Search results

Showing 1 – 50 of 77 results.
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
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
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
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
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
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

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): Inmate Pre-Release Assessment (IPASS), 2001 [United States] (ICPSR 29201)

Released/updated on: 2011-01-06
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, New Mexico, California, Maryland
Time period: 2001-05-01--2001-07-01
The UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs (ISAP), in conjunction with Texas Christian University, the University of Kentucky, and Brown University, proposes to develop and test the Inmate Pre-Release Assessment (IPASS) as a method of (1) prioritizing aftercare treatment need among graduates of prison-based substance abuse treatment programs, and (2) specifying an appropriate level of care (residential, outpatient, or self-help groups). The IPASS was developed specifically as a post-release risk measure for prison-based substance abuse treatment graduates by taking into account the inmates' historical drug use and criminal activity, as well as his or her performance during the prison-based treatment program. IPASS forms were administered to inmates housed in 14 institutions in four states: California, Maryland, New Mexico, and Oregon. While the IPASS has demonstrated sound psychometric properties as a continuous measure of post-release risk and general treatment need for substance-abusing parolees (Farabee & Knight, 2001), its ability to predict relapse and recidivism risk has not been tested using a prospective design. Part 1 of this study is the main part which is based on the IPASS Intake Form (479) and is designed to provide a quick assessment of criminal risk based on pre-incarceration risk factors. The first part of this form focuses heavily on criminal history, with questions about arrest and incarceration history, revocation history, and age of first criminal activity. It also asks about education level achieved, marital status and happiness, and friends drug use. The next part on the IPASS Intake Form (479) is designed to provide a quick screen for pre-incarceration drug use severity. It is based on the first ten items of the TCU Drug Screen II with the items corresponding to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) classification criteria for Drug Dependence. And the last part of the IPASS Intake form begins by asking inmates if they want to enter a drug treatment program after leaving prison; and if so, which treatment modality is preferred. Inmates were asked to indicate how much they disagree or agree with nine items pertaining to their interactions with the treatment staff. These items include the treatment staff being easy to talk to, easy to understand, listening to you, organized and prepared, treating you with respect, helping you solve problems, supportive of your progress, helping you with your recovery, and happy with your progress. Part 2 of the study mainly focused on arrest information and the number of criminal activities. Part 3 of the study is based on the IPASS Continuing Care Referral Form (484) and begins by asking inmates if they want to enter a drug treatment program after leaving prison; and if so, which treatment modality is preferred. Part 4 of the study is based on the IPASS Continuing Care Admit/Discharge Form (481A) and provides information regarding the Admission and Discharge of the inmates. And finally, Part 5 of the study is completed by the inmates' primary counselor and begins by recording the number of "major" disciplinary acts an inmate committed prior to and during their time at the treatment program.
Curated

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): National Criminal Justice Treatment Program (NCJTP) Survey in the United States, 2002-2008 (ICPSR 27382)

Released/updated on: 2010-08-09
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
Time period: 2002-01-01--2008-01-01
The National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices (NCJTP) Survey provides a comprehensive inquiry into the nature of programs and services provided to adult and juvenile offenders involved in the justice system in the United States. Participants included key criminal justice administrators, operations managers, and staff. This survey was conducted in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey involved a myriad of state, regional, and local organizations employing a mix of their own staff and contracted personnel, and services that might involve multiple levels of government. It was a self-administrated, paper-and-pencil questionnaire. The methodology included a multilevel approach that captured the perspective of executives, front-line administrators, and line staff about current practices in a range of institutional and community correctional settings for adults and juveniles. The goals for this survey were: to describe current drug treatment practices, policies, and delivery systems for offenders on probation or parole supervision, and in jails, prisons, and youth institutions; to examine agency structures, resources, and other organizational factors that may affect service delivery, including mission, leadership, climate, culture, and beliefs about rehabilitation versus punishment; and to assess coordination and integration across criminal justice agencies and between corrections and treatment systems. Items in the survey included: respondent characteristics, organizational characteristics, correctional programs characteristics (e.g., size, nature, etc.), substance abuse treatment programs characteristics, social networks/agencies collaboration, integration of services with other agencies, attitudes toward punishment and rehabilitation (personal values), organizational needs assessment, organizational culture and climate for treatment, cynicism toward change, organizational commitment to treatment, and perspectives on intradepartmental coordination.
Curated
Restricted

Detroit [Michigan] Neighborhood Health Study, 2008-2013 (ICPSR 37038)

Released/updated on: 2021-10-07
Geographic coverage: Detroit, United States, Michigan
Time period: 2008-01-01--2009-01-01, 2009-01-01--2010-01-01, 2010-01-01--2011-01-01, 2011-01-01--2012-01-01

The Detroit Neighborhood Health Study (DNHS) is a prospective, representative longitudinal cohort study of predominantly African American adults living in Detroit, Michigan. The main purpose of the study was to determine the predictive effects of ecological stressors, such as income distribution and residential segregation, on the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance use, and other psychological and behavioral outcomes. An additional purpose was to study the interrelationships between ecological stressors, exposure to potentially traumatic events (PTEs), PTSD, substance use, and immune function. The study team hypothesized that exposure to ecological stressors would influence the risk of PTE exposure, PTSD, substance use, other psychological outcomes, and the relationships between these factors.

The current collection includes data from all 5 waves of the study. Cohort participants were initially recruited in 2008 with a dual-frame probability design, using telephone numbers obtained from the U.S. Postal Service Delivery Sequence Files as well as a listed-assisted random-digit-dial frame. Individuals without listed landlines or telephones and individuals with only a cell phone listed were invited to participate through a postal mail effort. Participants completed a 40 minute, structured telephone interview annually between 2008-2012 to assess perceptions of participants' neighborhoods, mental and physical health status, social support, exposure to traumatic events, and alcohol and tobacco use. In addition, the study team completed a structured assessment of Detroit's 54 neighborhoods in order to describe the characteristics of respondents' neighborhoods. The assessment included information about the quality of housing exteriors; presence of graffiti, abandoned cars, alcohol and tobacco advertisements, and security warning signs; presence of vacant buildings; and street and traffic noise levels.

