Search results

Showing 1 – 50 of 678 results.
Curated
Partially restricted

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

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

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

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

Curated
Partially restricted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curated
Partially restricted

Adolescent Health and Development in Context (AHDC) Study, Franklin County, Ohio, Wave 1, 2014-2016 (ICPSR 39045)

Released/updated on: 2024-07-23
Geographic coverage: United States, Columbus (Ohio), Ohio
Time period: 2014-01-01--2016-01-01
The overarching objective of the Adolescent Health and Development in Context (AHDC) Project is to collect multilevel, multi-contextual data on a large sample of 1,405 youth ages 11 to 17 years in Franklin County, Ohio. The study emphasizes the interplay of social, psychological, and biological processes in shaping youth developmental outcomes such as risk behavior and victimization, mental and physical health, and educational outcomes. The study employs a prospective cohort design in which the data on youth and caregivers were collected at two time-points, approximately one year apart. The Wave 1 field period began in spring 2014 and was completed in summer 2016. Wave 2 was conducted between January and December 2016. Within each wave, participant data were collected over a weeklong period. An Entrance Survey with both a focal youth and his or her caregiver was followed by a seven-day smartphone-based Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking and EMA data collection period (EMA Week), and a final Exit Survey at the end of the week.
Curated
Partially restricted

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

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

The Adolescent Substance Abuse Prevention Study (ASAPS) was a randomized field trial designed to test the effectiveness of a new school-based substance abuse prevention program called Take Charge of Your Life (TCYL). The program consisted of two curricula, one for middle schools and the other for high schools, which were delivered through the Drug Abuse Resistance Education network of law enforcement officers (D.A.R.E.). TCYL was developed building on existing D.A.R.E. seventh/eighth grade and tenth/eleventh grade curricula and applied principles and strategies suggested by published literature on effective drug abuse prevention programming and effective middle and high school curricula design. ASAPS was conducted among a 2001-2002 multi-site cohort of seventh graders who were followed for five years until the 2005-2006 school year when they were in the eleventh grade. The first TCYL curriculum was delivered in the treatment schools when the students were in seventh grade and the second was delivered when they were in the ninth grade.

Over the five-year study period, the treatment and control students responded to seven self-administered surveys: (1) at baseline in the seventh grade, (2) post-intervention in the seventh grade, (3) in the eighth grade, (4) pre-intervention in the ninth grade, (5) post-intervention in the ninth grade, (6) in the tenth grade, and (7) in the eleventh grade. Topics covered by the surveys include normative beliefs, social skills, attitudes toward drug use, and self-reported use of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and other illicit drugs. The ASAPS data also include measures of implementation fidelity of the seventh and ninth grade TCYL curricula, which were obtained from trained observers who rated the D.A.R.E. officers' delivery in the classroom. The fidelity measures encompass content coverage and instructional strategy.

This data collection comprises two data files, both with public- and restricted-use versions. The first (the Main Data File) contains the students' survey responses and the seventh grade curriculum fidelity measures, while the second (the 9th Grade Officer Observations Data) contains the ninth grade curriculum fidelity measures.

Curated
Partially restricted

Adoption of Innovations in Private Alcohol and Drug Treatment Centers in the United States [Restricted-Use], 2009-2013 (ICPSR 37621)

Released/updated on: 2020-08-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2009-01-01--2013-01-01

Adoption of Innovations in Private Alcohol and Drug Treatment Centers is a multi-wave longitudinal study conducted between 2009 and 2013. The study goal was to measure the adoption and implementation of evidence-based treatment practices in treatment centers that received more than 50 percent of their total operational funding from sources that were not guaranteed from year to year. This definition is based on the concept of entrepreneurship, namely the necessity for the treatment organization to respond to changing conditions in the external political and economic environment in order to obtain half or more of its funding. The innovations considered are of three types usually specific to organizations treating substance use disorders:

  • medication-assisted treatments
  • psychosocial treatments
  • managerial practices

This data set consists of one of the multiple "waves" of data collection. The data was collected at four points in time. The baseline data, collected from June 2009 through October 2011 from 327 treatment centers, were obtained through face-to-face onsite interviews ranging from 1 to 4 hours in duration. These interviews were conducted with administrators of the respective treatment centers. In 70 of the 327 treatment centers, an administrator of the overall center and the administrator of clinical operations separately completed administrative and clinical interviews. In the remaining 257 centers, all of the administrative and clinical data were collected from the administrator of the overall center since there was no specialized administrator of clinical operations. The baseline data available here merge the data collected through these two different procedures so that the variables measured are identical for all centers regardless of the procedure.

