Showing 1 – 35 of 35 results.
Curated
Restricted
Benefits and Limitations of Civil Protection Orders for Victims of Domestic Violence in Wilmington, Delaware, Denver, Colorado, and the District of Columbia, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 2557)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States, Colorado, Denver, Delaware, Wilmington
Time period: 1994-01-01--1995-01-01
This study was designed to explore whether civil protection orders were effective in providing safer environments for victims of domestic violence and enhancing their opportunities for escaping violent relationships. The researchers looked at the factors that might influence civil protection orders, such as accessibility to the court process, linkages to public and private services and sources of support, and the criminal record of the victim's abuser, and then examined how courts in three jurisdictions processed civil protection orders. Wilmington, Delaware, Denver, Colorado, and the District of Columbia were chosen as sites because of structural differences among them that were believed to be linked to the effectiveness of civil protection orders. Since these jurisdictions each had different court processes and service models, the researchers expected that these models would produce various results and that these variations might hold implications for improving practices in other jurisdictions. Data were collected through initial and follow-up interviews with women who had filed civil protection orders. The effectiveness of the civil protection orders was measured by the amount of improvement in the quality of the women's lives after the order was in place, versus the extent of problems created by the protection orders. Variables from the survey of women include police involvement at the incident leading to the protection order, the relationship of the petitioner and respondent to the petition prior to the order, history of abuse, the provisions asked for and granted in the order, if a permanent order was not filed for by the petitioner, the reasons why, the court experience, protective measures the petitioner undertook after the order, and how the petitioner's life changed after the order. Case file data were gathered on when the order was filed and issued, contempt motions and hearings, stipulations of the order, and social service referrals. Data on the arrest and conviction history of the petition respondent were also collected.
Curated
Community Supervision of Drug-Involved Probationers in San Diego County, California, 1991-1993 (ICPSR 2023)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, California
Time period: 1991-01-01--1993-01-01
The Probationers in Recovery (PIR) program, developed by the San Diego County Probation Department, targeted high-risk, drug-abusing offenders with the goal of controlling offender behavior without increasing risks to communities. This evaluation of PIR was based on a quasiexperimental design that compared program activities and outcomes for two matched groups of high-risk probationers receiving different levels of service and supervision. The assessment included both a process evaluation to discover if expected service levels were implemented as designed, and an impact evaluation to assess the effectiveness of drug treatment within an intensive community supervision program. The experimental group included 209 PIR participants who received intensive community supervision and drug treatment, and the control group consisted of 151 probationers who were assigned to regular high-risk probation caseloads and who met the PIR screening criteria. The samples were selected from probationers entering community supervision from February to December 1991. The length of the PIR program varied, but for purposes of analysis the minimum time in the program to represent the intervention period was set at eight months, including relapse prevention. A comparable period was used for the control group. The subsequent six-month period was used to measure the effects of PIR and regular high-risk probation after intervention. Intake interviews were conducted with a subsample of 96 probationers in PIR and 80 in the control group (Part 1). The interviews were conducted within the first two weeks after intake. Follow-up interviews were conducted with these probationers after they had completed eight months of PIR or regular high-risk probation to measure experiences on probation and changes in behavior and attitudes (Part 2). Follow-up interviews were completed with 47 probationers from the experimental group in the PIR program and 35 in the control group. The case tracking portion of the study involved the review of probation, treatment, and state and local criminal history files (Part 3). Data on technical violations and arrests for new crimes were compiled for the following time periods: (1) six months prior to the instant offense (the baseline), (2) the first eight months of community supervision (the in-program period), (3) the six months after intervention, and (4) the combined 14-month period. The initial interview (Part 1) included questions regarding sociodemographic characteristics, current offense, awareness of probation conditions ordered, perceived consequences for violations of probation, drug use and drug history, prior drug treatment and treatment needs, criminal history, expectations regarding the probation term, opinions regarding probation and treatment, daily activities prior to the current offense, current life satisfaction, and prospects for the future. Questions on the follow-up interview (Part 2) focused on changes in probationers' personal lives (e.g., employment, income, education, marital status, living situation, and relationships with family and friends), technical probation violations and new offenses committed during the eight-month period, sanctions imposed by probation staff, contacts with probation and treatment staff, changes in drug use and daily activities, expectations with regard to remaining crime- and drug-free in the future, attitudes regarding probation and treatment, treatment needs, and significant life changes over the eight-month period. Variables in the tracking data file (Part 3) include sociodemographic characteristics, current offense and sentence imposed, probation conditions ordered, drug use history, offense and probation violations occurring before, during, and after an eight-month probation period, custody time, changes in level of probation supervision, and program interventions such as drug tests, services delivered, and sanctions imposed.
Curated
Partially restricted
Evaluating a Presumptive Drug Testing Technology in Community Corrections Settings, 2011, Alabama, Florida and Wyoming (ICPSR 34494)
Released/updated on: 2016-04-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Wyoming, Alabama, Florida
Time period: 2011-02-01--2011-12-01
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 was a multi-site evaluation of a presumptive drug detection technology (PDDT) developed by Mistral Security Incorporated (MSI). The evaluation was conducted by Justice and Security Strategies, Inc. (JSS) in work release programs, probation and parole offices, and drug courts in three states: Alabama, Florida, and Wyoming. Also, interviews with the offenders, corrections staff, and program administrators were conducted.
Curated
Partially restricted
Evaluating the Use of Iris Recognition Technology in Plumsted Township, New Jersey, 2002-2003 (ICPSR 4210)
Released/updated on: 2013-06-28
Geographic coverage: United States, New Jersey
Time period: 2002-10-01--2003-07-01
This study was conducted from October 2002 through July 2003 as a process and impact evaluation of iris recognition technology named T-PASS (Teacher-Parent Authorization Security System) used in three New Egypt schools in New Jersey. The research team observed the use of the iris scanners, both informally (Dataset 1) and formally (Dataset 2), using systematic social observation methods, collected "official" data on school visitation patterns (Dataset 3), and administered surveys to parents and teachers (Datasets 4-7). The various data collection methods were intended to shed light on two key issues: what was the experience of the schools in implementing iris recognition technology, and what was the overall impact of the technology. Specific variables included in the study are demographic variables on survey respondents (parents and teachers), perceptions of safety and problems in the schools and surrounding neighborhoods, and comparisons of the T-PASS system to alternative entry systems such as the buzzer and swipe card methods.
Curated
Evaluation of a Local Jail Training Program in Sacramento County, California, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 2582)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 1994-07-01--1995-07-01
This data collection represents a process and outcome evaluation of the Office Technology Training program at the Rio Consumnes Correctional Center (RCCC) in Sacramento County. RCCC is a county jail for prisoners sentenced up to one year in custody. The Office Technology Training program, one of several training programs for inmates at RCCC, was designed to familiarize students with the use of computers in an office or business setting and to provide specific instruction in several types of common office software, including word processing and desktop publishing. The purpose of the evaluation research was (1) to refine the process of determining what types of training should be funded and (2) to establish research-based evaluation protocols for local jail inmate training programs. Data were collected on participants in the Office Technology Training class, on a control group that matched the participants in terms of demographic characteristics, and on a smaller group of nonparticipants who had signed up for the training program but did not participate. Part 1, Treatment and Control Group Data, contains administrative and survey data on both the trainees and the control group, while Part 2, Nonparticipant Data, includes administrative and survey data on the inmates who registered for the training but did not participate in the program. The survey consisted of an evaluation form filled out by inmates who participated in the training at RCCC, indicating their prior experience with computers and software, evaluating the training they received, and assessing whether the new skills would be helpful in securing employment upon their release. Administrative records on all respondents (trainees, control, and nonparticipants) were collected from four sources: a supplemental form on inmates' employment, a probation report that provided personal and criminal histories, a risk assessment form, and a follow-up form completed by the probation officer within one week of the six-month anniversary of the inmate's release from RCCC. Variables from the supplemental form included employment type and wages. The probation report covered employment, education, military history, marital status, substance abuse, domestic violence, gang behavior, psychiatric history, child abuse history, and criminal histories as juveniles and adults. Data on attitude, alcohol and drug problems, number of felony convictions, probation periods and violations, types of offenses, and history of institutionalization were taken from the risk assessment form. The follow-up form gathered information on release, disciplinary actions at RCCC, opinions about the Office Technology Training program, substance abuse, new arrests and convictions, gang behavior, job training, employment type, hourly wage, job satisfaction, and use of computers on the job. Additional administrative records data on trainees and nonparticipants were gathered from the class registration form, including gender, education, birth date, ethnicity, language spoken, occupation, Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) scores, and class assignments. Other data on trainees came from an evaluation form filled out by the students' instructor upon their completion of the Office Technology class. It provided information on the behavior, attitude, and skills of the students.
