to 1) describe the implementation and sustainability of each AORDP project through a process evaluation, 2) determine the per capita program costs of each AORDP project through a cost study, and 3) determine the effectiveness of the programs through a multicomponent outcome study. The seven evaluation sites were located in California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The objectives of the outcome evaluation were to determine the effects of program participation on recidivism and other outcomes and assess whether program participation increased engagement in services, including substance abuse treatment and mental health services. The outcome evaluation consisted of two components:

1. Cross-site prospective study designed to collect longitudinal survey data with a sample of program participants and appropriate comparison or control subjects to assess the impact of the SCA funding on access to services and reentry outcomes, such as substance use, employment, housing, and health.

2. Site-specific recidivism analyses using administrative data to assess the impact of AORDP program participation on recidivism outcomes for all individuals enrolled in the AORDP programs and a matched comparison group in each site

Curated

Cross-Validation of the Iowa Offender Risk Assessment Model in Michigan, 1980-1982 (ICPSR 9236)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, Michigan
Time period: 1980-01-01--1982-01-01
These data were collected in an attempt to cross-validate the 1984 and 1985 versions of the Iowa model for assessing risk of offending while on parole by applying the model to a Michigan sample of male parolees over a follow-up period of two and one-half years. Different measures of predictors such as prior criminal history, current offense, substance abuse history, age, and recidivism on parole are available. The first file contains information on parolees such as demographic characteristics, drug use history, prior criminal history, risk scores, and parole history. The second file includes parolees' detailed criminal histories including the total number of violent and nonviolent felony arrests and dates, and charges and dispositions of each arrest with a maximum of eight arrests.
Curated

Deterring Drug Use With Intensive Probation in New Jersey, 1989-1990 (ICPSR 9919)

Released/updated on: 2002-06-27
Geographic coverage: United States, New Jersey
Time period: 1989-01-01--1990-01-01
These data were collected to measure the degree to which subjective deterrence and rational choice are effective in reducing drug-use recidivism rates. Baseline interviews were conducted with participants upon entering a drug rehabilitation program in New Jersey. Under the terms of this program, which was an alternative to prison, any incident of drug use occurring during the rehabilitation period would result in the participant's returning to prison. Follow-up interviews were conducted when the participant either had a drug/alcohol use relapse or successfully completed a year in the program without a drug-use incident. Baseline interviews included questions about criminal and drug-use history, as well as initial reactions to the drug rehabilitation program. Follow-up interviews probed for participants' feelings about the drug rehabilitation program experience. Further questions concerned participants' failure or success at staying away from drugs or alcohol.
Curated

Detroit [Michigan] Neighborhood Health Study, 2008-2013 (ICPSR 37038)

Released/updated on: 2021-10-07
Geographic coverage: Detroit, United States, Michigan
Time period: 2008-01-01--2009-01-01, 2009-01-01--2010-01-01, 2010-01-01--2011-01-01, 2011-01-01--2012-01-01

The Detroit Neighborhood Health Study (DNHS) is a prospective, representative longitudinal cohort study of predominantly African American adults living in Detroit, Michigan. The main purpose of the study was to determine the predictive effects of ecological stressors, such as income distribution and residential segregation, on the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance use, and other psychological and behavioral outcomes. An additional purpose was to study the interrelationships between ecological stressors, exposure to potentially traumatic events (PTEs), PTSD, substance use, and immune function. The study team hypothesized that exposure to ecological stressors would influence the risk of PTE exposure, PTSD, substance use, other psychological outcomes, and the relationships between these factors.

The current collection includes data from all 5 waves of the study. Cohort participants were initially recruited in 2008 with a dual-frame probability design, using telephone numbers obtained from the U.S. Postal Service Delivery Sequence Files as well as a listed-assisted random-digit-dial frame. Individuals without listed landlines or telephones and individuals with only a cell phone listed were invited to participate through a postal mail effort. Participants completed a 40 minute, structured telephone interview annually between 2008-2012 to assess perceptions of participants' neighborhoods, mental and physical health status, social support, exposure to traumatic events, and alcohol and tobacco use. In addition, the study team completed a structured assessment of Detroit's 54 neighborhoods in order to describe the characteristics of respondents' neighborhoods. The assessment included information about the quality of housing exteriors; presence of graffiti, abandoned cars, alcohol and tobacco advertisements, and security warning signs; presence of vacant buildings; and street and traffic noise levels.

All survey participants were offered the opportunity to provide a blood specimen (venipuncture, blood spot, or saliva) for immune and inflammatory marker testing as well as genetic testing of DNA. Participants received an additional $25USD if they elected to give a sample. Informed consent was obtained at the beginning of each interview and again at specimen collection. However, these specimens are not included as part of this data collection.

For more information about the study, please visit the Detroit Neighborhood Health Study website.

Genotypic data from DNHS are available on the NIH database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP).

Curated
Restricted

Developmental Pathways of Teen Dating Violence in a High-Risk Sample, Erie County, New York, 2013-2015 (ICPSR 36430)

Released/updated on: 2017-12-18
Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state), Erie County
Time period: 2013-01-01--2015-01-01

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 investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This study examined etiological pathways to teen dating violence (TDV) in a sample of adolescents who had been followed since infancy and were at high-risk due to parental alcohol problems. Adolescents (M=17.68 years of age) who had been participating, along with their parents, in a longitudinal study of the effects of parental alcohol problems on child development completed an additional wave of survey data in 11-12th grades. Families (N=227) were initially recruited from county birth records when the child was 12 months of age and had been previously assessed at 12-, 18-, 24-, 36-months, kindergarten, 4th, 6th, and 8th grades. For the current wave of data collection, adolescent participants (n=185) used computer-assisted interviewing to complete questionnaires assessing their individual characteristics, family and peer relationships, substance use, dating behaviors and involvement in TDV as a victim or perpetrator.

Curated
Restricted

Development and Implementation of a Digital Ecosystem to Improve Opioid Overdose Reporting, Tracking, and Prevention across Texas, 2020 (ICPSR 38495)

Released/updated on: 2023-01-26
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas

This study includes 19 interview transcripts. The overall intent of the interviews was to gather information that could be used to develop and improve a single reporting website for overdose tracking and naloxone distribution metrics that would generate monthly reports to the State of Texas. The goal of this study was to develop and implement a digital ecosystem to improve opioid overdose reporting, tracking, and prevention across Texas. The study also aimed to understand the relationship between substance use behavior, stress response, and social support structures during the COVID-19 pandemic.