Showing 1 – 28 of 28 results.
Curated
Restricted
Assessing the Texas Christian University Drug Screen Instrument with Texas Department of Criminal Justice Inmates, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3541)
Released/updated on: 2003-06-05
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas
Time period: 1999-01-01--2000-12-31
The overall purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties and credibility of the Texas Christian University (TCU) Drug Screen as an instrument to assess drug use severity for treatment referral decisions in correctional settings. TCU Drug Screen data were collected on 18,364 Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) inmates (15,816 males and 2,548 females) who completed the screen between January 1 and April 30, 1999. Of the 18,364 subjects, 13,902 were Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID) inmates and 4,462 were State Jail Division (TDCJ-SJD) inmates. The TCU Drug Screen was administered by TDCJ staff almost exclusively in a small group setting (12-25 inmates per group) as part of a larger battery of assessments during the intake process at a TDCJ facility. The level and intensity of treatment services needed was then determined and a referral decision was made. As part of this study, the relationship between TCU Drug Screen information and post-release reincarceration was examined. Although one original goal in the study was to assess the comparability, or concurrent validity, of the TCU Drug Screen with the lengthier, more comprehensive Addiction Severity Index (ASI), TDCJ changed the administration protocol for the ASI so that it was given only to a subsample of 3,245 inmates who failed to disclose drug use problems on the TCU Drug Screen. The data include inmate responses to all items of the TCU Drug Screen and the overall drug screen score. There is also demographic information as well as incarceration, release, and reincarceration data.
Curated
Comparison of Youth Released From a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Center to Youth at a Traditional Juvenile Correctional Center in Virginia, 1998-2000 (ICPSR 3538)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Virginia
Time period: 1998-07-01--2001-06-30
This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the structured substance abuse treatment program at Barrett Juvenile Correction Center in Virginia by comparing the outcomes of youth admitted to Barrett with the outcomes of youth who were eligible for admittance to Barrett but were detained at one of the traditional juvenile correctional centers in Virginia. The effectiveness of Barrett's program was also assessed by comparing the outcomes of youth who were admitted to Barrett but who differed according to how many of the four phases of treatment, focused on modifying negative attitudes and behaviors, they completed. Barrett differs from the six other juvenile correctional centers in Virginia in that it provides a highly structured substance abuse treatment program to all admitted youth. Youth are considered for admission to Barrett if they are male, aged 11 to 18, have a sentence of six to 18 months, and have a recommended or mandatory need for substance abuse treatment as determined by the Reception and Diagnostic Center (RDC), which assesses youths' needs prior to sentencing. Barrett's treatment program takes a therapeutic community approach, which emphasizes altering negative attitudes and behaviors through the completion of four sequential phases of treatment. In contrast, the goal of the traditional institutions was to achieve public safety while meeting the disciplinary, medical, recreational, and treatment needs of the youth. These facilities offered some treatment programs but only on an "as needed" basis. The sample for this study consists of all 412 youth released from Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center from July 1, 1998, to June 30, 2000, and a matched sample of 406 youth released from other juvenile correctional centers in Virginia during the same period. The treatment staff at Barrett submitted information on youths' treatment progress at the time of discharge. The RDC provided demographic, criminal history, and assessment information for all youths. The Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice provided information concerning actual time served and recidivism at the juvenile level. The Virginia State Police supplied additional recidivism data, including information on adult recidivism. Parole officers also provided data on recidivism and on progress toward meeting the conditions of parole. Demographic variables included in the dataset are race of the offender and his age at commitment. Clinical variables for Barrett youth only are Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) and Intelligence Quotient (IQ) scores, total number of categories for which the youth scored yes on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV), the length of the sentence, whether the youth had a recommended or mandatory need for substance abuse treatment, and the highest phase of treatment completed. Parole officers supplied data at three, six, and 12 months after release on whether they judged youths to be currently using a substance and whether youths were meeting the conditions of parole. These conditions included curfew, counseling services, educational programs, the employment requirement, and the electronic monitoring requirement. Also included are arrests and substance-related charges as reported by the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, the Virginia State Police, and parole officers. A variable for total reconvictions is included as well.