Curated
Partially restricted
Evaluation of a Multi-Site Demonstration of Collaborations to Address Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment in the United States, 2001-2006 (ICPSR 25867)
Released/updated on: 2010-09-16
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Colorado, Missouri, New Hampshire, California
Time period: 2001-01-01--2001-03-01, 2001-07-01--2001-10-01, 2002-04-01--2002-06-01, 2003-01-01--2003-04-01, 2005-01-01--2005-04-01, 2006-04-01--2006-06-01, 2002-04-01--2002-06-01, 2004-10-01--2004-12-01, 2003-01-01--2003-03-01, 2005-07-01--2005-10-01, 2002-07-01--2002-10-01, 2004-07-01--2004-09-01, 2006-04-01--2006-06-01
The current study was a national evaluation that examined the effects of implementing The Greenbook recommendations on collaboration, systems change, and practice within and across the three primary systems of child welfare agencies, courts, and domestic violence service providers. The national evaluation utilized data collected through stakeholder surveys, direct service worker surveys, child welfare case file reviews, and site visit interviews between 2001 and 2006. The purpose of the national evaluation was to develop and implement a strategy for gaining a formative understanding of sites' planning and implementation processes and a summative assessment of the impact of such work on communities, systems, and families. Part 1 (Stakeholder Survey Data) includes variables on the respondent's level of involvement in the organization and barriers to implementing Greenbook initiatives. The baseline stakeholder survey was conducted in 2002 with a total of 86 respondents across sites, and follow-up data were collected three years later (2005) with a total of 62 respondents. Part 2 through Part 7 (Direct Service Worker, and Supervisor Data) include variables on the respondents' race, gender, and length of time at the child welfare agency, court, or domestic violence service provider. Respondents are asked about the hours of training received over the past year, the presence of written reporting guidelines, screening tools, and working relationships with the other agency types. The baseline direct service worker survey was conducted after the end of the demonstration planning period (2003) with a total of 275 respondents across sites, and follow-up data were collected two years later (2005) with a total of 224 respondents. Part 8 (Case Abstractions Data) includes variables on substantiated cases of child maltreatment, risk factors contributing to maltreatment attributed to the mother, the father, or other caregiver, documentation of domestic violence and services provided to the victims and perpetrators. A random sample of substantiated cases of child maltreatment was reviewed in each site at the beginning of the demonstration initiative (2001) with a total of 616 case files reviewed across sites, after the end of the planning period (2003) with a total of 642 case files reviewed across sites, and toward the end of the implementation period (2005) with a total of 562 case files reviewed across sites. Part 9 (Site Visit Interview Notes Qualitative Data) includes questions on structure of services, policies and procedures, training, and the strengths and needs of the site. Site visits were conducted between January 2001 and June 2006 with interviewers with at least one collaborative member from each of the three primary systems (child welfare agency, courts, domestic violence service provider).
Curated
Restricted
Evaluation of Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies for Domestic Violence Cases in the State College, Pennsylvania, Police Department, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3166)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania
This project was an 18-month long research-practitioner partnership to conduct a process evaluation of the State College Police Department's implementation of a grant to encourage arrest policies for domestic violence. The general goals of the process evaluation were to assess how and to what extent the State College Police Department's proposed activities were implemented as planned, based on the rationale that such activities would enhance the potential for increasing victim safety and perpetrator accountability systemically. As part of the grant, the police department sought to improve case tracking and services to victims by developing new specialized positions for domestic violence, including: (1) a domestic violence arrest coordinator from within the State College Police Department who was responsible for monitoring case outcomes through the courts and updating domestic violence policies and training (Part 1, Victim Tracking Data from Domestic Violence Coordinator), (2) a victims service attorney from Legal Services who was responsible for handling civil law issues for domestic violence victims, including support, child custody, employment, financial, consumer, public benefits, and housing issues (Part 2, Victim Tracking Data From Victim Services Attorney), and (3) an intensive domestic violence probation officer from the Centre County Probation and Parole Department who was responsible for providing close supervision and follow-up of batterers (Part 3, Offender Tracking Data). Researchers worked with practitioners to develop databases suitable for monitoring service provision by the three newly-created positions for domestic violence cases. Major categories of data collected on the victim tracking form (Parts 1 and 2) included location of initial contact, type of initial contact, referral source, reason for initial contact, service/consultation provided at initial contact, meetings, and referrals out. Types of services provided include reporting abuse, filing a Protection from Abuse order, legal representation, and assistance with court procedures. Major categories of data collected on the offender tracking form (Part 3) included location of initial contact, type of initial contact, referral source, reason for initial contact, service/consultation provided, charges, sentence received, relationship between the victim and perpetrator, marital status, children in the home, referrals out, presentencing investigation completed, prior criminal history, and reason for termination. Types of services provided include pre-sentence investigation, placement on supervision, and assessment and evaluation. In addition to developing these new positions, the police department also sought to improve how officers handled domestic violence cases through a two-day training program. The evaluation conducted pre- and post-training assessments of all personnel training in 1999 and conducted follow-up surveys to assess the long-term impact of training. For Part 4, Police Training Survey Data, surveys were administered to law enforcement personnel participating in a two-day domestic violence training program. Surveys were administered both before and after the training program and focused on knowledge about domestic violence policies and protocols, attitudes and beliefs about domestic violence, and the background and experience of the officers. Within six months after the training, the same participants were contacted to complete a follow-up survey. Variables in Part 4 measure how well officers knew domestic violence arrest policies, their attitudes toward abused women and how to handle domestic violence cases, and their opinions about training. Demographic variables in Part 4 include age, sex, race, education, and years in law enforcement.
Curated
Partially restricted
Evaluation of Internet Safety Materials Used by Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Forces in School and Community Settings, 2011-2012 [United States] (ICPSR 34371)
Released/updated on: 2016-03-31
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2011-01-01--2012-01-01
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.
The purpose of this study was to conduct content and process evaluations of current internet safety education (ISE) program materials and their use by law enforcement presenters and schools. The study was divided into four sub-projects. First, a systematic review or "meta-synthesis" was conducted to identify effective elements of prevention identified by the research across different youth problem areas such as drug abuse, sex education, smoking prevention, suicide, youth violence, and school failure. The process resulted in the development of a KEEP (Known Elements of Effective Prevention) Checklist. Second, a content analysis was conducted on four of the most well-developed and long-standing youth internet safety curricula: i-SAFE, iKeepSafe, Netsmartz, and Web Wise Kids. Third, a process evaluation was conducted to better understand how internet safety education programs are being implemented. The process evaluation was conducted via national surveys with three different groups of respondents: Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force commanders (N=43), ICAC Task Force presenters (N=91), and a sample of school professionals (N=139). Finally, researchers developed an internet safety education outcome survey focused on online harassment and digital citizenship. The intention for creating and piloting this survey was to provide the field with a research-based tool that can be used in future evaluation and program monitoring efforts.
Curated
Restricted
Evaluation of Pennsylvania's Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program for Drug-Involved Parole Violators, 1998 (ICPSR 3075)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania
This study was a process evaluation of Pennsylvania's two Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) programs in their first year of implementation. These programs were maintained through the joint management of the state Department of Corrections (DOC), Board of Probation and Parole, Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, and two private sector providers that operated the programs. Opened in early 1998 in two correctional facilities for men, each of these programs could serve up to 60 male technical parole violators (TPVs) with a history of substance abuse. Instead of the nine- to 36-month terms typical for parolees recommitted for violations, RSAT participants served six months in prison-based intensive therapeutic communities (TCs), followed by six months of aftercare in a DOC-sponsored Community Corrections Center (CCC), similar to a halfway house. Both programs took a cognitive-behavioral approach to drug treatment. This study focused on the prison-based component of the RSAT programs. It examined the extent to which components of RSAT treatment were in place and the integrity of program operations. Interviews for this study were conducted between February and December 1998. At intake, program staff interviewed RSAT participants (Part 1, Intake Data), and Vera Institute of Justice onsite researchers conducted participant interviews upon exit (Part 2, Exit Data). Through December 31, 1998, 160 intake interviews and 77 exit interviews with program graduates were administered.