All survey participants were offered the opportunity to provide a blood specimen (venipuncture, blood spot, or saliva) for immune and inflammatory marker testing as well as genetic testing of DNA. Participants received an additional $25USD if they elected to give a sample. Informed consent was obtained at the beginning of each interview and again at specimen collection. However, these specimens are not included as part of this data collection.

For more information about the study, please visit the Detroit Neighborhood Health Study website.

Genotypic data from DNHS are available on the NIH database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP).

Curated
Restricted

Drug Use and Cultural Factors Among Hispanic Adolescents and Emerging Adults, Los Angeles, 2006-2016 (ICPSR 36765)

Released/updated on: 2018-10-03
Geographic coverage: United States, Los Angeles, California
Time period: 2006-01-01--2016-01-01

The Drug Use and Cultural Factors Among Hispanic Adolescents and Emerging Adults - Los Angeles, 2006-2016 collection examines the cultural risk and protective factors for substance use among Hispanic adolescents and emerging adults in Southern California. Adolescents were recruited in 9th grade and completed annual surveys about their substance use, acculturation, ethnic identity, cultural stressors, peer and family relationships, and cultural values. They were re-contacted to complete surveys in their early 20s; this survey also included measures of sexual behavior and interpersonal violence.

Demographic variables present in this collection include age, gender, grade in school, ethnicity, country of origin, education level, language spoken, socioeconomic status, marital status, sexual orientation, ZIP code, and place of residence.

Curated
Restricted

Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 10), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38754)

Released/updated on: 2023-11-13
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, and 10.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
Curated
Restricted

Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 2), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38407)

Released/updated on: 2022-07-05
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. This data includes home-based assessments carried out at age 2 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
Curated
Restricted

Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 3), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38745)

Released/updated on: 2023-06-08
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 3 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside of Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson. A list of more than 80 published papers using the data set can be found at www.pitt.edu/ppcl under the Early Steps Publications section.
Curated
Restricted

Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 4), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38748)

Released/updated on: 2023-06-27
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, and 10.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
Curated
Restricted

Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 5), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38749)

Released/updated on: 2023-07-17
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, and 10.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
Curated
Restricted

Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 7), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38751)

Released/updated on: 2023-06-27
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 7.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
Curated
Restricted

Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 8), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38752)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-13
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01

The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, and 10.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.

Curated
Restricted

Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 9), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38753)

Released/updated on: 2023-10-16
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, and 10.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
Curated
Restricted

Early Steps Multisite Study (Condition Files), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38755)

Released/updated on: 2024-01-08
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01

The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, and 10.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternate caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.

The Condition Files refer to feedback and intervention follow-up sessions researchers conducted with "Parent Consultants". Parent consultants were highly trained masters- or doctoral-level clinicians with backgrounds typically in social work, counseling, or clinical psychology, who conducted assessment and feedback sessions with caregivers.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

The Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS), Public Use, United States, 1998-2024 (ICPSR 31622)

Released/updated on: 2026-04-06
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1998-01-01--2024-01-01

The Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS, formerly known as the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study) follows a cohort of nearly 5,000 children born in large, U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000. The study oversampled births to unmarried couples; and, when weighted, the data are representative of births in large U.S. cities at the turn of the century. The FFCWS was originally designed to address four questions of great interest to researchers and policy makers:

  1. What are the conditions and capabilities of unmarried parents, especially fathers?
  2. What is the nature of the relationships between unmarried parents?
  3. How do children born into these families fare?
  4. How do policies and environmental conditions affect families and children?

The FFCWS consists of interviews with mothers, fathers, and/or primary caregivers at birth and again when children are ages 1, 3, 5, 9, 15, and 22. The parent interviews collected information on attitudes, relationships, parenting behavior, demographic characteristics, health (mental and physical), economic and employment status, neighborhood characteristics, and program participation. Beginning at age 9, children were interviewed directly (either during the home visit or on the telephone). The direct child interviews collected data on family relationships, home routines, schools, peers, and physical and mental health, as well as health behaviors.

A collaborative study of the FFCWS, the In-Home Longitudinal Study of Pre-School Aged Children (In-Home Study) collected data from a subset of the FFCWS Core respondents at the Year 3 and 5 follow-ups to ask how parental resources in the form of parental presence or absence, time, and money influence children under the age of 5. The In-Home Study collected information on a variety of domains of the child's environment, including: the physical environment (quality of housing, nutrition and food security, health care, adequacy of clothing and supervision) and parenting (parental discipline, parental attachment, and cognitive stimulation). In addition, the In-Home Study also collected information on several important child outcomes, including anthropometrics, child behaviors, and cognitive ability. This information was collected through interviews with the child's primary caregiver, and direct observation of the child's home environment and the child's interactions with his or her caregiver.

Similar activities were conducted during the Year 9 follow-up. At the Year 15 follow-up, a condensed set of home visit activities were conducted with a subsample of approximately 1,000 teens. Teens who participated in the In-Home Study were also invited to participate in a Sleep Study and were asked to wear an accelerometer on their non-dominant wrist for seven consecutive days to track their sleep (Sleep Actigraphy Data) and that day's behaviors and mood (Daily Sleep Actigraphy and Diary Survey Data).

An additional collaborative study collected data from the child care provider (Year 3) and teacher (Years 9 and 15) through mail-based surveys. Saliva samples were collected at Year 9 and 15 (Biomarker file and Polygenic Scores). The Study of Adolescent Neural Development (SAND) COVID Study began data collection in May 2020 following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It included online surveys with the young adult and their primary caregiver.

The FFCWS began its seventh wave of data collection in October 2020, around the focal child's 22nd birthday. Data collection and interviews continued through January 2024. The Year 22 wave included a young adult (YA) survey with the original focal child and a primary caregiver (PCG) survey. Data were also collected on the children of the original focal child (referred to as Generation 3, or G3).

In 2017, the FFCWS team announced the Fragile Families (FF) Challenge, a collaborative effort in which participants were tasked with using machine learning methods and FFCWS data (Baseline to Year 9) to build a model that would predict six key outcomes at Year 15. Materials used in the FF Challenge have been archived in this collection.