Curated
Restricted
Developing a Taxonomy To Understand and Measure Outcomes of Success in Community-Based Elder Mistreatment Interventions, New York City, New York, 2018-2019 (ICPSR 37955)
Released/updated on: 2022-06-29
Geographic coverage: New York City, Queens, United States, Brooklyn, New York (state), Manhattan (New York City)
Time period: 2018-01-01--2019-12-31
Research tools available to help advance knowledge of effective community-based elder mistreatment (EM) interventions are limited. The field lacks an understanding of what success means in EM response program (EMRP) interventions, which work directly with victims to reduce the risk of re-victimization. Without establishing indicators of EMRP success, it is not possible to develop valid intervention outcome measures to compare different EMRP models toward the development of evidence-based practice. Informed by the EMRP practice principle of older adult self-determination, this study developed a victim-centric taxonomy of case outcomes that indicate EMRP success.
This study drew on two sources of data, including interviews with EM victims and a scoping review to inform taxonomy development. Prioritizing the perspective of victims, this study conducted interviews with 27 victims involved in EMRP services who vary in EM subtype, gender, and race/ethnicity.
The taxonomy of successful EMRP outcomes will serve as important research infrastructure to support the development of EMRP intervention outcome measurement in future research.
Curated
Restricted
Domestic Violence Experiment in King's County (Brooklyn), New York, 1995-1997 (ICPSR 4307)
Released/updated on: 2006-08-01
Geographic coverage: United States, Brooklyn, New York (state)
Time period: 1995-02-01--1997-09-30
The researchers sought to add to the incipient literature on randomized studies of batterer treatment, by conducting an experimental study that compared batterers assigned to treatment to batterers assigned to a community service program irrelevant to the problem of violence. The study was conducted using a true experimental design and consisted of 376 spousal assault cases drawn from the Kings County (New York) Criminal Court which were adjudicated between February 19, 1995, and March 1, 1996. Batterers were mandated to attend a 40-hour batterer treatment program or to complete 40 hours of community service. The random assignment was made at sentencing, after all parties (judge, prosecutor, and defense) had agreed that batterer treatment was appropriate, the defendant agreed to treatment and was accepted by the Alternatives to Violence (ATV) program, and the program was available based on the random assignment process. Interviews were also conducted with both the batterer and the victim at sentencing as well as 6 months post-sentence and 12 months post-sentence. These interviews collected data in areas regarding demographics (first interview only), recidivism, beliefs about domestic violence, conflict management strategies, locus of control, and for victims, self esteem. Administrative records were also used to obtain data regarding any new crimes committed.
Curated
Drug Offender Treatment in Local Corrections in California and New York, 1991-1993 (ICPSR 6628)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States, California, New York (state)
Time period: 1991-01-01--1993-12-31
The purpose of this multisite program evaluation project was to provide detailed and systematic descriptions of participants and treatment program components for a sample of five drug treatment programs in local jails. Three of the programs were located in California: Jail Education and Treatment (JET), Deciding, Educating, Understanding, Counseling, and Evaluation (DEUCE), and Rebuilding, Educating, Awareness, Counseling, and Hope (REACH). Two programs were in New York State: Substance Abuse Intervention Division (SAID) and New Beginnings. The project was aimed at assessing program completion rates as well as 12-month post-release recidivism for program participants versus matched controls. Background information obtained about the participating offenders includes sex, race, age, education, marital status, and employment status, as well as history of drug use, previous drug treatment, mental illness, inpatient/outpatient episodes, and offenses and sentencing. Additional data cover program location, dates of release from the program and from jail, type of program termination, type of residence upon release, and anticipated post-custody treatment. Information on each conviction/disposition was obtained through state criminal information systems, and state-level criminal history data (rap sheets) were collected for both the treatment and comparison groups. The unit of analysis is arrest events.