Curated
Partially restricted
Evaluation of SAFEChildren, a Family-Focused Prevention Program in Chicago, Illinois, 2006-2010 (ICPSR 33101)
Released/updated on: 2015-05-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 2007-03-08--2008-06-04, 2006-09-01--2010-06-01
Schools and Families Educating Children (SAFEChildren) is a family-focused program designed to aid families residing in high risk communities with child development during the child's transition to school. The program has the goal of building protection and impeding risk trajectories for aggression, violence, and school failure. The program utilizes multiple family groups (four to six families) combined with reading tutoring for the child. The SAFE Effectiveness Trial (SAFE-E) involved community providers delivering the family group intervention and upper grade students delivering the tutoring program. The trial took place between 2006 and 2010, and involved two age cohorts of children. Collaborating with two community mental health agencies and six elementary schools serving high-poverty, high-crime neighborhoods in Chicago, Illinois, families were randomly assigned to intervention groups of four to six families during their child's first grade year. Children also received tutoring from tutors selected from the upper grades of the child's school. Assessments were collected prior to, during and after the intervention to assess developmental influences, fidelity, process, and implementation characteristics that might affect impact. The purpose of these assessments was to examine the relation of implementation qualities to variation in intervention effects. Quality of implementation was expected to affect short and long-term impact of the intervention, focusing on three primary areas: (1) fidelity of implementation of the program, (2) provider characteristics, such as tutors' reading levels, and attitudes and orientation of the family intervention providers, and (3) quality of support for implementation. The data are from fidelity and process measures developed for this study and measures completed by parents, teachers, and children over four waves of measurement spanning two years, beginning in the fall of each child's first grade year.
Curated
Partially restricted
Evaluation of the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Community Supervision Strategy, 2007-2009 (ICPSR 27921)
Released/updated on: 2011-07-06
Geographic coverage: United States, Honolulu, Hawaii
Time period: 2007-01-01--2009-01-01
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) community supervision strategy for substance-abusing probationers. The study involved the administration of key stakeholder surveys as part of a process evaluation of the HOPE program and the comparison of HOPE probationers with control-group probationers on two primary outcome measures: no-shows for probation appointments and positive urine tests for illicit-substance use. For Part 1 and Part 2, data were collected from administrative data sources. Missed Appointments Data (Part 1) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on a total of 1,174 probationers including 1,078 HOPE probationers, 78 comparison probationers, and 18 probationers for which study group information was not available. Specifically, for Part 1, the research team compiled data on the proportion of missed appointments in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Drug Test Results Data (Part 2) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on the same 1,174 probationers. Specifically, for Part 2, the research team compiled data on the proportion of positive urine tests in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Stakeholder survey data were collected from September 2008 through March 2009 on 50 Integrated Community Sanctions or "Specialized Unit" probationers (Part 3), 28 probationers in treatment (Part 4), 16 probationers in jail (Part 5), 20 probation officers in the Integrated Community Sanctions Unit (Part 6), 11 public defenders (Part 7), 12 prosecutors (Part 8), 7 judges (Part 9), and 11 court staff (Part 10). Part 1 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean missed appointments scores for three periods. Part 2 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean positive urine tests for illicit-substance use scores for three periods. The Integrated Community Sanctions Probationers Survey Data (Part 3), the Probationers in Treatment Survey Data (Part 4), and the Probationers in Jail Survey Data (Part 5) each include variables about the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 3 contains 24 variables, Part 4 contains 30 variables, and Part 5 contains 30 variables. The Probation Officers Survey Data (Part 6), Public Defenders Survey Data (Part 7), Prosecutors Survey Data (Part 8), Judges Survey Data (Part 9), and Court Staff Survey Data (Part 10) include variables about workload issues and the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 6 contains 65 variables, Part 7 contains 45 variables, Part 8 contains 55 variables, Part 9 contains 36 variables, and Part 10 contains 36 variables.
Curated
Restricted
Evaluation of the Lexington County, South Carolina, Domestic Violence Court, 1997-2002 (ICPSR 4045)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, South Carolina
Time period: 1997-01-01--2002-01-01
A separate Criminal Domestic Violence Court (CDVC) was established in Lexington County, South Carolina, in November 1999, to hold perpetrators of domestic violence accountable through increasing fines and jail time and to place a strong emphasis on mandatory batterer treatment programs. The CDVC was a specialized court that combined the efforts of law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, mental health professionals, and victim advocates to improve the safety of domestic violence victims and hold offenders accountable. The researchers undertook to evaluate and measure the extent to which the CDVC was successful in implementing its goals. For the process evaluation, interviews were conducted in 2002 with 50 victims and 50 defendants to examine their overall level of satisfaction with the court process, their perceptions of procedural justice, and their recommendations for improving the CDVC process. Interviews were conducted in person using structured questions immediately after a case was heard. The outcome evaluation consisted of two methods of data collection. A time series intervention analysis examined the monthly frequency of criminal domestic violence for the years 1997 through 2001. Criminal domestic violence cases were compared for the 34 months before the establishment of the CDVC (January 1997 to October 1999) and the first 26 months following its implementation (November 1999 to December 2001). Additionally, in an effort to examine the impact of the Lexington County Criminal Domestic Violence Court on individual case outcomes, a recidivism analysis was conducted on a random sample of 400 criminal domestic violence cases. Of these cases, 200 were control cases drawn from the Lexington County Sheriff's Department's arrest database for the period January 1997 to June 1999, and 200 were treatment cases comprised of domestic violence arrest cases that occurred between December 1999 and December 2000 and processed through CDVC. Variables in Part 1 (Victim Interview Data) and Part 2 (Defendant Interview Data) included responses to structured interview questions about the victims' and offenders' perceptions of various aspects of the court process, whether they felt treated with dignity and respect, and their overall impression of the CDVC response to domestic violence. Variables in Part 3 (Monthly Arrest Data) include court period, month, and frequency of monthly domestic violence arrests, monthly simple assault arrests, and monthly aggravated assault arrests. Variables in Part 4 (Recidivism Data) include race, age, and gender of offender, employment status, booking date, days in jail prior to trial, number of charges pending, number of prior domestic violence offenses, date of first re-arrest, recidivism within first year and a half, days free of arrest, if defendant was diverted to pretrial intervention, and the amount of the fine.
Curated
Evaluation of the Phoenix, Arizona, Homicide Clearance Initiative, 2003-2005 (ICPSR 26081)
Released/updated on: 2011-07-05
Geographic coverage: United States, Phoenix, Arizona
Time period: 2003-07-01--2005-06-30
The purpose of the study was to conduct a process and outcome evaluation of the Homicide Clearance Project in the Phoenix, Arizona Police Department. The primary objective of the Homicide Clearance Project was to improve homicide clearance rates by increasing investigative time through the transfer of four crime scene specialists to the homicide unit. In 2004, the Phoenix Police Department received a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance providing support for the assignment of four crime scene specialists directly to the department's Homicide Unit. Responsibilities of the crime scene specialists were to collect evidence at homicide scenes, prepare scene reports, develop scene diagrams, and other supportive activities. Prior to the project, homicide investigators were responsible for evidence collection, which reduced the time they could devote to investigations. The crime scene specialists were assigned to two of the four investigative squads within the homicide unit. This organizational arrangement provided for a performance evaluation of the squads with crime scene specialists (experimental squads) against the performance of the other squads (comparison squads). During the course of the evaluation, research staff coded information from all homicides that occurred during the 12-month period prior to the transfers (July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004), referred to as the baseline period, the 2-month training period (July 1, 2004 - August 31, 2004), and a 10-month test period (September 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005). Data were collected on 404 homicide cases (Part 1), 532 homicide victims and survivors (Part 2), and 3,338 records of evidence collected at homicide scenes (Part 3). The two primary sources of information for the evaluation were investigative reports from the department's records management system, called the Police Automated Computer Entry (PACE) system, and crime laboratory reports from the crime laboratory's Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 each contain variables that measure squad type, time period, and whether six general categories of evidence were collected. Part 1 contains a total of 18 variables including number of investigators, number of patrol officers at the scene, number of witnesses, number of crime scene specialists at the scene, number of investigators collecting evidence at the scene, total number of evidence collectors, whether the case was open or closed, type of arrest, and whether the case was open or closed by arrest. Part 2 contains a total of 37 variables including victim characteristics and motives. Other variables in Part 2 include an instrumental/expressive homicide indicator, whether the case was open or closed, type of arrest, whether the case was open or closed by arrest, number of investigators, number of patrol officers at the scene, number of witnesses, and investigative time to closure. Part 3 contains a total of 46 variables including primary/secondary scene indicator, scene type, number of pieces of evidence, total time at the scene, and number of photos taken. Part 3 also includes variables that measure whether 16 specific types of evidence were found and the number of items of evidence that were collected for 13 specific evidence types.
