Showing 1 – 6 of 6 results.
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
Case Outcomes Following Investigative Interviews of Suspected Victims of Child Sexual Abuse in Salt Lake City and County, Utah, 1994-2000 (ICPSR 27721)
Released/updated on: 2010-08-10
Geographic coverage: United States, Salt Lake City, Utah
Time period: 1994-01-01--2000-01-01
The purpose of this study was to examine whether the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Investigative Interview Protocol impacted child sexual abuse case outcomes within the justice system. The researchers coded information from child protection and police reports, Children's Justice Center (CJC) intake forms, and the CJC electronic database to create a dataset on 1,280 alleged child sexual abuse cases involving children interviewed in Salt Lake County, Utah, between 1994 and 2000. Specifically, the research team gathered case characteristics and case outcomes data on 551 alleged child sexual abuse cases in which investigative interviews were conducted from 1994 to mid-September 1997 before the NICHD protocol was implemented, and 729 alleged child sexual abuse cases in which investigative interviews were conducted from mid-September 1997 to 2000 after the implementation of the NICHD protocol, so that pre-NICHD protocol and NICHD protocol interview case outcomes could be compared. The same police detectives conducted both the pre-NICHD protocol interviews and the NICHD protocol interviews. The dataset contains a total of 116 variables pertaining to cases of suspected child abuse. The major categories of variables include demographic data on the suspected child victim and on the suspected perpetrator, on case characteristics, on case outcomes, and on time delays.
Curated
Restricted
An In-depth Examination of Batterer Intervention and Alternative Treatment Approaches for Domestic Violence Offenders, Utah, 2015-2018 (ICPSR 37123)
Released/updated on: 2019-02-28
Geographic coverage: United States, Salt Lake City, Utah
Time period: 2015-05-04--2018-07-10
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 National Institute of Justice (NIJ)-funded study was designed to provide an in-depth examination of a batterer intervention program (BIP) and an alternative treatment approach using restorative justice (RJ) for domestic violence (DV) offenders. The study design provided an in-depth content analysis to complement a National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded randomized controlled trial (RCT) in Salt Lake City, Utah that used an intention to treat method of analysis to determine which treatment program has the lowest arrest outcomes: a traditional BIP or a BIP plus RJ approach called Circles of Peace (CP). Utah requires a minimum of 16 weeks of treatment for domestic violence offenders mandated to treatment. BIP, a 16-week group-based treatment approach for offenders only, is largely didactic and focuses on changing sexist attitudes for the purpose of altering the behavior of offenders. BIP plus CP provides 12 weeks of offender-only group sessions (with RJ principles infused throughout), encouraging offenders to focus on behavioral and attitudinal change. Following the initial 12 group sessions, offenders participated in four weeks of individual circles with a willing victim or a victim advocate (if the victim does not want to participate), family members or other support people, and trained community volunteers.
The collection contains 2 SPSS data files: Case-Record-Review---BIP--CP-n-68-.sav (n=68, 313 variables) and Case-Record-Review---BIP-Only-n-92-.sav (n=92, 398 variables).
Data related to respondents' qualitative interviews are not available as part of this collection.
Curated
Process Evaluation of the Comprehensive Communities Program in Selected Cities in the United States, 1994-1996 (ICPSR 3492)
Released/updated on: 2009-06-30
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States, Fort Worth, Utah, Washington, South Carolina, Wichita, Atlanta, Columbia (South Carolina), Massachusetts, Colorado, Denver, Salt Lake City, Boston, Gary, Seattle, East Bay, California, Kansas, Baltimore, Texas, Connecticut, Hartford, Georgia, Maryland
Time period: 1995-09-01--1997-04-01, 1995-09-01--1997-04-01, 1995-09-01--1997-04-01, 1995-09-01--1997-04-01, 1995-11-01--1997-03-01, 1997-12-01--1998-01-01, 1996-01-01--1997-03-01, 1997-12-01--1998-01-01, 1995-11-01--1997-01-01, 1997-12-01--1998-01-01, 1995-09-01--1996-12-01, 1997-12-01--1998-01-01
This study was a process evaluation of the Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP) intended to develop insights into how community approaches to crime and drug abuse prevention and control evolved, to track how each site implemented its comprehensive strategy, to determine the influence of preexisting ecological, social, economic, and political factors on implementation, and to monitor the evolution of strategies and projects over time. Intensive evaluations were done at six CCP sites: Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Columbia, South Carolina; Fort Worth, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Seattle, Washington. Less intensive evaluations were done at six other CCP sites: Gary, Indiana; Hartford, Connecticut; Wichita, Kansas; the Denver, Colorado, metropolitan area; the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area; and the East Bay area of northern California. At all 12 sites, 2 waves of a Coalition Survey (Parts 1 and 2) were sent to everyone who participated in CCP. Likewise, 2 waves of the Community Policing Survey (Parts 3 and 4) were sent to the police chiefs of all 12 sites. Finally, all 12 sites were visited by researchers at least once (Parts 5 to 13). Variables found in this data collection include problems facing the communities, the implementation of CCP programs, the use of community policing, and the effectiveness of the CCP programs and community policing efforts.