Curated
Restricted
Effectiveness of Culturally-Focused Batterer Counseling for African American Men in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 2001-2004 (ICPSR 4362)
Released/updated on: 2008-01-31
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2001-11-01--2004-07-31
This study used an experimental clinical trial to test the effectiveness of culturally-focused batterer counseling against conventional cognitive-behavioral counseling in African American men. A total of 503 men, including all African American men mandated by the domestic violence court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to batterer counseling between November 2001 and May 2004, were randomly assigned to one of three counseling options: culturally-focused counseling in an all African American group, conventional counseling in an all African American group, or conventional counseling in a racially mixed group. All three counseling options required a minimum of 16 weekly group sessions. At program intake, the men completed a background questionnaire, the Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (SMAST) and the Racial Identity Scale (RAIS), contained in Part 1, Men's Intake Questionnaire Data. The men later completed a survey of past experiences of violence, contained in Part 2, Men's Past Violence Survey Data. The men were interviewed once at five months after program intake about their impressions of and ratings of the counseling. Results of those interviews are in Part 3, Men's Five-Month Follow-up Data. A female partner was interviewed for 399 of the male subjects at program intake. Their responses are contained in Part 4, Women's Background Data. Female partners (both initial victims and new partners) were interviewed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the initial interview at the time of the men's program intake (Parts 5-8). The follow-up interviews asked about the women's relationship status, abusive behavior and its circumstances, help seeking, and additional intervention.
Curated
Restricted
Effect of Prison Based Alcohol Treatment: Treatment and Recidivism Data from Montana, Ohio, and Texas, 2006-2012 (ICPSR 34928)
Released/updated on: 2017-02-03
Geographic coverage: Montana, United States, Texas, Ohio
Time period: 2006-07-01--2012-05-31, 2009-07-01--2012-09-30, 2008-03-01--2011-12-31
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.
Curated
Restricted
Effects of Short-Term Batterer Treatment for Detained Arrestees in Sacramento County, California, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 4383)
Released/updated on: 2007-02-13
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 1999-01-01--2000-12-31
This study evaluated the effects of a program for detained arrestees developed by the Sacramento Sheriff's Department. The program was set up as an early intervention program to provide domestic violence (DV) education for arrestees during their time of detention before going to court. This evaluation used an experimental design. The researchers randomly assigned 629 batterers to either the batterer treatment wing of the jail or to a no-treatment control group in another wing of the jail. Interviews were conducted with the batterers and victims shortly after the arrest that placed the batterer in the Sacramento jail (Parts 1 and 2) and again six months after the intervention or control condition was concluded (Parts 3 and 4). Official police arrest data on recidivism were also collected post-arrest (Part 5). Interviews were conducted over the phone, except for the baseline batterer interviews that were done in the jail, and for those who were not available for interviewing, over the phone. Activities of the batterer treatment program included: mandatory detention in a special DV jail wing supervised by correction officers who had received special DV training, batterer educational workshops, daily Twelve-Step Drug/Alcohol addiction support groups, and strict regulations on television watching (special nonviolent educational programs were the only available programs). Batterer education classes were held daily, and the research team checked attendance logs. The arrestees were required at least to attend the program classes and Narcotics Anonymous/Alcoholics Anonymous groups and sit quietly. For the control group, participants were assigned to the regular part of the jail and received the usual incarceration experience of persons detained in the Sacramento County Jail (including no treatment services). Official police arrest data on recidivism were analyzed for up to one year post-arrest (Part 5). Treatment implementation data (Part 6), which records the frequency of the batterer's attendance in the various treatment programs offered in the special DV jail wing, and variables used in the analysis for the project's final report (Part 7) are also available with this collection. In addition to general demographic variables such as age, race, religion, source of income, and employment situation, specific variables are gathered for specific datasets. Variables collected in Parts 1 and 2 (Batterer and Victim Baseline Data) include information regarding whether or not the batterer was in the treatment or control group, the relationship between the batterer and victim, and types of injuries the victim received. Parts 3 and 4 (Batterer and Victim Six-Month Data) contain variables related to employment and living situation, as well as any additional assistance either party received since the arrest event. Variables in Part 5 (Tracking Database) include the date, location, and length of interviews. Part 6 (Treatment and Implementation Data) contains variables related to the different programs the batterer in the experimental group may have participated in. The variables for Part 7 (Supplemental Final Report Variables) include information about the study participants such as whether all four interviews were completed and the presence of any new domestic violence charges.