Curated
Restricted
Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program at the Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility, 1997-1998 (ICPSR 2888)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, New Mexico
Time period: 1997-07-31--1998-07-31
The goal for this study was to conduct a process evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program, called the Genesis program, at the Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility (SNMCD) by examining the program's structure and assessing its intermediate impact upon participating inmates. The study focuses on answering three research questions: (1) Who were the program participants? (2) What were the characteristics of the program? (3) Was the program reaching the most appropriate offenders, or were its participants primarily offenders who were not likely to become recidivists? The study contains information on every inmate who entered the Genesis program from July 31, 1997, to July 31, 1998. For evaluation purposes, the researchers designed their own data collection form which they used to collect relevant information from each participant's treatment program file. Each participant's file was maintained by Genesis program staff and was kept for the duration each inmate was in the program. From each program participant at intake, using the data collection instrument, the researchers collected demographic information, substance abuse history, and criminal history. The data are provided in two parts. Both parts are from the same data collection instrument. Part 1 covers Questions 1 through 15 of the data collection instrument, while Part 2 covers Questions 16 through 34 of the data collection instrument. Part 1 includes demographic variables about the inmate such as birth date, age, ethnicity, citizenship, years of education, prior employment status, longest employment, and average weekly income. It also includes incarceration information such as confinement date, length of current sentence, RSAT admission date, and expected parole date, and criminal history information such as age at first adult arrest, number of juvenile arrests, number of adult arrests, date of first adult arrest, date of last adult arrest, and number of years served in prison. There are also variables to address the inmate's drug use history as a juvenile and as an adult. Part 2 continues with the drug use history of the inmate as an adult with information about drugs used by IV injection, number of alcohol withdrawals, number of drug overdoses, number of detoxes, inpatient treatment received, outpatient treatment received, average amount of money spent on drugs, percentage of income spent on drugs, number of family members who use alcohol or drugs, and how they were related to the inmate. In addition, the file contains demographic information, such as current marital status and number of children, and the inmate's psychological history including depression, anxiety, anger, trouble understanding, concentrating, or remembering, attempted suicide, prescribed medication, and hospitalization. Criminal career variables include length of criminal career, all past charges, weapons used during any crime, number of times a weapon was used, and total number of convictions.
Curated
Restricted
Evaluation of the Texas Youth Commission's Chemical Dependency Treatment Program, 1998-1999 (ICPSR 3141)
Released/updated on: 2003-03-11
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas
Time period: 1998-01-01--1999-01-01
This study consists of data from both the process evaluation and the outcome evaluation of the Texas Youth Commission's (TYC) Chemical Dependency Treatment Program (CDTP). The research goal of the first part of the study was to provide a systematic and empirical process evaluation of appropriate program placement and whether and to what extent selected individual-level factors were related to key measures of program progress, as well as to variations in process outcomes across each of five treatment sites. The research goal of the second part of the study was to provide a systematic and empirical outcome evaluation of the impact of the TYC Chemical Dependency Treatment Program, including determination of the extent to which certain risk, need, amenability, program performance and delivery, and aftercare factors affected treatment impact. Data were obtained from the Texas Youth Commission, the state corrections agency responsible for serving violent and serious delinquent youth committed to the custody of the state. TYC collects a range of information on the risk, needs, and treatment amenability of its youths. Also, program performance is measured through the use of an exit assessment conducted by program staff, which essentially provides a report card summarizing each youth's involvement and progress in treatment. Data in this evaluation cover all juveniles who entered the CDTP from January through October 1998, and who were discharged by April 1, 1999. The treatment group consists of youths who invariably had a high need for chemical dependency treatment. The control group consists of youths who were eligible for treatment in the CDTP during this same time period but who did not receive it due to limited CDTP bed space. To obtain measures of drug use/abuse relapse, aftercare participation, and parole performance, a parolee data worksheet was created. TYC was able to provide information on who received chemical dependency treatment while on parole. Five core variables of the process evaluation data are program completion, program expulsion, days to completion, days to expulsion, and number of behavior infractions. The process evaluation includes the following variables from individual exit assessments: the youth's overall participation, whether the youth understood the curriculum, understood addiction, sought help, acknowledged addiction, and acknowledged impact, the youth's performance grade, whether the youth committed to be drug-free, family involvement, special circumstances, and performance index. Demographic variables are race, age, parents' marital status, and gender. Variables addressing risk factors include classifying offense, offender class, risk level, number of felony referrals, number of felony adjudications, number of previous TYC commitments, and number of parole revocations. Other variables in the process evaluation address the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI), the Diagnostic Statistical Manual IV (DSM-IV) chemical dependency treatment need, TYC treatment amenability score, and the Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES). Variables available in the outcome evaluation data address issues of rearrest, higher custody level, aftercare sessions, drug tests, and parole compliance.
Curated
Hair Assays for Drugs of Abuse in a Probation Population: Pilot Study in a Florida Correctional Field Setting, 1993 (ICPSR 6527)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Florida
Time period: 1993-04-01--1993-09-01
The major objectives of this research project were: (1) to evaluate the effectiveness of the combination of hair and urine assays in determining drug use among probationers, (2) to examine the concordance patterns of hair and urine specimens, (3) to explore the perceptions and attitudes of probation officers regarding the use of hair assays for drug testing, and (4) to assess the feasibility of implementing hair analysis in a probationary field setting. The 22 correctional officers who participated in this study were recruited from the Florida Department of Corrections Probation Field Services Divisions, and worked within Pinellas and Pasco counties. Each officer was requested to solicit from his or her caseload eight to ten probationers who would be eligible for the project because they would be undergoing at least monthly urinalysis or urine testing. Approximately 150 probationers participated in the project and were subject to hair assays for illicit drug use, along with standard urine testing. Specimens were collected and analyzed on 90 probationers over a six-month period and on 101 probationers for five consecutive months, as well as fewer numbers of samples for the other probationers. The drugs for which the hair and urine specimens were analyzed included cocaine, opiates, cannabinoids such as marijuana, PCP, and methadone. Survey questions asked of the probation officers (Part 1) covered personal information (gender, ethnicity, education level, years of experience in corrections, and satisfaction with job) and attitudes and opinions about their jobs and drug testing (estimated percentage of caseload using drugs, whether all clients should be tested, and whether knowing drug quantities is helpful). Data in Part 2 cover probationers' drug test results and self-reported drug use, personal information (gender, age, weight, ethnicity, and criminal charge), a variety of hair questions (color, texture, style, length, how often shampooed, and if dyed, tinted, bleached, relaxed, or jeried), and use of medications, along with the medication name and amount.
Curated
Impact of Constitutional and Statutory Protection on Crime Victims' Rights in Four States in the United States, 1995 (ICPSR 2467)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
This survey of crime victims was undertaken to determine whether state constitutional amendments and other legal measures designed to protect crime victims' rights had been effective. It was designed to test the hypothesis that the strength of legal protection for victims' rights has a measurable impact on how victims are treated by the criminal justice system and on their perceptions of the system. A related hypothesis was that victims from states with strong legal protection would have more favorable experiences and greater satisfaction with the system than those from states where legal protection is weak. The Victim Survey (Parts 1, 4-7) collected information on when and where the crime occurred, characteristics of the perpetrators, use of force, police response, victim services, type of information given to the victim by the criminal justice system, the victim's level of participation in the criminal justice system, how the case ended, sentencing and restitution, the victim's satisfaction with the criminal justice system, and the effects of the crime on the victim. Demographic variables in the file include age, race, sex, education, employment, and income. In addition to the victim survey, criminal justice and victim assistance professionals at the state and local levels were surveyed because these professionals affect crime victims' ability to recover from and cope with the aftermath of the offense and the stress of participation in the criminal justice system. The Survey of State Officials (Parts 2 and 8) collected data on officials' opinions of the criminal justice system, level of funding for the agency, types of victims' rights provided by the state, how victims' rights provisions had changed the criminal justice system, advantages and disadvantages of such legislation, and recommendations for future legislation. The Survey of Local Officials (Parts 3 and 9) collected data on officials' opinions of the criminal justice system, level of funding, victims' rights to information about and participation in the criminal justice process, victim impact statements, and restitution.