The collected data include detailed information on Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) and other treatment strategies used by the center to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD). In cases where medications were not used by a center questions were asked for reasons why available medications were not used in treatment. Other sections of the interviews covered data on the organizations, their management, and other clinical practices implemented for OUD, AUD, and substance use disorder (SUD).

Three follow-up interviews were conducted via telephone at six month intervals following the previous interview. These follow-up interviews were much shorter compared to the baseline interview. The interviews centered on key changes in the center's operation and on the adoption of key innovations. But a focus of the follow-up interviews still focused on medications provided for treatment.

Curated
Partially restricted

Advancing Virtual Reality-Based Attentional Bias as a Biomarker for Tobacco Use Disorder, San Diego, California, 2024-2025 (ICPSR 39816)

Released/updated on: 2026-04-13
Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, California
Time period: 2024-11-20--2025-03-03
The Varenicline Virtual Reality Study includes daily cigarette users, ages 22+, from the San Diego community. Participants are assessed on the VR Nicotine Cue Exposure paradigm then pseudo-randomized (stratified on age and sex) to receive varenicline (target dose 1mg twice daily) or placebo (target n per group=100; target total N=200). Following eight days of titration, participants are assessed again on the VR Nicotine Cue Exposure paradigm.
Curated

AIDS-Related Written Court Decisions in Federal and State Courts, 1984-1989: [United States] (ICPSR 6502)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1984-01-01--1989-01-01
This data collection was designed to identify the party characteristics, case attributes, and idea structures of written court decisions related to Auto-Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Written court decisions related to AIDS in state and federal courts were located via the LEXUS and WESTLAW data systems. For a case to be eligible, it had to address an issue involving AIDS or involve a party who was believed to be infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and a legal decision had to provide sufficient written material to analyze. Coding was completed by three individuals with legal training based on a team-developed codebook. Except in those areas where a preliminary test showed 90-percent reliability, variables were coded based on a consensus rule. Variables include court jurisdiction, whether the case was civil or criminal, case issue area, gender of plaintiff, relationship between parties, demand and primary purpose of the demand by the defendant and the plaintiff, what the court explicitly relied upon for its decision, whether the plaintiff or defendant had AIDS, AIDS-Related Complex (ARC), or was HIV-infected, and whether the plaintiff or defendant was gay, an IV drug user, a prisoner or an accused criminal, a member of a stigmatized group, or a racial or an ethnic minority. The unit of analysis is the written court decision.
Curated

Alameda County [California] Health and Ways of Living Study, 1974 Panel (ICPSR 6838)

Released/updated on: 2008-01-31
Geographic coverage: United States, California
These data constitute the second wave of a survey designed to study the influence of health practices and social relationships on the physical and mental health of a typical sample of the population. The first wave (HEALTH AND WAYS OF LIVING STUDY, 1965 PANEL [ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA] [ICPSR 6688]) collected information for 6,928 respondents (including approximately 500 women aged 65 years and older) on chronic health conditions, health behaviors, social involvements, and psychological characteristics. The 1974 questionnaire was sent to 6,246 living subjects who had responded in 1965, and were able to be located. A total of 4,864 individuals responded in 1974. Questions were asked on marital and life satisfaction, parenting, physical activities, employment, and childhood experiences. Demographic information on age, race, height, weight, education, income, and religion was also collected. Included with this dataset is a separate file (Part 2) containing mortality data for respondents who died between the 1965 and 1974 panels, and information on nonrespondents.
Curated