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
Time period: 1998-01-01--1998-12-31
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
Restricted
Evaluation of the Implementation of the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS), United States, 1978-2017 (ICPSR 37035)
Released/updated on: 2020-10-29
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, Phoenix, New York (state), Arizona
The purpose of the project was to (1) determine whether the combined dynamic (SOTIPS) and static risk assessment (Static-99R) tools better predicted sexual recidivism than either alone, and (2) determine whether the tools could be implemented successfully in more representative populations. Previous research has established a "status quo" for risk assessments.
This study was set within the context of the developing sexual offender risk prediction field, where investigators explored reliable and valid means to assess what have been termed "dynamic risk factors." Instruments that identify the specific psychological risk factors present in the individual offender ought to allow treatment for that individual to be tailored to these specific needs, thus increasing its effectiveness. Thus, instruments have been designed to:
- Assess psychological factors that are empirically related to sexual recidivism, thus creating a basis for selecting treatment targets
- Show robust incremental predictive validity relative to Static-99R or other measures of static risk factors
- Measure change in a way that is convincingly related to sexual recidivism
- Incorporate and point risk managers towards some of the factors identified in the desistance literature
- Improve the effectiveness of treatment in reducing sexual recidivism
Enrollment of sex offenders in the evaluation study began in April 2013. To be included, offenders needed to be Static-99R eligible (an adult male convicted of a contact or non-contact sex offense with an identifiable victim), mentally cognizant, released to community supervision, and at least 18 years old in January 2013 in Maricopa County and April 2013 in New York City.
Curated
Restricted
Evaluation of the Pine Lodge Pre-Release Residential Therapeutic Community for Women Offenders in Washington State, 1996-2001 (ICPSR 3537)
Released/updated on: 2003-02-28
Geographic coverage: United States, Washington
Time period: 1996-01-01--2001-12-31
In 1996, Washington State's Department of Corrections (DOC) implemented "New Horizons" (referred to as "First Chance" from its inception in late 1996 to early 2000), a residential therapeutic treatment community for drug-addicted women offenders housed within the Pine Lodge Pre-Release minimum security and co-ed facility in the northeastern part of the state. The target population for the program was women who had been screened and identified as having a serious substance abuse problem and who had 12 months or less to serve on their sentences. Maximum capacity for this program was established at 72 treatment slots with members of the therapeutic community residing together and separate from the rest of the general population. The program approaches addiction as a biopsychosocial disease and strives to restructure and develop pro-social cognitive, behavioral, and affective skills of addicted women offenders. This study investigated (1) factors that affected successful completion of the program, and (2) outcomes (i.e., recidivism) for Pine Lodge participants compared to outcomes for a control group. This project was funded by the National Institute Justice as part of its initiative for local evaluations of prison-based residential substance abuse treatment programs. Data represent an outcome evaluation for Pine Lodge residents compared to outcomes for a matched control group provided by the Washington State Department of Corrections. Through a case-by-case examination of the datasets from Pine Lodge and the Washington State DOC, the researchers created a data file that contained program completion/non-completion data and demographic variables for 322 Pine Lodge participants and a control group of 279 women. Variables include the month and year admitted to the Pine Lodge program, reason for leaving the program, race/ethnicity, crime committed, month and year started the program, sentence length, age, number of months in the program, education level, number of previous offenses, number of months at risk to reoffend, whether reconvicted after release, number of months between release and reconviction, and reconviction offense.
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--1999-12-31
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
Restricted
Long-term Impact of a Positive Youth Development Program on Dating Violence Outcomes During the Transition to Adulthood (ICPSR 36880)
Released/updated on: 2018-08-09
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 identified risk and protective factors for dating violence (DV) among young adults (ages 18-22) with a history of maltreatment and placement in foster care, and who had enrolled in Fostering Healthy Futures (FHF) during 2002-2009. FHF is a Colorado-based positive youth program for maltreated youth. This study focused on factors that ameliorated the effects of risk to reduce DV perpetration and victimization in young adulthood. The participants were interviewed at three different points during the FHF time frame. That data provided a basis for determining risk and mediating factors which in turn were compared to the current study's DV outcomes.