Curated
Partially restricted
Implementation of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Practitioner Evaluation Toolkit, 2010-2012 Six Sites (ICPSR 34307)
Released/updated on: 2016-03-01
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1995-01-01--2009-01-01
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.
To address the under-reporting and under-prosecution of adult sexual assaults, some communities in the United States implemented the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Program whereby specially trained nurses provide comprehensive psychological, medical, and forensic services for sexual assault to improve post-assault care for victims and the criminal justice system response. The SANE Practitioner Toolkit was created to teach SANE program staff how to evaluate whether prosecution rates increased in their communities after the implantation of their SAME program.
Six SANE programs were selected and provided with comprehensive technical assistance to help them work through the steps in the Toolkit in order to evaluate whether the program was having a beneficial impact on prosecution rates. This study evaluated the effectiveness of the SANE program to increase prosecution rates of sexual assaults through the SANE Practitioner Evaluation Toolkit, and the technical assistance process and resources provided to the sites improved their evaluative abilities.
Curated
Partially restricted
Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE), 2003-2009 (ICPSR 30983)
Released/updated on: 2012-11-05
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, New York, United States, Illinois, Georgia, Florida, Washington, South Carolina, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2004-02-01--2004-06-01, 2005-03-01--2006-06-01, 2005-08-01--2006-12-01, 2006-09-01--2008-01-01, 2006-09-01--2008-01-01
The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) study included 23 drug courts and 6 comparison sites selected from 8 states across the country. The purpose of the study was to: (1) Test whether drug courts reduce drug use, crime, and multiple other problems associated with drug abuse, in comparision with similar offenders not exposed to drug courts, (2) address how drug courts work and for whom by isolating key individual and program factors that make drug courts more or less effective in achieving their desired outcomes, (3) explain how offender attitudes and behaviors change when they are exposed to drug courts and how these changes help explain the effectiveness of drug court programs, and (4) examine whether drug courts generate cost savings.
Offenders in all 29 sites were surveyed in 3 waves, at baseline, 6 months later, and 18 months after enrollment. The research comprises three major components: process evaluation, impact evaluation, and a cost-benefit analysis. The process evaluation describes how the 23 drug court sites vary in program eligibility, supervision, treatment, team collaboration, and other key policies and practices. The impact evaluation examines whether drug courts produce better outcomes than comparison sites and tests which court policies and offender attitudes might explain those effects. The cost-benefit analysis evaluates drug court costs and benefits.
Curated
Partially restricted
Multi-site National Institute of Justice Evaluation of Second Chance Act Reentry Courts in Seven States, 2012-2016 (ICPSR 36748)
Released/updated on: 2018-07-24
Geographic coverage: Texas, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida, Delaware, Virginia
Time period: 2012-01-01--2016-01-01
These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
The study used a multi-method approach including 1. a process evaluation in all eight sites involving yearly site visits from 2012 to 2014 with key stakeholder interviews, observations, and participant focus groups; 2. a prospective impact evaluation (in four sites) including interviews at release from jail or prison and at 12 months after release (as well as oral swab drug tests) with reentry court participants and a matched comparison group; 3. a recidivism impact evaluation (in seven sites) with a matched comparison group tracking recidivism for 2 years post reentry court entry and 4. a cost-benefit evaluation (in seven sites) involving a transactional and institutional cost analysis (TICA) approach. Final administrative data were collected through the end of 2016.
This collection includes four SPSS data files: "interview_archive2.sav" with 746 variables and 412 cases, "NESCCARC_Archive_File_3.sav" with 518 variables and 3,710 cases, "Interview Data1.sav" with 1,356 variables and 412 cases, "NESCCARC Admin Data File.sav" with 517 variables and 3,710 cases, and three SPSS syntax files: "Interview Syntax.sps", "archive_2-17.sps", and "NESCCARC Admin Data Syntax.sps".
Curated
Restricted
National Evaluation of the Arrest Policies Program Under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), 1996-2000 (ICPSR 3795)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1996-01-01--2000-01-01
This study was undertaken to evaluate the impact of the Arrest Policies Program, funded by the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO), on criminal justice system changes and offender accountability, and victim safety and well-being. Through convenience sampling, six project sites were chosen to participate in the study. Part 1, Case Tracking Data, contains quantitative data collected from criminal justice agencies on arrests, prosecution filings, criminal case disposition, convictions, and sentences imposed for intimate partner violence cases involving a male offender and female offender. Data for Part 2, Victim Interview Data, were collected from in-depth personal interviews with domestic violence victims/survivors (1) to learn more about victim experiences with and perceptions of the criminal justice response, and (2) to obtain victim perceptions about how the arrest and/or prosecution of their batterers affected their safety and well-being. The survey instrument covered a wide range of topics including severity and history of domestic violence, social support networks, perceptions of police response, satisfaction with the criminal justice process and the sentence, experiences in court, and satisfaction with prosecutors, victim services provider advocates, and probation officers.
Curated
Partially restricted
National Evaluation of the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program, 1998-2002 (ICPSR 4046)
Released/updated on: 2006-09-22
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1998-01-01--2000-01-01
This study examined the operation of the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant program (JAIBG) from fiscal years 1998 through 2000. In order to describe how states implemented the JAIBG program, this study examined the program's effects on state and local juvenile justice policies and practices, which included studying how states awarded the grant funds to localities and for what purposes, and an assessment of how states changed their policies and practices during this period. Variables in Part 1 (Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) Subgrant Follow-Up Information Form Data) provide grant information, jurisdiction type, planning typology of state, amount of funds budgeted for administrative purposes, and for each of 12 purpose areas, total amount of funds spent in subgrant, and number of the various entities involved in juvenile crime prevention. Variables in Part 2 (Fiscal Year 1998 Supplemental Programmatic Information Form Data) provide grant information, jurisdiction type, planning typology of state, type of program, primary purpose of funded programs in each of the 12 purpose areas (if the funds supported a new program in that purpose area), as well as allocation of funds and total funds in each purpose area. Variables in Parts 3-5 (Perceptions and Attitudes About the JAIBG Program Survey Data for JAIBG Subgrant Recipients, Perceptions and Attitudes About the JAIBG Program Survey Data for State Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition (JCEC) Members, and Perceptions and Attitudes About the JAIBG Program Survey Data for Local Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition (JCEC) Members) provide state, planning typology of state, and recipient's professional affiliations (by category). The surveys also included questions to measure the recipient's satisfaction with the JAIBG program and the funding received. Data available in this collection were obtained from the following two sources: (1) data collected by Follow-Up Information Forms (FIFs) for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 (Part 1), and (2) mail survey data collected by Abt Associates Inc., which included: programmatic and financial data for a sample of fiscal year 1998 programs (Part 2), attitudinal and opinion surveys of a sample of subgrant recipients (Part 3), state Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition (JCEC) members (Part 4), and a sample of local JCEC members (Part 5).
Curated
National Evaluation of the National Institute of Justice Grants to Combat Violent Crimes Against Women on Campus Program, 2000-2002 (ICPSR 3814)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2002-01-01
This study was undertaken as a process evaluation of the Grants to Combat Violence Against Women on Campus Program (Campus Program), which was conducted by the Institute for Law and Justice under a grant from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and funding from the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO). The Campus Program was comprised of 38 colleges or universities, which received funding in 1999 and 2000. Part 1 data consist of basic demographic information about each campus and the violence against women programs and services available at each site. Data for Part 2, collected from questionnaires administered to grant project staff, documented perceptions about the Campus Program project and participation and collaboration from those involved in the partnership with each college or university (i.e., non-profit, non-governmental victim service providers).
Curated
Restricted
Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program at the Ozark Correctional Center, Missouri, 1994-1997 (ICPSR 3001)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Missouri
Time period: 1994-01-01--1997-01-01
This data collection consists of a process and outcome evaluation of the Ozark Correctional Center Drug Treatment Program (OCCDTP), located in an all-male, 650-bed minimum security prison. For the process evaluation, the principal investigators evaluated changes in OCCDTP treatment activities, characteristics of OCCDTP participants, utilization of aftercare, and participant ratings of the program and aftercare. For the outcome evaluation the researchers compared how well program graduates fared after program completion with respect to relapse and recidivism compared to program dropouts, as well as to a comparison group of inmates who did not participate in the OCCDTP. Data were collected from the Missouri Department of Corrections, the Missouri State Highway Patrol, a psychosocial assessment of clients entering the OCCDPT program, and three-month and 12-month follow-up surveys. Variables include background and demographic information, such as race, marital status, religious preference, and education level, as well as information on mental health, substance abuse, criminal history, nature of offenses, recidivism, clients' perceptions of the program, participation in aftercare, and social and clinical data.
