Assessment of a Single-Purpose Substance Abuse Facility for Committed Juvenile Offenders in Virginia, 1995-1997 (ICPSR 2730)
Dangerous Sex Offenders: Classifying, Predicting, and Evaluating Outcomes of Clinical Treatment in Bridgewater, Massachusetts, 1982-1985 (ICPSR 8985)
Documentation of Resident to Resident Elder Mistreatment in Residential Care Facilities, New York City, 2009-2013 (ICPSR 35649)
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 investigate violence and aggression committed by nursing home residents that is directed toward other residents, referred to here as resident-to-resident elder mistreatment (R-REM). Resident-to-resident mistreatment (R-REM) was defined as: negative and aggressive physical, sexual, or verbal interactions between long term care residents, that in a community setting would likely be construed as unwelcome and have high potential to cause physical or psychological distress in the recipient.
The goals of this project were to: enhance institutional recognition of R-REM; examine the convergence of R-REM reports across different methodologies; identify the most accurate mechanism for detecting and reporting R-REM; develop profiles of persons involved with R-REM by reporting source; investigate existing R-REM policies, and; develop institutional guidelines for reporting R-REM episodes. Also, the project team sought to answer the following research questions: (1) Will the reporting of R-REM differ by source? (2) Which reporting methods will show the highest level of convergence and accuracy in reporting? (3) What resident characteristics or profiles will predict R-REM across the differing reporting sources? (4) What are the existing guidelines and/or institutional policies for reporting R-REM? To achieve these goals, the researcher conducted this study over a two week period in five urban and five suburban New York City facilities. Resident-to-resident abuse information was derived from five sources: (1) resident interviews (2) staff informants (3) observational data (behavior sheets) (4) resident chart reviews (5) incident and accident reports.
Effect of Prison Based Alcohol Treatment: Treatment and Recidivism Data from Montana, Ohio, and Texas, 2006-2012 (ICPSR 34928)
This study evaluated program design, quality of treatment delivery, and program effectiveness of three separate state sponsored alcohol specific treatment programs in prisons located in Montana, Ohio, and Texas from 2006 to 2012.
Evaluation of Drug Treatment Programs at the State Correctional Institution in Chester, Pennsylvania, 2003-2004 (ICPSR 20348)
Evaluation of the Pine Lodge Pre-Release Residential Therapeutic Community for Women Offenders in Washington State, 1996-2001 (ICPSR 3537)
Evaluation of the Texas Youth Commission's Chemical Dependency Treatment Program, 1998-1999 (ICPSR 3141)
Neuropsychological and Emotional Deficits as Predictors of Correctional Treatment Response in Maryland, 2003-2005 (ICPSR 20349)
Process Evaluation of the Gender Appropriateness of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program at Baylor Women's Correctional Institute, 1999-2001 (ICPSR 3474)
Process Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, 1999 (ICPSR 3579)
Process Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program at the South Idaho Correctional Institution, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3153)
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Mental Health Services, Wave 3, 2000-2002 (ICPSR 13724)
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Service Use, Wave 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13656)
Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Release Measures, 2000-2010 [Restricted] (ICPSR 34488)
The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).
The Release data portion of the Pathways study contains information from 1,130 interviews ("release interviews") reflecting the youths' perceptions regarding various aspects of the residential experience and institutional environment (e.g., accounts of program operations and services provided, ratings regarding the participant's feelings of his or her safety in the facility). The release interview was conducted within 30 days prior to or after release from a facility and in a separate session apart from the time point interview. This was done to minimize the burden on the research participant and to ensure adequate attention to institutional ratings. The restricted time period within which to conduct the release interview reduced the likelihood that intervening events and experiences would skew the participant's recall of the stay.
Study participants could contribute more than one release interview, depending upon the number of institutional placements he/she had over the seven-year follow-up period. The current release data reflects ratings from 686 unique individuals. It should be recognized that not every institutional stay for every youth produced a release interview. On the basis of the number of reported institutional stays in the sample, it is estimated that a release interview was obtained for approximately 54 percent of the total number of residential stays experienced by study participants. Release interviews were missed if the research interviewer was not aware of the institutional stay (e.g. it occurred between time point interviews) or if the interviewer only became aware of the institutional stay at a point that was too late to schedule a release interview within the required window surrounding the release date.
The 686 individuals reflected in the release data represent 51 percent of the Pathway study participants (n=1,354) and 56 percent of Pathways participants who had a least one institutional stay (n=1,234; 120 Pathways youths had no institutional stays). On average, these 686 youths had 1.6 interviews. The number of interviews per unique person ranges from one to eight.
Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Release Measures - Scales, 2000-2010 [Restricted] (ICPSR 36868)
The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).
The Release data portion of the Pathways study contains information from 1,130 interviews ("release interviews") reflecting the youths' perceptions regarding various aspects of the residential experience and institutional environment (e.g., accounts of program operations and services provided, ratings regarding the participant's feelings of his or her safety in the facility). The release interview was conducted within 30 days prior to or after release from a facility and in a separate session apart from the time point interview. This was done to minimize the burden on the research participant and to ensure adequate attention to institutional ratings. The restricted time period within which to conduct the release interview reduced the likelihood that intervening events and experiences would skew the participant's recall of the stay.
Study participants could contribute more than one release interview, depending upon the number of institutional placements he/she had over the seven-year follow-up period. The current release data reflects ratings from 686 unique individuals. It should be recognized that not every institutional stay for every youth produced a release interview. On the basis of the number of reported institutional stays in the sample, it is estimated that a release interview was obtained for approximately 54 percent of the total number of residential stays experienced by study participants. Release interviews were missed if the research interviewer was not aware of the institutional stay (e.g. it occurred between time point interviews) or if the interviewer only became aware of the institutional stay at a point that was too late to schedule a release interview within the required window surrounding the release date.
The 686 individuals reflected in the release data represent 51 percent of the Pathway study participants (n=1,354) and 56 percent of Pathways participants who had a least one institutional stay (n=1,234; 120 Pathways youths had no institutional stays). On average, these 686 youths had 1.6 interviews. The number of interviews per unique person ranges from one to eight.
The current Release Measures study primarily consists of the calculated scores from constructs asked about during the interviews, but the individual scale items were withheld at that time. This study contains those individual items plus the calculated scores.