Documentation for these files is available on the FFCWS website under Data and Documentation. For details of updates made to the FFCWS data files, please see the project's Data Alerts page.

Data collection for the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers R01HD36916, R01HD39135, and R01HD40421, as well as a consortium of private foundations.

Below is the citation for use of the FFCWS data accessed through ICPSR. For information on additional citation requirements when using FFCWS in publications, please refer to this FAQ on the FFCWS project site.

Curated
Restricted

Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study, 1997 (ICPSR 3163)

Released/updated on: 2020-01-30
Geographic coverage: United States
This study resurveyed colleges that participated in the HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH COLLEGE ALCOHOL STUDY, 1993 (ICPSR 6577). As in the 1993 survey, this survey focused on alcohol use and alcohol problems among undergraduate college students. The survey collected information on students' use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs, views on campus alcohol policies and student alcohol use, reasons for drinking alcohol and reasons for not drinking or limiting drinking, and personal difficulties caused by drinking problems (e.g., missed classes, injury, and trouble with police). Additional topics covered by the survey include overall health status, daily activities, satisfaction with education being received, grade-point average, living arrangements, social life, sexual activity, use of condoms during sexual intercourse, date rape, drunk driving, and attendance in meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, Alanon, Adult Children of Alcoholics, and Narcotics Anonymous. Background variables include age, sex, marital status, religion, mother's and father's drinking habits, race, and Hispanic origin.
Curated
Restricted

Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study, 1999 (ICPSR 3818)

Released/updated on: 2020-01-30
Geographic coverage: United States
This survey interviewed students at colleges that participated in the first two rounds of the HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH COLLEGE ALCOHOL STUDY, which were conducted in 1993 and 1997 (ICPSR 6577 and 3163). As in the previous surveys, the 1999 survey focused on alcohol use and alcohol problems among undergraduate college students. The survey collected information on students' use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs, views on campus alcohol policies and student alcohol use, reasons for drinking alcohol and reasons for not drinking or limiting drinking, and personal difficulties caused by drinking problems (e.g., missed classes, trouble with police, and health problems). Additional topics covered by the survey include overall health status, daily activities, satisfaction with education being received, grade-point average, living arrangements, social life, sexual activity (heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual), use of condoms during sexual intercourse, date rape, drunk driving, and attendance in meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous. Background variables include age, height, weight, sex, marital status, religion, mother's and father's education, mother's and father's drinking habits, race, and Hispanic origin.
Curated
Restricted

Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study, 2001 (ICPSR 4291)

Released/updated on: 2008-02-05
Geographic coverage: United States
The Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study (CAS), a multi-round survey that interviewed students in four-year colleges, examined key issues in alcohol abuse and other high risk behaviors among college students, including the relationship of state alcohol control measures and college policies to alcohol use and the role of fraternities and sororities, easy access to alcohol, and low alcohol prices. As in the previous rounds of CAS, which were conducted in 1993 (ICPSR 6577), 1997 (ICPSR 3163), and 1999 (ICPSR 3818), this round collected information on students' use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs, views on campus alcohol policies and student alcohol use, reasons for drinking alcohol and reasons for not drinking or limiting drinking, and personal difficulties caused by drinking problems (e.g., missed classes and trouble with police). Additional topics covered by the survey include overall health status, daily activities, satisfaction with education being received, grade-point average, living arrangements, social life, sexual activity (heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual), use of condoms during sexual intercourse, rape, and drunk driving. Background variables include age, height, weight, sex, marital status, religion, mother's and father's education, mother's and father's drinking habits, race, and Hispanic origin.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Health and Ways of Living Study, 1965 Panel: [Alameda County, California] (ICPSR 6688)

Released/updated on: 2013-12-04
Geographic coverage: United States, California
The purpose of this survey was to explore the influence of health practices and social relationships on the physical and mental health of a typical sample of the population in Alameda County, California. The information obtained for the 6,928 respondents (including approximately 500 women aged 65 years and older) covers chronic health conditions, health behaviors, social involvements, and psychological characteristics. Questions were asked about marital and life satisfaction, parenting, physical activities, employment, and childhood experiences. Demographic variables include data on respondetns' age, race, height, weight, education, income, and religion.
Curated

Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS), 2007 (ICPSR 25262)

Released/updated on: 2009-06-23
Geographic coverage: United States
The Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) collects nationally representative data about the American public's access to and use of cancer-related information. The 2007 HINTS survey is the third in an ongoing biannual series and provides information on the changing patterns, needs, and behavior in seeking and supplying cancer information and explores how cancer risks are perceived. Respondents were asked about the ways in which they obtained health information, their use of health care services, their views about medical information and research, and their beliefs about cancer. A series of questions specifically addressed cervical cancer, colon cancer, and the Human Papillomavirus (HPV). Information was also collected on physical and mental health status, diet, physical activity, sun exposure, history of cancer, tobacco use, and whether respondents had health insurance. Demographic variables include sex, age, race, education level, employment status, marital status, household income, number of people living in the household, ownership of residence, and whether respondents were born in the United States.
Curated
Restricted

Individualized Assessment and Treatment for Marijuana Dependence: Treatment Mechanisms, United States, 2013-2016 (ICPSR 39044)

Released/updated on: 2024-08-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2013-07-01--2016-10-15

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the US, but treatment for marijuana dependence is not fully effective. The most effective treatments to date have employed motivational enhancement (MET) plus cognitive-behavioral coping skills treatment (CB) and contingency management (CM) for abstinence. This study was intended to deliver a treatment to enhance coping and self-efficacy to improve marijuana outcomes in the long term. Researchers are explored the idea that more tailored teaching of coping skills may result in improved outcomes for marijuana-dependence than those seen thus far. The Individualized Assessment and Treatment Program (IATP) for marijuana dependent patients employed experience sampling (ES) to determine the strengths and weaknesses of each patient in drug-use situations so that treatment could be tailored accordingly.