Curated
Restricted
Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program in Kyle, Texas, 1993-1995 (ICPSR 2765)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas
Time period: 1993-01-01--1995-01-01
This study was undertaken to evaluate the treatment process and outcomes associated with a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) In-Prison Therapeutic Community (ITC) component of the 1991 Texas Criminal Justice Chemical Dependency Treatment Initiative, as well as to assess the effectiveness of prison-based drug treatment. Specifically, this study evaluated the RSAT ITC treatment process and outcomes in Kyle, Texas, using the prison-based treatment assessment (PTA) data systems. The study design included process and outcome evaluations using a sample of graduates from the first ITC treatment facility (Kyle cohort) and a matched comparison group of prison inmates who were eligible, but not selected, for assignment to an ITC. Data collection occurred at three points in time -- at the end of treatment in the Kyle ITC, and at six months and one year following an offender's release from the ITC program. Variables in the 19 files for this study include: Part 1 (Educational Demographic Data, Kyle Cohort): Highest grade level achieved by respondent, Texas Department of Criminal Justice education achievement and IQ scores, and the number of days at the Kyle ITC program. Parts 2-4 (Treatment Background Data, Kyle Cohort, Aftercare Treatment Data, Kyle Cohort, Treatment Condition Data, Kyle Cohort): Treatment condition, discharge codes, and whether there were three months of residential aftercare. Part 5 (Session One Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Gender, ethnicity, age, marital status, whether the respondent was given medication, followed directions, made friends, or got into trouble while in elementary school, whether he held a job prior to prison, if either of his parents spent time with, yelled at, or sexually abused him, whether he used drugs, if so, specific drugs used (e.g., alcohol, inhalants, marijuana, or crack), and whether he did jail time. Part 6 (Session Two Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Whether drugs kept the respondent from working, caused emotional problems, or caused medical problems, if people were important to the respondent, if he had trouble staying focused, felt sad or depressed, satisfied with life, lonely, nervous, or got mad easily, whether he felt the staff was caring and helpful, whether he showed concern for the group and accepted confrontation by the group, whether the respondent felt the counselor was easy to talk to, respected him, or taught him problem-solving, and whether the respondent viewed himself as thinking clearly, clearly expressing thoughts, and was interested in treatment. Part 7 (Session Three Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): How the respondent saw himself as a child, whether he was easily distracted, anxious, nervous, inattentive, short-tempered, stubborn, depressed, rebellious, irritable, moody, angry, or impulsive, whether the respondent had trouble with school, was considered normal by friends, ever lost a job or friends due to drinking or drug abuse, or was ever arrested or hospitalized for drug or alcohol abuse, and in the last week whether the respondent's mood was one of sadness, satisfaction, disappointment, irritation, or suicide. Parts 8 and 9 (Six-Month Follow-Up Interview Data, Kyle Cohort, and One-Year Follow-Up Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Organization of meetings and activities in the program, rules and regulations, work assignments, privileges, individual counseling, the care and helpfulness of the treatment staff and custody staff, the respondent's behavior, mood, living situation, drug use, and arrests within the last six months, whether the counselor was easy to talk to, helped in motivating or building confidence, or assisted in making a treatment plan, whether the respondent felt a sense of family or closeness, if his family got along, enjoyed being together, got drunk together, used drugs together, or had arguments or fights, if the respondent had a job in the last six months to a year and if he enjoyed working, whether he was on time for his job, whether he had new friends or associated with old friends, and which specific drugs he had used in the last six months (e.g., hallucinogens, heroin, methadone, or other opiates). Part 10 (Treatment Background Data, Comparison Group): Treatment condition of the comparison group. Part 11 (Educational Demographic Data, Comparison Group): Whether respondents completed a GED and their highest grade completed. Parts 12 and 13 (Six-Month Follow-Up Interview Data, Comparison Group, and One-Year Follow-Up Interview Data, Comparison Group): How important church was to the respondent, whether the respondent had any educational or vocational training, if he had friends that had used drugs, got drunk, dealt drugs, or had been arrested, if within the last six months to a year the respondent had been arrested for drug use, drug sales, forgery, fencing, gambling, burglary, robbery, sexual offense, arson, or vandalism, whether drugs or alcohol affected the respondent's health, relations, attitude, attention, or ability to work, whether the respondent experienced symptoms of withdrawal, the number of drug treatment programs and AA or CA meetings the respondent attended, whether the respondent received help from parents, siblings, or other relatives, if treatment was considered helpful, and risky behavior engaged in (e.g., sharing needles, using dirty needles, and unprotected sex). Parts 14 and 16 (Probation Officer Data, Six-Month Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group, and Probation Officer Data, One-Year Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Date of departure from prison, supervision level, number of treatment team meetings, whether there was evidence of job hunting, problems with transportation, child care, or finding work, number of drug tests in the last six months, times tested positive for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, opiates, crack, or other drugs, and number of arrests, charges, convictions, and technicals. Parts 15 and 17 (Hair Specimen Data, Six-Month Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group, and Hair Specimen Data, One-Year Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Hair collection and its source at the six-month follow-up (Part 15) and one-year follow-up (Part 17) and whether parolee was positive or negative for cocaine or opiates. Part 18 (Texas Department of Public Safety Data, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Dates of first, second, and third offenses, if parolee was arrested, and first, second, and third offenses from the National Crime Information Center. Part 19 (Texas Department of Criminal Justice Data, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Treatment condition, date of release, race, and a Texas Department of Criminal Justice Salient Factor Risk Score.
Curated
Restricted
Process Evaluation of a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program in Dallas County, Texas, 1998-1999 (ICPSR 3077)
Released/updated on: 2003-06-05
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas
Time period: 1998-01-01--1999-06-01
This study assessed the Dallas County Judicial Treatment Center (DCJTC) in Texas. The DCJTC is a residential substance abuse treatment center for drug-involved felony offenders. It provides a treatment program of approximately six months in three major phases: orientation, main treatment, and re-entry. Data were collected from 429 offenders admitted to the DCJTC between January and December 1998. During their first week of treatment, residents completed a comprehensive intake battery that included (1) the Texas Christian University (TCU) initial assessment, (2) the TCU self-rating form (SRF), and (3) the TCU intake interview. The initial assessment gauged mental status, background and psychosocial functioning, alcohol and other drug use, and psychological status. The SRF assessed psychological functioning, social functioning, and motivation for treatment. The intake interview included detailed questions on the resident's social background, family and peer relations, health and psychological status, criminal history, drug use problems, and behavioral risks for HIV/AIDS. Progress made during treatment was measured by the TCU Resident Evaluation of Self and Treatment (REST) and the TCU Counselor Rating of Client (CRC) forms. The REST included all questions on the SRF, plus questions on offenders' perceptions of the structure of the program and their experiences while in treatment, an evaluation of the counselor, an evaluation of their own personality, and ratings of group and individual treatment sessions. The CRC forms rated residents on a set of attributes related to residents' ability to benefit from treatment and indicated the extent to which counseling activities with each client had focused on certain activities.
Curated
Partially restricted
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.
Curated
Partially restricted
Process Evaluation of the Demonstration Project to Address Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in Atlanta-Fulton County, Georgia, United States 2006-2009 (ICPSR 25841)
Released/updated on: 2013-12-16
Geographic coverage: United States, Atlanta, Georgia
Time period: 2003-01-01--2008-12-01
In the fall of 2002 the Juvenile Justice Fund (JJF), a nonprofit organization whose mission is to positively impact the lives of youth and their families who come into contact with the juvenile court, received an award from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to plan a collaborative response to address commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC) in Atlanta-Fulton County. In 2004 the JJF received a second OJJDP award to continue its work with community members, including over 18 government and nonprofit agencies from the social service, educational, law enforcement, court, prosecution, child advocacy arenas. The demonstration project in Atlanta-Fulton County focused on the collaborative activities of various government agencies, nonprofits, faith-based organizations, and individuals from two counties (Fulton and DeKalb) who met on a regular basis to coordinate their efforts and to exchange information on sexual exploitation of children. The goals of the multiyear project were to: (1) enhance community awareness of commercial sexual exploitation of girls; (2) improve information and data sharing across agencies; (3) train professionals; and (4) improve delivery of care to child victims of commercial sexual exploitation. This study, funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), was designed to document the nature and extent of commercial sexual exploitation (CSE) of children in Atlanta-Fulton County as well as the surrounding counties, and to conduct a process evaluation of the demonstration project. Data used in the study include quantitative results from a survey of professionals in Fulton, DeKalb, and Gwinnett Counties and quantitative data obtained from the Child Abuse Case Tracking Information System (CACTIS), a database that was designed to promote data and information sharing among agencies involved in the demonstration project. Primary source qualitative data were also obtained from semi-structured interviews conducted with professionals involved in the project demonstration project, clients of the project (including both youths and their guardians), and homeless youths in Atlanta-Fulton County.