The risk and protective factors included:
- Mental health
- Substance abuse
- Social support
- Gender Stereotypes
- Attitudes about Teen DV
- Communication Skills
Perpetration and victimization outcomes were then examined in relation to the risk and protective factors.
The collection includes 1 SPSS file: NIJ-2013-VA-CX-0002---2nd-revision---5-17-18.sav (215 cases / 2023 variables).
Curated
Restricted
Outcome Evaluation of a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program in Dallas County, Texas, 1998-2000 (ICPSR 3716)
Released/updated on: 2003-06-05
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas
Time period: 1998-01-01--2000-12-31
This study was an outcome evaluation of the Dallas County Judicial Treatment Center (DCJTC), a six-month residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) facility in Dallas County, Texas. The primary goal of this evaluation was to assess offender recidivism following treatment in this six-month community-based modified therapeutic community for probationers. Secondary goals were to examine change in social functioning over time among probationers mandated to this program, to determine which characteristics at intake and which during-treatment social functioning indicators were predictive of dropping out of treatment early, and to identify which indicators predicted being arrested one to two years after treatment. These goals were accomplished by a comparison of outcomes between treated probationers and an untreated comparison group and by an assessment of the relationships among treatment, social functioning, and recidivism. For both treatment and comparison groups, a criminal records search was performed on the Institutional Division database of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for all of the study participants for the two years following discharge for treatment or following commitment to probation. In addition to these records, treatment participants were asked to complete a set of data collection forms over their course of treatment. These forms collected information about mental status, background and psychosocial functioning, substance abuse, psychological status, offenders' perceptions of the program and their experiences in treatment, evaluations of counselors, self-evaluations, and counselors' evaluations of clients.
Curated
Restricted
Outcome Evaluation of the Crossroad to Freedom House and Peer I Therapeutic Communities in Colorado, 2000-2002 (ICPSR 4212)
Released/updated on: 2005-10-11
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado
Time period: 1995-01-01--2003-12-31
This study aimed to further evaluate previous findings regarding drug use and criminal behaviors among the criminal population by investigating the effectiveness of two Colorado Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Therapeutic Communities (RSAT TC) for offenders. The first, the Crossroad to Freedom House Therapeutic Community at the Arrowhead Correctional Center (ACC TC) was a prison-based program. The second was the community-based Peer I Therapeutic Community (Peer I). Two methodologies were used to gather data. Part 1, RSAT Outcome Data, contains quantitative data collected from five separate study groups of differing sample sizes that received differing levels of treatment, with a total of 778 cases. The groups were compared on five separate outcome variables: technical violation, new misdemeanor arrest, new felony arrest, return to prison, and overall supervision failure. To gather baseline information from participants, a researcher administered the intake packet in group format to participants within three weeks of admission to ACC TC. After completing the treatment programs, outcome data were collected for a two-year follow-up period for each participant. Part 2, Case Studies, consists of case studies of ten participants, two from each of the above five listed groups. One from each group had successful outcomes, and one did not. Successful outcomes were defined as participants who were still living in the community after 12 to 18 months without any new charges. Unsuccessful outcomes were defined as those participants who were returned to prison for technical violations or new charges and were eligible for study only if they had been living in the community for six to twelve months before returning to prison. Information for the case studies were gathered through interviews with both former prisoners and one of their significant others. Variables for Part 1 include demographic information, length of stay in both the ACC TC and Peer I, types of programs parolees were released to, and time period between leaving the Department of Corrections and any subsequent returns. Information was also gathered on the presence of psychological concerns as an adult, as well as in childhood. Part 2 consists of information regarding ACC TC and Peer I participants' post-treatment such as their employment status, financial well-being, significant relationships, relapse information and whether or not the interviewee has returned to the Department of Corrections since receiving treatment and being released.