Participants were 198 men and women meeting criteria for marijuana dependence and randomly assigned to 9 sessions of treatment in one of 4 treatment conditions: Standardized MET plus CB (SMET-CB); SMET+ CM (SMET-CB-CM); IATP; or IATP + CM (IATP-CM). Patients in all treatments engaged in ES via cell-phone for two weeks prior to treatment, for a weekly period during treatment, for another week after treatment has ended, and for two weekly periods at months 8 and 14. In the IATP conditions, the information gathered from the pretreatment and during-treatment ES periods provided data for a functional analysis of patients' drug use and urges to use. Therapists used the information to address specific cognitions, affects, and behaviors that were adaptive and maladaptive, and tailored a specific coping skills program with the patient. During-treatment experience sampling allowed monitoring of the treatment goals and procedures, making the treatment adaptive. In the SMET-CB conditions the experience sampling data were not used in therapy, but still provides in-vivo measures of drug use and coping skills.

It was hypothesized that IATP conditions would yield significantly better coping skills acquisition than SMET-CB conditions, both at posttreatment and at extended follow-ups, and that change in coping skills would predict better outcomes for the IATP conditions. It was further predicted that the addition of CM to both IATP and SMET-CB would enhance short-term and long-term outcomes. The results would have implications for improved tailoring of treatment to patients' strength and deficits, and for the validity of the training of coping skills for cannabis relapse prevention. The data collected will shed light on the ways in which patients in treatment use coping skills in real-time contexts. Finally, the use of repeated ES periods will allow researchers to determine how treatment impacts thoughts, feelings and behaviors, and how these in turn affect outcome in the long and short term.

Curated
Restricted

Integrated Public Health Surveys, 2010-2011 (ICPSR 33822)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2010-01-01--2011-01-01

This collection comprises a single data file which was produced as part of the data harmonization efforts of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The file contains merged data from five sources:

  1. 2010 National Profile of Local Health Departments, a survey of local health departments conducted by the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO).

  2. 2011 National Profile Survey of Local Boards of Health, a survey of local boards of health conducted by the National Association of Local Boards of Health (NALBOH).

  3. 2010 State and Territorial Public Health Survey, a survey of state and United States territory health departments conducted by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO).

  4. 2011 County Health Rankings, a compilation of county-level health measures and within-state county health rankings produced by the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute.

  5. 2010 Census Demographic Profile Summary File, a series of tables with housing and population data from the 2010 Census.

Produced by matching data from the last four sources to the NACCHO data, the data file contains one case for each of the 2,107 local health departments (LHD) that responded to the NACCHO survey. Each LHD's record in the file includes the ASTHO data for its state health department and the NALBOH data for its local board of health (LBH), if it had a LBH and the LBH responded to the NALBOH survey. (If a LHD had multiple LBHs, then the first one in the NALBOH data was matched to the LHD). In addition, county (or county equivalent)-level data from the County Health Rankings and Census Demographic Profile Summary File were matched to the records of the 1,535 LHDs represented in the data file with a jurisdiction covering a single county or county equivalent.

Curated
Restricted

The Iowa Adoption Studies, 1975-2008 (ICPSR 34369)

Released/updated on: 2020-11-09
Geographic coverage: Iowa, United States
Time period: 1975-01-01--2008-01-01

The Iowa Adoption Studies were conducted between 1975 and 2008. The group of studies consist of 5 independent waves of data collection each of which examined genetic (biological) and environmental influences on psychopathology. The adoption paradigm allowed separation of genetic and environmental influences on behavior, as well as joint influences due to gene x environment interaction. Adoptees were interviewed about lifetime psychopathology including substance abuse and dependence, antisocial personality, and mood disorders. A follow-up study was conducted from 2000-2004 that recruited all previous participants and natural offspring of the adoptive parents when available. Standardized psychiatric assessments were administered along with measures of personality disorders and traits, retrospective reports on childhood experiences with adoptive parents, and current symptomatology. An extensive neurocognitive assessment was conducted on a subset of participants who had standardized school achievement scores. The goal of this last wave of assessment was to evaluate the influence of substance use on mid-life cognition and health.

The respondents were assessed using a number of different surveys over the study period. The following describes the notable variables as well as descriptions of the surveys included in the dataset.

The first variables in the dataset identify sibling pairs and provides data on whether the respondents' biological parents suffered from mental health or substance abuse issues. Next birth records are provided that give basic information about the health of the person when he or she was born. This information is followed by the survey results of "The Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality" (SNAP) as well as variables that reflect the diagnosis of personality disorders and nonadaptive personality traits based on the SNAP survey responses.

The next section includes responses from "The Iowa Personality Disorder Screen," a quick personality disorder screen developed in 1999 intended for use in clinical and research settings.

Next, responses to Pearson Assessments "Brief symptoms inventory" are included as well as the scores calculated based on these survey responses. The results of this survey assess the mental state of the patient including scales on Somatization, Obsessive-Compulsive, Interpersonal Sensitivity, Depression, Anxiety, Hostility, Phobic Anxiety, Paranoid Ideation and Psychoticism.

The respondents also completed the "Buss-Durkee Hostility Questionnaire" and were assessed on measure regarding the following hostility traits: negativism, resentment, indirect hostility, assault, suspicion, irritability and verbal hostility.

Reponses to the "The Social Provisions Scale" survey are also included. The purpose of this survey is to assess the relationship the respondents have to other people. The 6 social provisions assessed include: guidance, reliable alliance, reassurance of worth, attachment, social integration, and opportunity for nurturance.

"The Parental Bonding Instrument" instrument was utilized to assess the respondents' relationships to their mothers and fathers.

A series of cognitive tests were administered to respondents. ICPSR is unable to provide the survey instruments used in the cognitive test due to copy write issues. These tests include:

Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT)

North American Adult Reading Test (NAART)

Rey Figure and Rey Complex Figure Test and Recognition Trial (RCFT)

Shipley Institute of Living Scale (SILS)

Stroop Color and Word Test (SCWT)

Tower of Hanoi (TofH)

Comprehensive Trailmaking Test (CTMT)

Weschler Adult Intelligence Test (WAIS)

Weschler Memory Test (WMS)

The dataset also includes respondents' results of the Comprehensive Performance Test (CPT) and the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT)

Scores from the "Iowa Test of Basic Skills," a test of academic achievement that evaluates students knowledge in subjects including, mathematics, reading comprehension, and science, are included in the dataset. Respondents are evaluated in grades 4, 8 and 11.