Alameda County [California] Health and Ways of Living Study, 1994 and 1995 Panels (ICPSR 3083)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-06
Geographic coverage: United States, California
This collection provides a 30-year follow-up with respondents from Alameda County who were originally interviewed in 1965 for the first wave of the Health and Ways of Living Study. The purpose of the survey was to explore the influences of health practices and social relationships on the physical and mental health of a typical sample of the population. The first wave of the study, HEALTH AND WAYS OF LIVING STUDY, 1965 PANEL: [ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA] (ICPSR 6688), collected information for 6,928 respondents (including approximately 500 women aged 65 years and older) on chronic health conditions, health behaviors, social involvements, and psychological characteristics. The second wave, the 1974 panel (ALAMEDA COUNTY [CALIFORNIA] HEALTH AND WAYS OF LIVING STUDY, 1974 PANEL [ICPSR 6838]), collected information from 4,864 of the original respondents. The third and fourth waves (1994 and 1995 panels, respectively), provided in this collection, explore some new topics. The third wave provides a follow-up of 2,729 original 1965 and 1974 respondents and examines health behaviors such as alcohol consumption and smoking habits, along with social activities. Also included is information on health conditions such as diabetes, osteoporosis, hormone replacement, and mental illness. Another central topic investigated is activities of daily living (including self-care such as dressing, eating, and shopping), along with use of free time and level of involvement in social, recreational, religious, and environmental groups. The fourth wave is a follow-up to the 1994 panel, and contains 2,569 cases. This wave examines changes in functional abilities such as self-care activities, employment, involvement in community activities, visiting friends/family, and use of free time since 1994.
Curated

Alameda County [California] Health and Ways of Living Study, 1999 Panel (ICPSR 4432)

Released/updated on: 2006-11-16
Geographic coverage: United States, California
This fifth wave of data, collected in 1999, provides follow-up with 2,123 respondents from Alameda County who were originally interviewed in 1965 for the first wave of the Health and Ways of Living Study. The purpose of the survey was to explore the influences of health practices and social relationships on the physical and mental health of a typical sample of the population. Part 2 of this collection contains mortality data including cause and year of death. The first wave of the study, HEALTH AND WAYS OF LIVING STUDY, 1965 PANEL: [ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA] (ICPSR 6688), collected information for 6,928 respondents (including 360 men and 530 women aged 65 years and older) on chronic health conditions, health behaviors, social involvements, and psychological characteristics. The second wave, the 1974 panel, ALAMEDA COUNTY [CALIFORNIA] HEALTH AND WAYS OF LIVING STUDY, 1974 PANEL (ICPSR 6838), collected information from 4,864 of the original respondents. The third and fourth waves, ALAMEDA COUNTY [CALIFORNIA] HEALTH AND WAYS OF LIVING STUDY, 1994 and 1995 PANELS (ICPSR 3083), provided a follow-up of 2,729 original 1965 and 1974 respondents. The fourth wave is a follow-up to the 1994 panel and contains 2,569 cases.
Curated

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

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

Alcohol Outlet Data, Genesee County, Michigan, 2001, 2011-2012 & 2016 (ICPSR 36963)

Released/updated on: 2018-05-31
Geographic coverage: United States, Genesee County, Michigan
Time period: 2011-01-01--2012-01-01
The data collection is comprised of geocoded alcohol outlet data for Genesee County, Michigan. Licensee lists were downloaded from the State of Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Liquor Control Commission website in 2012 and 2017. The addresses contained in the licensee lists were geocoded to create geocoded latitude and longitude variables as well as Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projections of latitude and longitude. Additionally, based on the license type definitions, an outlet type variable was created that categorizes the outlet type as package, on-premises/bar, or both.
Curated
Partially restricted

Alternative Sentencing Policies for Drug Offenders: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Kansas Senate Bill 123, 2001-2010 (ICPSR 30982)

Released/updated on: 2014-01-31
Geographic coverage: United States, Kansas
Time period: 2001-11-01--2010-08-31

The study examined the first five years of operation of Kansas senate bill 123 (November 2003-November 2008) examining individual-level and system-level outcomes over time and across community corrections districts and judicial actors. The study also assesses the impact of SB 123 on the work routines of criminal justice system actors, examining changes in sentencing and supervision practices and interactions across agencies following the implementation of SB 123.

Individual-level impacts of SB 123 on recidivism rates are assessed using sentencing and revocation data collected by the Kansas Sentencing Commission for drug possessors sentenced in Kansas between November 1, 2001 and October 31, 2008 (Dataset 1). Propensity score matching was used to compare the revocation and reconviction rates of drug possessors sentenced to SB 123 with the recidivism rates of similar individuals sentenced to regular probation (standard supervision by community corrections or court services) (Dataset 2). Supervision and program participation data provided by the Kansas Department of Corrections were used to assess the use of drug treatment services, education and employment services, and sanctions for individuals sentenced to SB 123 or standard community corrections (Dataset 3). These quantitative data were complemented by a set qualitative data derived from interviews with SB 123-eligible offenders (Dataset 4), community corrections managers, and courtroom actors (judges, prosecutors, public defenders) (Dataset 5).

Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Americans' Changing Lives: Waves I, II, III, IV, V, and VI, 1986, 1989, 1994, 2002, 2011, and 2021 (ICPSR 4690)

Released/updated on: 2024-12-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1986-01-01--2021-01-01

The Americans' Changing Lives (ACL) survey series is an ongoing, nationally representative, longitudinal study focusing especially on differences between Black and White Americans in middle and late life. These data constitute the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth waves in a panel survey covering a wide range of sociological, psychological, mental, and physical health items. Wave I of the study began in 1986 with a nation face-to-face survey of 3,617 adults ages 25 and up, with Black Americans and people aged 60 and over over-sampled at twice the rate of the others. Wave II constitutes face-to-face re-interviews in 1989 of those still alive. Survivors have been re-interviewed by telephone, and when necessary face-to-face, in 1994 (Wave III), 2001/02 (Wave IV), 2011 (Wave V), and 2019/21 (Wave VI).

Please note that for Wave VI, the majority of data collection occurred in 2019, with only a small subset (n=39) of participants surveyed in 2021.

ACL was designed and sought to investigate the following: (1) The ways in which a wide range of activities and social relationships that people engage in are broadly "productive," (2) how individuals adapt to acute life events and chronic stresses that threaten the maintenance of health, effective functioning, and productive activity, and (3) sociocultural variations in the nature, meaning, determinants, and consequences of productive activity and relationships. Among the topics covered are interpersonal relationships (spouse/partner, children, parents, friends), sources and levels of satisfaction, social interactions and leisure activities, traumatic life events (physical assault, serious illness, divorce, death of a loved one, financial or legal problems), perceptions of retirement, health behaviors (smoking, alcohol consumption, overweight, rest), and utilization of health care services (doctor visits, hospitalization, nursing home institutionalization, bed days). Also included are measures of physical health, psychological well-being, and indices referring to cognitive functioning.

Demographic information provided for individuals includes household composition, number of children and grandchildren, employment status, occupation and work history, income, family financial situation, religious beliefs and practices, ethnicity, race, education, sex, and region of residence.

Curated

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

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

Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers (STARRS) (ICPSR 35197)

Released/updated on: 2025-10-01
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2011-01-01--2024-01-01

*****************************************************************************************

April 29, 2025: STARRS - Longitudinal Study Wave 4 (LSW4) data released

*****************************************************************************************

The Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers (STARRS) is an extensive study of mental health risk and resilience among military personnel. Army STARRS consists of eight separate but integrated epidemiologic and neurobiologic studies. Survey data for three of the Army STARRS study components are available via Secure Dissemination or via the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave: New Soldier Study (NSS); All Army Study (AAS) and Pre-Post Deployment Study (PPDS). Also available are data for the STARRS-Longitudinal Study (STARRS-LS), which are follow-up surveys conducted with Army STARRS participants from AAS, NSS and PPDS studies. Lastly, baseline administrative data from the Army/Department of Defense (DoD) and blood sample flags for Soldiers who had blood drawn as a part of their participation in NSS or PPDS are available.

The AAS component of Army STARRS assesses soldiers' psychological and physical health, events encountered during training, combat, and non-combat operations, and life and work experiences across all phases of Army service. The AAS data includes data on soldiers' psychological resilience, mental health, and risk for self-harm.

The NSS data are drawn from new soldiers who have just entered the Army. The data contain information on soldier health, personal characteristics, and prior experiences. Results from a series of neurocognitive tests are also included in the NSS data.

The PPDS data are drawn from active duty soldiers who were interviewed at four points in time: 3-4 months prior to deployment to Afghanistan; within 1-2 weeks after return from deployment; 1-3 months after return from deployment; and 9-12 months after return from deployment. The PPDS data contain information on soldiers' psychological resilience, mental health, deployment experiences, and risk for self-harm.

The STARRS-LS data are from multiple follow-up interviews with individuals who previously participated in the AAS, NSS and PPDS study components of Army STARRS. STARRS-LS data contain follow-up information on soldiers' and veterans' physical and mental health, resilience and risk for self-harm, military and employment status, deployment experience, and personal characteristics as they move through their Army careers and after they leave the Army.