Curated
Restricted
Outcome Evaluation of the Wisconsin Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program: The Mental Illness Chemical Abuse (MICA) Program at Oshkosh Correctional Institution, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 3082)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Wisconsin
Time period: 1997-10-01--2000-05-31
This study evaluated the Mental Illness-Chemical Abuse (MICA) Program at Oshkosh Correctional Institution in Wisconsin. MICA is a residential substance abuse treatment program that consists of three stages: (1) an 8- to 12-month residential therapeutic community stage, (2) an institutional aftercare stage, and (3) a community aftercare stage. This outcome study documented important aspects of program implementation and effectiveness. It included all 141 inmates admitted to MICA between October 1997 and March 2000. A control group comprised of 66 inmates who were too close to their mandatory release dates to participate in the program but who were otherwise eligible was also included. Data were gathered from Department of Corrections administrative records regarding admissions information, assessment results, institutional behavior, institutional placement and services after program completion or exit, and recidivism. MICA staff provided information on treatment progress, behavior, and mental health status. MICA outreach specialists provided three-month post-release data on community outcomes for MICA graduates. Parole agents provided three-month post-release data on parole compliance and recidivism for all study participants. Variables include assessment results, institutional services received, history of incarceration, urinalysis testing, changes in mental health status and program behavior throughout treatment, clinical test results, conduct reports, institutional placement and services after MICA, whether the individual had appropriate resources upon release to the community, parole status, recidivism, mental health and chemical use status after release, support services provided by MICA staff after release, and other support services received after release.
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--1997-12-31
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--1995-12-31
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
Processes of Resistance in Domestic Violence Offenders in Seven Sites in the United States and Canada, 2004-2005 (ICPSR 21860)
Released/updated on: 2010-04-29
Geographic coverage: Canada, Rhode Island, Alberta, United States, Calgary, California, Georgia, Florida, Virginia, Global, Michigan
Time period: 2004-01-01--2004-12-31, 2005-01-01--2005-12-31, 2005-11-01--2005-11-30
The purpose of the study was to examine the processes of resistance in domestic violence offenders. Study One (Part 1, Study One Quantitative Data) was developed to refine and offer preliminary validation of the draft processes of resistance measure. In the summer of 2004, group facilitators collected data from 346 domestic violence offenders recruited from domestic violence agencies in Florida, California, Georgia, and Rhode Island. The 88 item draft processes of resistance measure was administered as part of a 280 item paper-and-pencil survey that took approximately 60 minutes to complete. Resistance items were placed in random order in the measure and in 50 percent of the surveys, resistance items were placed in reverse order within the measure. Study Two (Part 2, Study Two Quantitative Data), administered the processes of resistance measure to a separate sample of domestic violence offenders at batterer program intake and again two months later. Participants included 358 domestic violence offenders recruited from domestic violence agencies in Florida, Virginia, Rhode Island, Michigan, and Calgary, Canada, between January and December 2005. In Study Three (Part 3, Study Three Expert Interview Qualitative Data), 16 of the 18 domestic violence experts who were interviewed in Study One during the drafting of the resistance measure were invited by telephone or email to participate in a 1- hour interview on best practices for dealing with resistance. Thirteen experts who agreed to be interviewed were mailed a list of processes of resistance measure items and asked to give recommendations on how domestic violence counselors can respond to a client engaging in those behaviors in treatment. Interviews were conducted by telephone in November 2005, with an interviewer and note taker, and audiotaped. Part 1 (Study One Quantitative Data) and Part 2 (Study Two Quantitative Data) include demographic variables such as age, race, level of education, employment and income level, relationship to the domestic assault victim, months in batterer treatment, and criminal history. Both Parts also include variables to measure stage of change, decisional balance, processes of change, self-efficacy, physical and psychological aggression, social desirability, at risk drinking, and physical and mental health. Additionally, Part 2 includes variables on program attendance and completion. Part 3 (Study Three Expert Interviews Qualitative Data) includes domestic violence experts recommendations for managing eight types of resistance in batterer treatment including system blaming, problems with partner, problems with alliance, social justification, hopelessness, isolation, psychological reactance, and passive reactance.
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--2001-12-31
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 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.