The final section of the dataset includes two waves of the "Semi Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism," a survey intended to assess the physical, psychological, and social manifestations of alcohol abuse. These survey responses make up the bulk of the dataset and include variables on a variety of topics including: demographics, medical history, substance use, eating disorders, depression, dysthymia, mania, ASP, suicide, PTSD, generalized anxiety disorder, OCD, social phobia, agoraphobia, panic disorder, home environment, gambling, and ADHD. Substances use investigated includes alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, sedatives, stimulants, cocaine, opiates, solvents, hallucinogens, and other drugs.

This dataset includes 934 cases and 9,370 variables.

Curated
Restricted

Iowa Youth and Families Project, 1989-1992 (ICPSR 26721)

Released/updated on: 2011-11-03
Geographic coverage: Iowa, United States
Time period: 1989-01-01--1992-01-01

This data collection contains the first four waves of the Iowa Youth and Families Project (IYFP), conducted in 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992. The Iowa Youth and Families Project was developed from an initial sample of 451 7th graders from two-parent families in rural Iowa. The study was merged with the Iowa Single Parent Project (ISPP) to form the Iowa Family Transitions Project in 1994, when the target youth were seniors in high school. Survey data were collected from the target child (7th grader), a sibling within four years of age of the target child, and both parents. Field interviewers visited families at their homes on several occasions to administer questionnaires and videotape interaction tasks including family discussion tasks, family problem-solving tasks, sibling interaction tasks, and marital interaction tasks.

The Household Data files contain information about the family's financial situation, involvement in farming, and demographic information about household members.

The Parent and the Child Survey Data files contain responses to survey questions about the quality and stability of family relationships, emotional, physical, and behavioral problems of individual family members, parent-child conflict, family problem-solving skills, social and financial support from outside the home, traumatic life experiences, alcohol, drug, and tobacco use, and opinions on topics such as abortion, parenting, and gender roles. In addition, the Child Survey Data files include responses collected from the target child and his or her sibling in the study about experiences with puberty, dating, sexual activity, and risk-taking behavior.

The Problem-Solving Data files contain survey data collected from respondents about the family interactions tasks.

The Observational Data files contain the interviewers' observations collected during these tasks.

Demographic variables include sex, age, employment status, occupation, income, home ownership, religious preference, frequency of religious attendance, as well as the ages and sex of all household members and their relationship to the head of household. Demographic information collected on the parents also includes their birth order within their family, the ages and political philosophy of their parents, the sex, age, education level, and occupation of their siblings, and the country of origin of their ancestors.

Curated
Restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000-2010 -- Concatenated Data [United States] (ICPSR 27542)

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
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. 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. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000-2010 -- Concatenated State-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27546)

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 JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 2000-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27542) that were aggregated to the state level. The JRFC collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bed space in the facility to indicate whether the facility is experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. 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. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the JRFC concatenated data file (ICPSR 27542) were aggregated to the state level and variables providing United States Census population data and upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction were added. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000 [United States] (ICPSR 4672)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
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
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2000, 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. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2002 [United States] (ICPSR 23520)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
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
Time period: 2002-10-31--2003-04-15
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2002, the JRFC used two modules to collect information on the substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2004 [United States] (ICPSR 25282)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
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
Time period: 2005-02-06--2005-06-29
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2004, the JRFC used two modules to collect information on the physical health and educational services provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2006 [United States] (ICPSR 25981)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-11
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
Time period: 2007-03-02--2007-11-30
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2006, 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. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2008 [United States] (ICPSR 34402)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-11
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
Time period: 2008-10-26--2009-06-24
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2010 [United States] (ICPSR 34449)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-11
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, 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
Time period: 2011-01-21--2011-05-12
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2010, the JRFC used three modules to collect information on the educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Restricted

Mental and Substance Use Disorders Prevalence Study (MDPS), United States, 2020-2022 (ICPSR 38953)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2019-10-01--2022-10-01
The Mental and Substance Use Disorders Prevalence Study (MDPS) is a pilot program designed to estimate the prevalence of specific mental and substance use disorders among U.S. adults 18-65 years of age. The MDPS is also designed to estimate the percentage of individuals with these specific mental and substance use disorders who receive treatment. The study is funded by SAMHSA. To estimate the prevalence of specific mental and substance use disorders, the MDPS design addresses two gaps in prior general population survey efforts: (1) the exclusion of institutionalized populations at high risk for disorders, and (2) the reliance on nonclinical or screening scales to estimate mental and substance use disorders. The specific disorders of interest measured in the MDPS are past 12-month and lifetime schizophrenia spectrum disorders (defined as including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or schizophreniform), past 12-month bipolar I disorder, major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), obsessive-compulsive disorder, anorexia nervosa, and past 12-month alcohol, opioid, cannabis, stimulant, and sedative/hypnotic/anxiolytic use disorders. The MDPS sample included individuals residing in the residential household population and in three non-household populations: state/federal prisons, state psychiatric hospitals, and homeless shelters. The MDPS also utilizes the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID-5; First et al., 2015), delivered by trained mental health clinicians, which is the gold standard for mental and substance use disorder diagnostic assessment. The MDPS was a cooperative agreement between RTI International and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 1), 1995-1996 (ICPSR 2760)

Released/updated on: 2020-09-28
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1995-01-01--1996-01-01

The Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) is a collaborative, interdisciplinary investigation of patterns, predictors, and consequences of midlife development in the areas of physical health, psychological well-being, and social responsibility. A description of the study and findings from it are available at http://www.midus.wisc.edu.