Curated
Restricted
Process Evaluation of the Gender Appropriateness of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program at Baylor Women's Correctional Institute, 1999-2001 (ICPSR 3474)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, Delaware
Time period: 1999-01-01--2001-01-01
The overall goals of the process evaluation were to assess the participants' views on the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT), a Therapeutic Community program at Baylor Women's Correctional Institute, and to determine whether the women thought the program met their needs specifically based on gender. The specific goals of the study were: (1) to determine drop-out points along the continuum of the treatment model and to review the case files to discover any patterns in client participation and review demographic data in the program, and (2) to assess what current participants thought about the program and treatment model. For Part 1, Recent Graduate Data, data were secured from case files of women who had been discharged from the Therapeutic Community (Key Village) program in Baylor Women's Correctional Institute in 1999. This analysis was used to prepare the survey instrument used for the interviews given to the women currently participating in the program. For Part 2, Client Assessment Satisfaction Data, the current residents of the program were interviewed. During fall of 2000 and spring of 2001, a survey was developed to assess how the current participants viewed the Key Program. The questions were intended to gather information to assess the gender appropriateness of the program. A database was constructed to search for any consistencies or variables that would address the issue of gender appropriateness or lack of such in the operation of the program from the participants' point of view. During the interview period there were a total of 88 women in the Key Program. Of the 88 women, 76 agreed to participate in the study. For Part 1, the variables cover demographic data, criminal history information, medical information, prior drug treatment histories, and program success or failure. Part 2 variables cover demographic information, and questions dealing with prior drug use, the first four weeks of the program, the confrontation aspects of the program, sanctions and program rules, staff/participant interaction, program activities and responsibilities as opposed to the general population, readiness for change, support systems, children's visits and children as motivation, physical aspects of the program, mental health, the need for additional vocational and educational services, significant aspects and experiences from the program, and desired changes to the program.
Curated
Restricted
Process Evaluation of the Michigan Department of Corrections Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program, 1999 (ICPSR 2975)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Michigan
This study was a process evaluation of the Michigan Department of Corrections' (MDOC) residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) program at the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan. The 272-bed program was designed to treat male, minimum-custody inmates with a history of serious chemical dependency. The phase of treatment at the Jackson Cooper Street facility lasted six months, and was followed by a 12-month aftercare component. The main theory of change behind the program was that education about drugs and their physical, familial, and social effects, coupled with opportunities to learn about recovery and identify triggers for substance use, would help substance-abusing offenders to avoid both substance abuse and criminal behaviors once released into the community. This study used multiple data sources. Part 1, Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Data, was acquired from the MDOC's Correctional Management Information System, which included demographic, criminal history, programming, and institutional misconduct information for a snapshot of the entire inmate population. These data provided information on all 44,061 inmates in the custody of MDOC on July 1, 1999. Part 2, RSAT Applications data, contains data for the 834 applications received by August 30, 1999. These data were received from University of Michigan (UM) researchers studying the long-term impact of the RSAT program on offender substance abuse and recidivism. The data were collected using a screening form for each application, and were initially generated and entered into an electronic format by RSAT program staff. Part 3, Service Tracking Data, contains RSAT admission and parole data, which were manually collected.
Curated
Process Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, 1999 (ICPSR 3579)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Minnesota
The objective of this process evaluation was to evaluate the integrity of the Minnesota Correctional Facility (MCF)-Red Wing Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program service delivery system in order to (1) provide feedback designed to enhance the existing strengths of the RSAT program and improve any existing or potential weaknesses, and (2) prepare for a subsequent outcome evaluation. The process evaluation data consist of two administrations of the Correctional Institution Environment Scale (CIES) (Parts 1 and 2) and three rounds of Rating of Facilitation of RSAT Groups (Parts 3-5). Resident-participants in this study were male juvenile offenders incarcerated at the MCF-Red Wing who had been determined to have significant substance abuse problems as an aspect of their delinquency. A total of 69 residents participated in the RSAT program during the course of the evaluation. All RSAT program residents were required to participate in all aspects of the program. Four caseworkers, one chemical dependency counselor, and two teachers participated in all aspects of the process evaluation. Ten corrections officers and three administrators participated in the CIES administration. There are four forms of the Correctional Institution Environment Scale (CIES): (1) The Real Form (Form R), (2) the Short Form (Form S), (3) the Ideal Form (Form I), and (4) the Expectations Form (Form E). Form R and Form I were employed in this study. Form R measures resident and staff perceptions of the current or "actual" climate of the program. Form I is worded to allow residents and staff to answer questions in terms of an ideal program. Both forms are comprised of 90 true-false statements. The CIES was administered twice for this study, with the first administration in September 1999. Participants in this administration of the CIES were 28 residents of the Princeton Cottage (the cottage that housed the RSAT participants) and 12 staff (administrators, caseworkers, and corrections officers). The second administration was in December 1999. Participants in this administration were 25 residents of the Princeton Cottage and 10 staff (administrators, caseworkers, and corrections officers). The surveys were collected and sent to Marquette University investigators for scoring and interpretation. An extensive evaluation of group facilitation was undertaken, with all groups videotaped between May 1999 and September 1999. These videotapes were shipped to Marquette University for review. In total, 122 videotapes were reviewed and rated. Two randomly selected raters evaluated each tape on the 22-item Red Wing Global Scale developed for this evaluation. The primary components of the sessions evaluated by the rating scale involved (1) the adherence of the facilitators to the treatment model, (2) the skill level of the facilitators, and (3) the contribution of the residents to the group processes. Following training, the raters began rating the videotapes in a progression of three rounds (each round consisting of a month) conducted in June, August, and October of 1999.
Curated
Process Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program at the South Idaho Correctional Institution, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3153)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Idaho
Time period: 1999-01-01--2000-01-01
This study is a process evaluation of a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program at the South Idaho Correctional Institution (SICI), addressing the following research questions: (1) Did the SICI RSAT program as delivered conform with its stated goals and objectives? (2) Did the program result in reduced recidivism, abstinence from drug and alcohol use, and reduced costs of incarceration? (3) Did the referral process identify the targeted population? (4) Would the SICI RSAT data, management, staffing, and design be suitably established within two years to allow for a full outcome evaluation? (5) Were there communication issues among the IDOC, Parole Commission, and contract providers that might interfere with program implementation and delivery? and (6) Were there any cooperative remedies that had been, or might be developed to address implementation and delivery difficulties? Researchers conducted field observations (Part 1, Observational Data) of program delivery by program leaders using both the Cognitive Change Program Module and the Minnesota Model-Based Chemical Dependency Treatment Modules in each of the three phases of the therapeutic community environment. Researchers administered questionnaires to inmates (Part 2, Inmate Interview Data) and staff (Part 3, Staff Interview Data) regarding their perceptions of program operations. Variables for Part 1 include the date and time of observation, nature of observation, clarity, organization, and substance of program delivery, the program leader's involvement and the quality of that involvement with inmates, how prepared the program leader was, and the general therapeutic atmosphere of the program. Demographic variables for Part 2 include the race, age, ethnicity, and level of education of each inmate. Other variables include use of alcohol and illegal drugs prior to incarceration, inmates' perceptions of the treatment personnel, their levels of involvement with the group meetings and cognitive self-change groups, the atmosphere of therapy, ratings of communication and delivery of treatment, quality of service, and the strengths and weaknesses of the RSAT program. Variables for Part 3 include staff's perceptions of the RSAT program and whether they felt the program content and delivery were well organized and easy to understand, perceptions of the program leader's preparation and involvement, perceptions of communication and consistency issues, the quality of service, and the strengths and weaknesses of the RSAT program.