Curated
Restricted
Rehabilitation Programs for Adult Offenders: A Meta-Analysis in Support of Guidelines for Effective Practice, 5 Countries, 1950-2014 (ICPSR 37281)
Released/updated on: 2019-10-29
Geographic coverage: New Zealand, Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Australia
Time period: 1950-01-01--2014-12-31
This is a comprehensive meta-analysis of available research on the effects of intervention programs for adult offenders, which is based on 801 eligible controlled studies reported through 2014 identified by researchers. Variables describing the intervention, participating offender samples, research methods, and effects found on a range of outcome constructs were coded into a database for analysis. The major outcome categories examined were recidivism, substance use, employment, mental health, anger/hostility, and aggression/violence. Broad intervention approaches included those such as cognitive behavioral, structured group, counseling, and drug court programs.
The meta-analysis seeks to examine outcomes of various types of interventions and identify the characteristics of programs and participants most closely associated with positive outcomes. It seeks to use the findings to construct and obtain feedback on effective practice guidelines within the adult correctional system.
Curated
Restricted
Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Release Measures, 2000-2010 [Restricted] (ICPSR 34488)
Released/updated on: 2014-01-09
Geographic coverage: United States, Arizona, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2000-01-01--2010-12-31
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.
Curated
Restricted
Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Release Measures - Scales, 2000-2010 [Restricted] (ICPSR 36868)
Released/updated on: 2017-12-11
Geographic coverage: United States, Phoenix, Arizona, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2000-01-01--2010-12-31
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.
Curated
Restricted
Stages of Change and the Group Treatment of Batterers in Montgomery County, Maryland, 2003-2006 (ICPSR 22170)
Released/updated on: 2011-05-31
Geographic coverage: United States, Maryland
Time period: 2003-06-01--2006-01-31
The goal of this project was to compare the effectiveness of a 26-week stages of change (SOC) group treatment approach with a standard Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Gender-Reeducation (CBTGR) group treatment approach; to assess potential mediators of change; to conduct analyses on individual readiness to change as a moderator of treatment condition in predicting outcomes; to conduct exploratory analyses comparing the effectiveness of these 2 approaches in Spanish-speaking groups; and to assess the integrity of the 2 treatments with respect to therapist adherence. Male clients who were referred to the Montgomery County, Maryland, Abused Persons Program (APP) between June 2003 and January 2006 and who were appropriate for participation in either the English-speaking or Spanish-speaking 26-week group, were randomly assigned to either a Stage of Change (SOC) Treatment Format or a Cognitive-Behavioral Gender-Reeducation Format (CBTGR). All participants at the APP routinely underwent a standard intake procedure. Data collection consisted of (1) an intake interview and questionnaires completed by the batterer at intake, (2) an initial telephone interview of the partner, (3) data collected from the batterer at mid-treatment and post-treatment, (4) data collected at the end of treatment on the number of sessions attended, and (5) telephone-based follow-up information received from the partner at 6 and 12 months post-intake. The data file contains 550 cases and 901 variables. For the Abuser Intake Interview, the abuser was asked information regarding his age, education, employment status, income, relationship to the victim partner, current contact, children in common, and history of abuse and trauma. As part of this intake, the offender completed several instruments including (1) the Conflict Tactics Scales-Revised (CTS2), (2) the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA), (3) the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), (4) the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), (5) the Generality of Violence-Revised (GVQ-R), (6) Perceptions of Procedural Justice, and (7) the Dissociative Violence Scale (DVS). The victim partner was asked about demographics as well as relationship status, children in common, and current contact with the batterer. As part of this interview, the victim partner also completed (1) the CTS2 items as they pertained to the batterer's behavior toward her in the previous six months and over the course of their relationship, (2) the Danger Assessment Scale (DAS), and (3) the Process of Change in Abused Women Scale (PROCAWS). At 8 and 16 weeks into treatment, APP staff administered the Working Alliance Inventory -- Short Form (WAI-S) along with the Group Cohesion Scale (GES-COH).