The first wave of the MIDUS study (MIDUS 1 or M1) collected survey data from a total of 7,108 participants. The baseline sample was comprised of individuals from four subsamples: (1) a national RDD (random digit dialing) sample (n=3,487); (2) oversamples from five metropolitan areas in the U.S. (n=757); (3) siblings of individuals from the RDD sample (n=950); and (4) a national RDD sample of twin pairs (n=1,914). All eligible participants were non-institutionalized, English-speaking adults in the coterminous United States, aged 25 to 74.

Data from the samples were collected primarily in 1995/96. The survey (Project 1) dataset contains responses from a 30-minute Phone interview and two 50-page Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ) instruments. Of the 7,108 respondents who completed the Phone interview, 6,325 also completed the SAQ.

This updated version of the study is comprised of three primary datasets:

Dataset 1, Main, Siblings, and Twin Data, contains responses from the main survey of 7,108 respondents. Respondents were asked to provide extensive information on their physical and mental health throughout their adult lives, and to assess the ways in which their lifestyles, including relationships and work-related demands, contributed to the conditions experienced. Those queried were asked to describe their histories of physical ailments, including heart-related conditions and cancer, as well as the treatment and/or lifestyle changes they went through as a result. A series of questions addressed alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drug use, and focused on history of use, regularity of use, attempts to quit, and how the use of those substances affected respondents' physical and mental well-being. Additional questions addressed respondents' sense of control over their health, their awareness of changes in their medical conditions, commitment to regular exercise and a healthy diet, experience with menopause, the decision-making process used to deal with health concerns, experiences with nontraditional remedies or therapies, and history of attending support groups. Respondents were asked to compare their overall well-being with that of their peers and to describe social, physical, and emotional characteristics typical of adults in their 20's, 40's, and 60's. Information on the work histories of respondents and their significant others was also elicited, with items covering the nature of their occupations, work-related physical and emotional demands, and how their personal health had correlated to their jobs. An additional series of questions focusing on childhood queried respondents regarding the presence/absence of their parents, religion, rules/punishments, love/affection, physical/verbal abuse, and the quality of their relationships with their parents and siblings. Respondents were also asked to consider their personal feelings of accomplishment, desire to learn, sense of control over their lives, interests, and hopes for the future.

The Datasets previously numbered 2 and 3 have been removed to avoid redundancies, and all datasets have been renumbered. Please refer to the readme file.

Dataset 2, Twin Screener Data, provides the first national sample of twin pairs ascertained randomly via the telephone.

Dataset 3, Coded Text Responses, describes how open-ended textual responses in the MIDUS 1 Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) and Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ) were transformed into categorical numeric codes. These codes are included in a stand-alone dataset containing only those cases (N=3,950) that contained text data in their responses.

Online Analysis Only: Datasets 1, 2, and 3 were merged together by the SU_ID variable to form "Merged Data with Weights (Online Analysis Only)" (Dataset 4) for online analysis capabilities.

MIDUS also maintains a Colectica portal, which allows users to interact with variables across waves and create customized subsets. Registration is required.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 2), 2004-2006 (ICPSR 4652)

Released/updated on: 2021-09-15
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2004-01-01--2006-01-01

In 1995-1996, the MacArthur Midlife Research Network carried out a national survey of 7,108 Americans aged 25 to 74 (MIDLIFE IN THE UNITED STATES (MIDUS), 1995-1996 [ICPSR 2760]). The purpose of the study was to investigate the role of behavioral, psychological, and social factors in understanding age-related differences in physical and mental health. The study was innovative for its broad scientific scope, its diverse samples (which included twins and the siblings of main sample respondents), and its creative use of in-depth assessments in key areas (e.g., daily stress and cognitive functioning). A description of the study and findings from it are available at http://www.midus.wisc.edu. With support from the National Institute on Aging, a longitudinal follow-up of the original MIDUS samples: core sample (N = 3,487), metropolitan over-samples (N = 757), twins (N = 925 complete pairs), and siblings (N = 950), was conducted in 2004-2006. Guiding hypotheses for it, at the most general level, were that behavioral and psychosocial factors are consequential for physical and mental health. MIDUS 2 respondents were aged 35 to 86. Data collection largely repeated baseline assessments (e.g., phone interview and extensive self-administered questionnaire), with additional questions in selected areas (e.g., cognitive functioning, optimism and coping, stressful life events, and caregiving). To add refinements to MIDUS 2, an African American sample (N = 592) was recruited from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who participated in a personal interview and completed a questionnaire paralleling the above assessments. Survey data for the Milwaukee sample are available in a separate project [ICPSR 22840]. Also administered was a modified form of the mail questionnaire, via telephone, to respondents who did not complete a self-administered questionnaire.

Curated
Restricted

Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 2): Milwaukee African American Sample, 2005-2006 (ICPSR 22840)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-26
Geographic coverage: Milwaukee, United States, Wisconsin
Time period: 2005-01-01--2006-01-01
As a refinement to Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 2), 2004-2006 (ICPSR 4652), a sample of African Americans from Milwaukee was included to examine health issues in minority populations. Areas of the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, were stratified according to the proportion of the population that were African American. Those areas with high concentrations were sampled at higher rates than areas with lower concentrations. Area probability sampling methods were used along with population counts from the 2000 United States Census to identify potential respondents. Field interviewers screened households to determine if they contained any African American adults. There was additional screening to achieve an appropriate age/gender distribution in a manner similar to what was done for the original MIDUS sample Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 1), 1995-1996 (ICPSR 2760). Milwaukee respondents were interviewed in their homes using a Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) protocol and afterwards asked to complete a Self-Administered Questionnaire (SAQ). All measures paralleled those used in the larger MIDUS 1 and 2 samples. After successful completion of the Project 1 survey, some participants were eligible to participate in other MIDUS projects (2 through 5). Survey data was collected for 592 individuals.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Midlife in the United States (MIDUS 3), 2013-2014 (ICPSR 36346)

Released/updated on: 2019-04-30
Geographic coverage: Contiguous United States
Time period: 2013-05-01--2014-11-01

In 1995-1996, the MacArthur Midlife Research Network carried out a national survey of over 7,000 Americans aged 25 to 74 [ICPSR 2760]. The purpose of the study was to investigate the role of behavioral, psychological, and social factors in understanding age-related differences in physical and mental health. The study was innovative for its broad scientific scope, its diverse samples (which included siblings of the main sample respondents and a national sample of twin pairs), and its creative use of in-depth assessments in key areas (e.g. daily diary of stressful experiences [ICPSR 3725] and cognitive functioning [ICPSR 3596]) on a subset of participants. A detailed description of the study and findings generated by it are available at: http://www.midus.wisc.edu

With support from the National Institute on Aging, a follow-up of the original Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS) sample was conducted in 2004 (MIDUS 2 [ICPSR 4652]). The daily stress and cognitive functioning projects were repeated and expanded at MIDUS 2; in addition the protocol was expanded to include biomarkers and neuroscience.