Curated
Restricted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2007 (ICPSR 25821)

Released/updated on: 2010-01-28
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
Time period: 2007-04-01--2007-09-01
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) II program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, the ONDCP and Abt Associates have initiated a new data collection that replicates the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. A total of 8,296 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2007. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated
Partially restricted

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2008 (ICPSR 27221)

Released/updated on: 2010-03-31
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc. have initiated a new data collection that replicates the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implements two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collects data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. Data collection has been conducted across two back-to-back quarters in each of 10 counties from a county-based representative sample of 250 male arrestees per quarter for a total of 500 arrestees annually per site or a total of 5,000 arrestees across sites annually. A total of 7,717 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2008. Collection occurs in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2007 and ending March 31, 2008. Additional data collection periods were optioned by ONDCP, and subsequent cycles of back-to-back data collection (not yet available) began April 1, 2008. Participation is voluntary and confidential, and the procedures include a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated
Partially restricted

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

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

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

Released/updated on: 2011-11-04
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc., initiated a new data collection that replicated the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. A total of 8,332 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2010. Collection occurred in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2010, and ending September 30, 2010. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated
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--2000-01-01
The overall purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties and credibility of the Texas Christian University (TCU) Drug Screen as an instrument to assess drug use severity for treatment referral decisions in correctional settings. TCU Drug Screen data were collected on 18,364 Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) inmates (15,816 males and 2,548 females) who completed the screen between January 1 and April 30, 1999. Of the 18,364 subjects, 13,902 were Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID) inmates and 4,462 were State Jail Division (TDCJ-SJD) inmates. The TCU Drug Screen was administered by TDCJ staff almost exclusively in a small group setting (12-25 inmates per group) as part of a larger battery of assessments during the intake process at a TDCJ facility. The level and intensity of treatment services needed was then determined and a referral decision was made. As part of this study, the relationship between TCU Drug Screen information and post-release reincarceration was examined. Although one original goal in the study was to assess the comparability, or concurrent validity, of the TCU Drug Screen with the lengthier, more comprehensive Addiction Severity Index (ASI), TDCJ changed the administration protocol for the ASI so that it was given only to a subsample of 3,245 inmates who failed to disclose drug use problems on the TCU Drug Screen. The data include inmate responses to all items of the TCU Drug Screen and the overall drug screen score. There is also demographic information as well as incarceration, release, and reincarceration data.
Curated

Assessing Washington State's Models to Increase Use of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder: Hub and Spoke and Low-Barrier Opioid Treatment Networks, 2015-2022 (ICPSR 39817)

Released/updated on: 2026-04-13
Geographic coverage: United States, Washington
Time period: 2015-07-01--2022-12-31

MOUD remains an underutilized evidence-based practice with potential to reduce opioid use disorder (OUD) and save lives. Washington State expanded its Hub & Spoke (H&S) model for OUD medication treatment (MOUD: buprenorphine, methadone, naltrexone) by funding additional networks and developing a low-barrier, Opioid Treatment Network (OTN) model. The Washington H&S model was designed as a flexible approach incorporating primary care and substance use treatment programs, referral organizations, nurse care managers and care navigators. The OTN model offers MOUD induction in non-traditional settings (e.g., emergency departments, jails) with connections to community partners who will offer MOUD maintenance.

This study examined the implementation and effectiveness of the H&S and OTN models for increasing MOUD treatment and improving outcomes for people with OUD. Washington's H&S and OTN interventions were funded through federal STR/SOR opioid response grants, and the expanded H&S networks were funded through the state. The study, Hub and Spoke Opioid Treatment Networks: 2nd Generation Approaches to Improve Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders (R01DA0561067), and its supplement (R01DA0561067S1) was part of NIH's HEAL initiative, and built on an earlier study (R33DA045851). All three studies were supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Expanding Access to Low-Barrier Opioid Use Disorder Treatment in Non-Traditional Settings: Washington's Opioid Treatment Network

  • Increasing utilization of medications that treat opioid use disorders (MOUD) remains an essential strategy to curb the opioid crisis nationwide, especially among rural areas where access can present challenges. Washington State expanded access to MOUD through its opioid treatment networks (OTN), which provide low-barrier access to MOUD in non-traditional settings with an emphasis on buprenorphine and rural locations. The study examined changes in buprenorphine utilization between Medicaid beneficiaries who initiated treatment at OTNs compared to individuals outside OTN facilities and by rural-urban residence.

Differential Changes in Use of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder by Race-Ethnicity: Effects of a Hub-and-Spoke Model

  • This study assessed whether delivery of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment through a hub and spoke (HS) model is associated with better adherence to psychotropic medication treatment, compared to usual treatment. Washington State's HS model required each network to include at least one mental health program, so it was hypothesized that it would improve psychotropic medication adherence for people with both a mental health disorder (MHD) and an OUD.