Curated
Restricted
Process Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program at the W.J. Maxey Boys Training School in Michigan, 1995-1998 (ICPSR 2887)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Michigan
Time period: 1995-01-01--1998-01-01
This study was an evaluation of a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program intended to reduce substance abuse and recidivism among youth placed at the W.J. Maxey Boys Training School in Michigan. The purposes of the evaluation were to describe the activities of the RSAT program and the relationship between program participants and success in the new program. There were five primary evaluation questions: (1) Were the participants appropriate? (2) Was the staff trained to deliver the planned services? (3) How did service delivery vary over time? (4) Did the participants make timely progress? and (5) What organizational factors changed service delivery and participant progress? Residents were admitted to the RSAT program and its comparison group on the basis of three criteria: (1) the resident was not a sex offender, (2) he had a known substance abuse history, and (3) he was expected to be released within one year. Youth in the RSAT program underwent intensive substance abuse psycho-education and relapse prevention in addition to the treatment provided in the Maxey Model. Intake data from the Family Independence Agency Information System (Part 1) were gathered for youths who entered Maxey between 1995 and 1998. These data were used to determine if significant differences existed between the RSAT and comparison groups. Additional data were collected through a client survey (Parts 2 and 3), which included questions that evaluated youth satisfaction with services and their predictions for success. Variables in Part 1 include program admission date, whether the youth was a sex offender, substance abuse history, the group and wing to which the youth belonged, age of first offense, age of admission to Maxey, offense class, number of arrests, number of previous placements, number of truancies, legal status, and date of first and second offense. Demographic variables include race, age, marital status, and county. Variables in Parts 2 and 3 assess the youth's opinions about school, food, group sessions, hall staff, family sessions, family visits, the overall program at Maxey, teachers, police, and judges. Additional variables include last grade of school completed, expected educational goal upon leaving Maxey, family substance abuse history, and prevalence of substance abuse in neighborhood.
Curated
Partially restricted
Process Evaluation of the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice's Regional Service Coordination Model, 2017-2023 (ICPSR 39347)
Released/updated on: 2025-09-10
Geographic coverage: United States, Virginia
Time period: 2017-01-01--2022-01-01
In 2017, the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) began implementation of the Regional Service Coordination (RSC) model. The goal of this initiative was to implement and maintain statewide comprehensive community-based services and alternative placements for youth in Virginia's juvenile justice system. The DJJ partnered with Child Trends to conduct a process evaluation of this RSC model. Child Trends used data from DJJ's administrative data system, and collected qualitative data from groups involved in implementation, such as probation/parole officers, judges, service coordinators, and direct service providers.
Curated
Restricted
Process Evaluation of Three Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Programs in Ohio, 1998-1999 (ICPSR 3206)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio
Time period: 1998-01-01--1999-08-30
This study was a process evaluation of the three residential substance abuse treatment programs in the state of Ohio. These programs include MonDay Community Correctional Institution (MonDay), Mohican Youth Center, and Noble Choices. MonDay is a locally operated, community-based correctional facility for felony offenders to which male and female offenders are sentenced in lieu of prison for a period not to exceed six months. MonDay's RSAT program began in October 1997, and a Therapeutic Community (TC) was fully implemented by January 1, 1998. Offenders identified as needing long-term residential treatment were assigned to MonDay's RSAT for six months. Mohican Youth Center (MYC) is an institutional-based TC and is operated by the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Youth convicted of felonies and assessed as needing long-term residential substance abuse treatment are sent to MYC for the last six months of their sentence. Noble Choices is a TC for adult males within the Noble Correctional Institution, a medium security prison operated by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. The specific research questions addressed in this study were: (1) What is the profile of offenders being served by the Ohio RSAT programs? (2) What is the nature of the services being delivered by the Ohio RSAT programs? (3) What are the intermediate outcomes of Ohio RSAT programs? (4) How are offenders performing under post-release supervision in terms of relapse and recidivism? and (5) What factors are associated with successful program completion and post-release recidivism and relapse? A one-group post-test design was used to conduct this process evaluation. Each program was studied as a separate entity. The study period for each program began at the date of first admission, which was January 1, 1998, for MonDay, March 3, 1998, for MYC, and October 18, 1998, for Noble Choices. The study period ended on March 31, 1999, for MYC and Noble Choices and on April 30, 1999, for MonDay. The sample consists of 466 individuals, including 90 from MonDay, 343 from MYC, and 33 from Noble Choices. Staff at each of the three sites collected intake, treatment, and termination data on their respective program clients using standardized forms developed by the University of Cincinnati. The intake form was used to collect basic demographic information on each offender along with information on past substance abuse, prior treatment experiences, and criminal history. The termination form collected data on type of termination (successful or unsuccessful) and criminal justice placement and residency upon termination. Each site also provided agency-specific assessment information on each offender. Offenders at MonDay were given the Level of Services Inventory (LSI), which measures the risk of recidivism, and the Adult Substance Use Survey (ASUS), which measures the severity of substance abuse problems. Offenders at MYC were administered the Juvenile Automated Substance Abuse Evaluation (JASAE), which measures the severity of substance abuse problems, and the Youthful Offender Level of Services Inventory (YO-LSI). Offenders at Noble Choices were given the Prison Inmate Inventory (PII), which measures several risk factors. In addition, offenders at MonDay and MYC were given the Personal Drug Use Questionnaire (PDUQ), which measures motivation for treatment at intake and 90 days after intake, and offenders at MonDay also completed the PDUQ upon termination. Offenders at MonDay were also administered a Client Self-Rating Form, which measures levels of social and psychological functioning, at intake, 90 days after intake, and termination. Follow-up forms were sent to probation and parole officers to collect information on MYC and MonDay offenders' treatment and supervision activities during the period of supervision after release from the program. Follow-up data were collected on terminated cases from the date of release until August 30, 1999. Part 1, MonDay Data, consists of data from the LSI, ASUS, and intake, termination, and follow-up forms for offenders at MonDay. The LSI scores provided are: criminal history, employment, financial, family, accommodation, leisure and recreation, companion, alcohol and drug, emotions, attitude/orientation, and total. The ASUS variable measures severity of substance abuse problems and distinguishes between scores of 74 or less and 75 or higher. The intake form provides demographic variables, employment status prior to arrest, variables related to the current offense, date screened for RSAT, date placed in RSAT, criminal history, and substance use history. The discharge form provides variables on date of discharge, type of discharge, living arrangements upon discharge, whether continued drug/alcohol treatment was arranged for client, and criminal justice placement. The follow-up form provides variables on substance abuse treatment after release, other services received after release, employment status, reporting status, drug and alcohol tests after release, whether the offender was arrested after release and for what offense, whether a conviction resulted, and the offender's probation status. Several derived variables are also supplied in Part 1. Part 2, MonDay Client Self Rating Scales Data, includes the offender's date of placement, date of birth, the three dates on which the questionnaire was administered, whether inconsistencies appeared in answers to the questionnaires, and several scales derived from offenders' answers. These scales, which are provided for each of the three occasions the questionnaire was administered, include measures of anxiety, depression, self-esteem, decision-making, risk-taking, hostility, self-efficacy, and antisocial attitudes. Several derived variables are also included. Part 3, MonDay Personal Drug Use Data, consists of variables from MonDay's PDUQ. Scales and answers to the 20 items on the PDUQ questionnaire are provided for all three administrations of the questionnaire. In Part 4, Mohican Data, variables from the MYC intake, termination, and follow-up forms are identical to those from the MonDay forms except for additional intake variables on whether the youth was in school prior to arrest, whether the youth experienced certain school problems, where the youth was living prior to arrest, and whether the youth had a record of running away from home. Variables provide the JASAE summary score, date of YO-LSI administration, and YO-LSI scores in the categories of criminal history, family, education, peer, substance abuse, leisure and recreation, personality and behavior, attitudes/orientation, and total. For each YO-LSI score category an additional variable is provided that indicates whether the score was low, moderate, or high. Several derived variables are also provided. Part 5, Mohican Personal Drug Use Data, consists of scale variables calculated from responses to the MYC PDUQ for both administrations of the questionnaire. These scales are precontemplation, contemplation, determination, action, and maintenance. Part 6, Noble Data, consists of variables from Noble Choices intake, termination, and PII questionnaires. Variables from the intake and termination forms are identical to those taken from the MonDay intake and termination forms. Variables from the PII include scale variables that measure truthfulness, adjustment, judgment, alcohol, drug, antisocial attitudes, violence, distress, self-esteem, and stress. For each of these scales an additional variable is provided that indicates whether scores were low, medium, high, or maximum. Several derived variables are also provided.