In 2013 a third wave (MIDUS 3) of survey data was collected on longitudinal participants. Data collection for this follow-up wave largely repeated baseline assessments (e.g., phone interview and extensive self-administered questionnaire), with additional questions in selected areas such as economic recession experiences. Cognitive functioning data were also collected at the same time, while data collection for the daily diary, biomarker, and neuroscience projects commenced in 2017.

MIDUS also maintains a Colectica portal, which allows users to interact with variables across waves and create customized subsets. Registration is required.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Midlife in the United States (MIDUS Refresher 1), 2011-2014 (ICPSR 36532)

Released/updated on: 2025-09-17
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2008-01-01--2009-01-01, 2011-01-01--2014-01-01

In 2011-2014, the MIDUS Refresher study recruited a national probability sample of 3,577 adults, aged 25 to 74, designed to replenish the original MIDUS 1 baseline cohort and paralleling the five decadal age groups of the MIDUS 1 baseline survey [ICPSR 2760]. The MIDUS Refresher survey employed the same comprehensive assessments as those assembled on the existing MIDUS sample, but with additional questions about the effect of the economic recession of 2008-09.

The MIDUS Refresher collection is split into two datasets: Aggregate Data and Coded Text Data. The Coded Text Dataset provides coded responses to open-ended question items in the Aggregate Dataset. The survey data collection (Project 1) [MIDUS, ICPSR 2760] consisted of a 30-minute phone interview followed by two 50-page mailed self-administered questionnaires. Survey data were collected on demographic, psycho-social, and physical and mental health information. This new crosssectional MIDUS sample allows the examination of period effects on health (mental and physical) related to the economic recession by comparing the pre-recession MIDUS 1 sample with the post-recession MIDUS Refresher sample. A further objective of the MIDUS Refresher sample was to strengthen cross-project analyses in MIDUS by increasing the sample sizes available for testing hypotheses dealing with the interplay of key factors (e.g., socioeconomic status, gender, psychosocial factors, biological factors) in mid- and laterlife health. To that end, the MIDUS Refresher sample followed the same multi-disciplinary protocol established in the main MIDUS sample, in that after completing the survey protocol respondents were asked to complete a cognitive assessment by phone (Project 3) [MIDUS 3, ICPSR 36346] and later became eligible to participate in daily diary assessments (Project 2) [MIDUS 2, ICPSR 4652] biomarker assessments (Project 4) [MIDUS 2: Biomarker Project, ICPSR 29282] and neuroscience assessments (Project 5) [MIDUS 2: Neuroscience Project, ICPSR 28683].

The MIDUS Refresher was funded by the National Institute on Aging as two separate but related efforts: The MIDUS Refresher younger decades (MRY), was fielded in November, 2011, and recruited over 2,100 new participants aged 25 to 54; Funding was later added for the MIDUS Refresher older decades (MRO), which was fielded in June, 2013 and recruited over 1,400 new participants aged 55 to 74.

Demographic variables include age, sex, gender, race, religion, and marital status.

Curated
Restricted

Monitoring the Future: Age 35 Panel Data, United States, 1993-2021 [Restricted-Use] (ICPSR 39749)

Released/updated on: 2026-04-06
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1993-01-01--2021-01-01

The longitudinal Monitoring the Future (MTF) Panel study extends the work of the cross-sectional MTF Main study by following a subsample of graduating seniors through the entire adult life course. The selected respondents are surveyed every two years from ages 19-30. Starting at age 35, respondents are surveyed every five years, at ages 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, and 60 (FZ surveys). The FZ surveys cover many of the same topics as the 12th grade and follow-up surveys and include additional questions on life events and health.

This study contains only the age 35 survey data for the MTF longitudinal panel study participants that have reached age 35 (FZ1) through the 2021 data collection.

NOTE: Users must also request the core panel data file: MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Core Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39223) because demographic information (e.g. sex, race/ethnicity) for the participants of the age 35 survey is included in the core panel data file.

Researchers can merge the Age 35 (FZ1) study data file with other MTF follow-up data in this series. This includes:

  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Core Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39223)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 1 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39282)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 2 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39325)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 3 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39389)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 4 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39326)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 5 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39283)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 6 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1989-2021 (ICPSR 39388)
  • MTF: Age 40-45 Panel Data, 1998-2021 [Restricted-Use] (ICPSR 39767)
  • Forthcoming: MTF Panel Data for Ages 50-55, and 60

In addition to questions about lifetime, annual, and 30-day substance use, the Age 35 (FZ1) survey also includes questions covering:

  • Substance use and its consequences (alcohol, marijuana/cannabis, other illicit drugs, substance use disorder symptoms)
  • Methods of marijuana/cannabis use
  • Own attitudes and perceptions about substance use
  • Living arrangements and household characteristics
  • Dating, marriage, and significant relationships
  • Parenthood and family
  • Employment: experiences, income, financial security, satisfaction
  • Leisure time
  • Local and global concerns
  • Political interest and preferences
  • Happiness; satisfaction with life domains and self
  • Psychosocial constructs: self-esteem, locus of control, loneliness, risk-taking, boredom
  • Health symptoms, healthy behaviors, COVID-19

Please see the study documentation available on the MTF Panel series page for question-specific details, including content areas included in all survey forms.

HIGHLIGHTS of this update:

  • Missing data coding has been changed/simplified in this release. Please see the User Guide for details.
  • Panel analysis weights are now included in the data file instead of a stand-alone file. Please see the updated documentation for information.