Treatment for Comorbid Mental Health Disorders Among Patients Treated for Opioid Disorder: The Role of a Hub and Spoke Intervention

  • The research team examined, separately for different racial-ethnic groups, whether use of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) increased more among people treated in a hub-and-spoke care model than among people treated in a non-hub-and-spoke model.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

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

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

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), 2003 (ICPSR 34085)

Released/updated on: 2013-08-05
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, Indiana, United States, Oklahoma, Maine, Utah, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Montana, Hawaii, Kansas, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, Iowa, New Mexico, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland
The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is a state-based system of health surveys that collects information on health risk behaviors, preventive health practices, and health care access primarily related to chronic disease and injury. For many states, the BRFSS is the only available source of timely, accurate data on health-related behaviors. BRFSS was established in 1984 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); currently data are collected monthly in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and Guam. More than 350,000 adults are interviewed each year, making the BRFSS the largest telephone health survey in the world. States use BRFSS data to identify emerging health problems, establish and track health objectives, and develop and evaluate public health policies and programs. The BRFSS is a cross-sectional telephone survey conducted by state health departments with technical and methodologic assistance provided by CDC. States conduct monthly telephone surveillance using a standardized questionnaire to determine the distribution of risk behaviors and health practices among adults. Responses are forwarded to CDC, where the monthly data are aggregated for each state, returned with standard tabulations, and published at the year's end by each state. The BRFSS questionnaire was developed jointly by CDC's Behavioral Surveillance Branch (BSB) and the states. When combined with mortality and morbidity statistics, these data enable public health officials to establish policies and priorities and to initiate and assess health promotion strategies.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), United States, 2017 (ICPSR 37989)

Released/updated on: 2023-07-10
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, United States, Guam

The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is a system of health-related telephone surveys that collect state data about U.S. residents regarding their health-related risk behaviors, chronic health conditions, and use of preventive services. Established in 1984 with 15 states, BRFSS now collects data in all 50 states as well as the District of Columbia and three U.S. territories. BRFSS completes more than 400,000 adult interviews each year.

Curated

Biobot Wastewater High Risk Substances Pilot, United States, 2023-2024 (ICPSR 39733)

Released/updated on: 2026-06-03
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2023-01-01--2024-01-01
This dataset contains concentrations of specific chemical compounds found in wastewater from locations throughout the United States of America. Sampling was conducted from the fall of 2023 for approximately one year as part of the National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA) 2023 Pilot program. Concentrations were ascertained via LC-MS/MS protocols developed by Biobot Analytics. Parent compounds are broken down into their metabolites upon ingestion and excretion. Both parent compounds and their metabolites are found in wastewater and concentrations for both groups are included in this dataset.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Boys Town Study of Youth Development, United States, mid-1970s (ICPSR 34595)

Released/updated on: 2025-12-03
Geographic coverage: Iowa, United States, Nebraska
The Boys Town Study of Youth Development surveyed 3,065 students in junior high and high schools in the Midwestern United States (predominantly in Nebraska and Iowa) in the mid-1970s. The study focused on adolescent substance use and deviant behavior, school aspirations, and parental and friendship relationships. Additional topics included opinions toward, influences for or against, and legal ramifications of substance use, drug/alcohol education programs and the availability and perceived difficulty in obtaining drugs and or alcohol. Respondents were asked whether they had used tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, stimulants, depressants, and stronger drugs such as narcotics and psychedelics, the frequency and quantity of use, effects they felt using a substance for the first time, and the usual effects they felt if used more than once. Those who had never used any substances were asked about their perceived effects of use. Delinquent behavior engaged in by the respondents such as truancy issues, running away from home, and theft, as well as behavior while under the influence of substances such as fighting, being stopped by the police, and being in an accident were also asked about. A cohort-based school design was used to tap different ages and developmental periods. Special attention was paid to the use of illicit substances and general deviance in the contexts of criminological theory (particularly social control and learning theory). Demographic information includes age, sex, religion, religiosity, grade point average, and grade level.
Curated

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

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

California Families Project [Sacramento and Woodland, California] [Restricted-Use Files] (ICPSR 35476)

Released/updated on: 2017-03-08
Geographic coverage: Sacramento, United States, California
Time period: 2006-01-01--2007-01-01