Curated
Restricted
Supplemental Mental Health Treatment for Batterer Program Participants in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 2004-2007 (ICPSR 21880)
Released/updated on: 2013-05-07
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2004-01-01--2007-12-31
The study was conducted to investigate the extent of mental health screening, referral compliance, and treatment effectiveness of men enrolled in batterer counseling programs. Specifically, the study looked at treatment compliance and effectiveness among men referred for mental health treatment in a program for men in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania who were court ordered to receive batterer counseling, from 2004 to 2006. The final sample includes a total of 992 men, 478 men who were referred to treatment and 514 men who were not. The study included a service-delivery evaluation of the screening and referral and an outcome evaluation of the supplemental mental health counseling. The outcome evaluation was based on a quasi-experimental design comparing a subsample of men under a mandatory referral to those under a voluntary referral, and also men who actually obtained mental health treatment to those who were referred but untreated. Data were collected using questionnaires administered to both the men and their female partners over a 12 month period following intake into the counseling program, as well as clinical and arrest records to assess the extent to which the men complied with the referrals, their responses to the referral, and the outcomes from participation in the program, measured in terms of re-assault of their female partners.
Curated
Restricted
Testing the Impact of Batterer Intervention Programs and Court Monitoring in the Bronx [New York City, New York], 2002-2004 (ICPSR 21900)
Released/updated on: 2008-04-21
Geographic coverage: New York City, New York, United States
Time period: 2002-07-23--2004-02-27
The purpose of this study was to provide a definitive test of whether batterer programs and varying intensities of judicial monitoring reduce reoffending among domestic violence offenders. Study enrollment took place between July 23, 2002, through February 27, 2004. In Part 1, Batterer Program Experiment Data, convicted male domestic violence offenders from court parts AP10 (Pretrial Appearances) or TAP2 (Trials) of the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court were randomly assigned into one of four experimental conditions. The four conditions were batterer program plus monthly judicial monitoring (n = 102), batterer program plus graduated monitoring (n = 100), monthly monitoring only (n = 109), and graduated monitoring only (n = 109). Defendants assigned to a batterer program completed either the Domestic Violence Accountability Program (DVAP) run by Safe Horizon or the Men's Choices Program run by the Fordham Tremont Community Mental Health Center. The offenders were tracked for at least 12 months after sentencing, and for up to 18 months for most of the men, to determine whether they fulfilled the conditions of their sentence, were rearrested for domestic violence, or were reported by the victim to have engaged in new incidents of abuse. Using each offender's New York State criminal identification number, complete criminal record files, including prior criminal history and recidivism, were obtained from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). Victims were interviewed about new domestic incidents committed within one year of sentencing. In Part 2, Monitoring Experiment Data, a quasi-experimental study using propensity score matching compared recidivism outcomes between the randomized offenders in Part 1 and a control group of conditional discharge (CD) offenders convicted of identical offenses, but who, as a result of the normal sentencing process, received neither a batterer program nor any form of monitoring. The propensity score predicted the probability of inclusion in the randomized trial (Part 1) sample, based not on actual membership in that sample, but on the statistical probability of membership in it, as computed from the observed set of background characteristics. Each offender in the randomized trial was then matched to the offender in the CD only group with the nearest propensity score. Sometimes multiple offenders from the the initial trial were matched to the same CD only offender. Variables in both Part 1 and Part 2 of the data set include demographic variables for both the defendants and victims, defendant arrest history, current sentence, assignment to a batterer program, type of judicial monitoring, and victim reports of new incidents of violence after sentencing.
Curated
Restricted
Therapeutic Change, Length of Stay, and Recidivism in Incarcerated Juvenile Offenders in Washington State, 2008-2015 (ICPSR 36226)
Released/updated on: 2023-02-28
Geographic coverage: Washington
Time period: 2008-01-01--2015-12-31
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 is a quasi-experimental, observational study using administrative data to assess whether time in juvenile placement was associated with the acquisition of social-emotional skills and subsequent felony recidivism. Concurrent with a change in juvenile sentencing policy in Washington State a comprehensive risk and needs assessment tool (R-PACT) was piloted to investigate the impact that therapeutically oriented incarceration had on youth. This tool was made up of 12 domains of risk and needs, including a section on dynamic factors related to therapeutic skills. Youth were admitted into the study in two cohorts, a main study cohort and a replication study cohort.