The California Families Project (CFP) is an ongoing longitudinal study of Mexican origin families in Northern California. This study uses community, school, family, and individual characteristics to examine developmental pathways that increase risk for and resilience to drug use in Mexican-origin youth. This study also examines the impact that economic disadvantage and cultural traditions have in Mexican-origin youth. The CFP includes a community-based sample of 674 families and children of Mexican origin living in Northern California, and includes annual assessments of parents and children. Participants with Mexican surnames were drawn at random from school rosters of students during the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school year. Data collection included multi-method assessments of a broad range of psychological, familial, scholastic, cultural, and neighborhood factors. Initiation of the research at age 10 was designed to assess the focal children before the onset of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use, thus enabling the evaluation of how hypothesized risk and resilience mechanisms operate to exacerbate early onset during adolescence or help prevent its occurrence. This study includes a diversity of families that represent a wide range of incomes, education, family history, and family structures, including two-parent and single-parent families.

The accompanying data file consists of 674 family cases with each case representing a focal child and at least one parent (Two-parent: n=549, 82 percent; Single-parent: n=125, 18 percent). Of the 3,139 total variables, 839 pertain to the focal child, 1,376 correspond to the mother, and 908 items pertain to the father.

Please note: While the California Families Project is a longitudinal study, only the baseline data are currently available in this data collection.

Curated
Partially restricted

CARE Corrections: Technology for Jail HIV/HCV Testing, Linkage, and Care (TLC), Washington, DC, 2012-2014 (ICPSR 39784)

Released/updated on: 2026-04-22
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United Kingdom
Time period: 2012-01-01--2014-01-01

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

The main project of the CARE+ Corrections study is in Washington DC and is a RCT evaluating the "CARE+ Corrections intervention (a computerized tool integrating HIV treatment counseling, secondary transmission risk reduction counseling, and facilitated linkage to care through text message reminders)" versus standard of care among returning citizens in Washington, DC. The study is recruiting 100 participants who are incarcerated or were released from a correctional facility less than 6 months ago.

Curated

CDC WONDER (ICPSR 128)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-08
Geographic coverage: United States
CDC WONDER is the online public information health system created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It provides a single point of access to a wide variety of CDC reports, guidelines, and numeric public health data. With it, one can search for and retrieve MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) articles and Prevention Guidelines published by the CDC, as well as query dozens of numeric datasets on CDC's mainframe and other computers via "fill-in-the blank" request screens. Public-use datasets about mortality, cancer incidence, hospital discharges, AIDS, behavioral risk factors, diabetes, and many other topics are available for query, and the requested data can be readily summarized and analyzed.
Curated
Partially restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched Data [United States] (ICPSR 27543)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27541) and the JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 2000-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27542) that were matched on the facility identifier to create one data file. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Each record in the concatenated matched data file provides information about the juvenile and also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held from both the CJRP and JRFC collections. Therefore, these data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date are included in this file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not be included in this concatenated matched file. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Partially restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched Facility-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27544)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP) AND JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED MATCHED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27543) that were aggregated to the facility level. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the concatenated matched data file (ICPSR 27543) were aggregated to the facility level. Therefore, the CJRP/JRFC concatenated matched facility-level data provide information about the characteristics of the facility from both the CJRP and JRFC collections and the juvenile population held in that facility from the CJRP collection. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date are included in this file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not be included in this concatenated matched facility-level file. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Partially restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched State-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27545)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP) AND JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED MATCHED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27543) that were aggregated to the state level. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the concatenated matched data file (ICPSR 27543) were aggregated to the state level. Therefore, the CJRP/JRFC concatenated matched state-level data provide information about the characteristics of juvenile residential facilities in the state from both the CJRP and JRFC collections and the juvenile population held in these facilities from the CJRP collection. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date were included in the concatenated matched file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not have been included in the file used for the aggregation. Variables providing United States Census population data and upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction were also added. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Partially restricted

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community Health Center: Core Data Project, 2001-2002 [United States] (ICPSR 21520)

Released/updated on: 2023-12-13
Geographic coverage: Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, New Hampshire
Time period: 2001-01-01--2002-01-01
A survey was administered to any patient that presented for services at a health center between 2001 and 2002. Patients were asked to complete a brief survey with questions relating to demographic, relationship status, reason for choosing this health center, mental health status, and abuse history.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

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

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

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

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

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

Curated

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

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