Please be alert for variable coding differences between paper and web survey versions, especially for questions skipped based on answers to other questions. Note the following:

  • The web-based version of the survey was introduced in 2020.
  • Paper vs. Web coding differences will be most noticeable for the questions related to substance use, relationship/marital status, employment, and family composition.
  • Users will need to explore their data using V35035 (89940:FZ PAPER OR WEB - RESPONSE) to look for and understand any coding differences.

Extensive work has been done to document the history and use of the MTF substance use disorder questions and criteria. Please see Substance use disorder criteria sums in the Monitoring the Future Panel Study (Occasional Paper No. 101)

More information about the MTF project can be accessed through the Monitoring the Future website. Annual reports are published by the research team, describing the data collection and trends over time.

Curated
Restricted

Monitoring the Future: Age 60 Panel Data, United States, 2018-2021 [Restricted-Use] (ICPSR 39779)

Released/updated on: 2026-05-18
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2018-01-01--2021-01-01

The longitudinal Monitoring the Future (MTF) Panel study extends the work of the cross-sectional MTF Main study by following a subsample of graduating seniors through the entire adult life course. The selected respondents are surveyed every two years from ages 19-30. Starting at age 35, respondents are surveyed every five years, at ages 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, and 60 (FZ surveys). The FZ surveys cover many of the same topics as the 12th grade and follow-up surveys and include additional questions on life events and health.

This study contains only the survey data for age 60 for the MTF longitudinal panel study participants that have reached age 60 (FZ6) through the 2021 data collection.

NOTE: Users must also request the core panel data file: MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Core Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39223) because demographic information (e.g. sex, race/ethnicity) for the participants of the age 60 survey is included in the core panel data file.

Researchers can merge the Age 60 study data file with other MTF follow-up data in this series. This includes:

  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Core Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39223)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 1 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39282)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 2 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39325)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 3 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39389)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 4 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39326)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 5 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39283)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 6 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1989-2021 (ICPSR 39388)
  • MTF: Age 35 Panel Data, 1993-2021 [Restricted-Use] (ICPSR 39749)
  • MTF: Age 40 and 45 Panel Data, 1998-2021 [Restricted-Use] (ICPSR 39767)
  • MTF: Ages 50 and 55 Panel Data, 2008-2021 [Restricted-Use] (ICPSR 39804)

In addition to questions about lifetime, annual, and 30-day substance use, the Age 60 (FZ6) survey also includes questions covering:

  • Substance use and its consequences (alcohol, marijuana/cannabis, other illicit drugs, substance use disorder symptoms)
  • Methods of marijuana/cannabis use
  • Own attitudes and perceptions about substance use
  • Living arrangements and household characteristics
  • Dating, marriage, and significant relationships
  • Family roles, obligations, burdens, emotional support
  • Employment/retirement
  • Income, financial security, satisfaction
  • Community involvement, social issues
  • Local and global concerns
  • Political interest and preferences
  • Happiness; satisfaction with life domains and self
  • Psychosocial constructs: self-esteem, locus of control, loneliness, risk-taking, boredom
  • Health symptoms and illnesses, healthy behaviors, COVID-19, medical treatments

Please see the study documentation available on the MTF Panel series page for question-specific details, including content areas included in all survey forms.

HIGHLIGHTS of this update:

  • Missing data coding has been changed/simplified in this release. Please see the User Guide for details.
  • Panel analysis weights are now included in the data file instead of a stand-alone file. Please see the updated documentation for information.

Please be alert for variable coding differences between paper and web survey versions, especially for questions skipped based on answers to other questions. Note the following:

  • The web-based version of the survey was introduced in 2020.
  • Paper vs. Web coding differences will be most noticeable for the questions related to substance use, relationship/marital status, employment, and family composition.
  • Users will need to explore their data using V60035 (89940:FZ PAPER OR WEB - RESPONSE) to look for and understand any coding differences.

Extensive work has been done to document the history and use of the MTF substance use disorder questions and criteria. Please see Substance use disorder criteria sums in the Monitoring the Future Panel Study (Occasional Paper No. 101).

More information about the MTF project can be accessed through the Monitoring the Future website. Annual reports are published by the research team, describing the data collection and trends over time.

Curated
Restricted

Monitoring the Future: Ages 40 and 45 Panel Data, United States, 1998-2021 [Restricted-Use] (ICPSR 39767)

Released/updated on: 2026-04-06
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1998-01-01--2021-01-01, 2003-01-01--2021-01-01

The longitudinal Monitoring the Future (MTF) Panel study extends the work of the cross-sectional MTF Main study by following a subsample of graduating seniors through the entire adult life course. The selected respondents are surveyed every two years from ages 19-30. Starting at age 35, respondents are surveyed every five years, at ages 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, and 60 (FZ surveys). The FZ surveys cover many of the same topics as the 12th grade and follow-up surveys and include additional questions on life events and health.

This study contains only the survey data for ages 40 and 45 for the MTF longitudinal panel study participants that have reached age 40 (FZ2) and/or age 45 (FZ3) through the 2021 data collection.

NOTE: Users must also request the core panel data file: MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Core Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39223) because demographic information (e.g. sex, race/ethnicity) for the participants of the age 40 and 45 surveys is included in the core panel data file.

Researchers can merge the Age 40-45 study data file with other MTF follow-up data in this series. This includes:

  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Core Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39223)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 1 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39282)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 2 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39325)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 3 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39389)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 4 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39326)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 5 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39283)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 6 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1989-2021 (ICPSR 39388)
  • MTF: Age 35 Panel Data, 1993-2021 [Restricted-Use] (ICPSR 39749)
  • Forthcoming: MTF panel data for ages, 50-55, and 60

In addition to questions about lifetime, annual, and 30-day substance use, the Age 40 (FZ2) and Age 45 (FZ3) surveys also includes questions covering:

  • Substance use and its consequences (alcohol, marijuana/cannabis, other illicit drugs, substance use disorder symptoms)
  • Methods of marijuana/cannabis use
  • Own attitudes and perceptions about substance use
  • Living arrangements and household characteristics
  • Dating, marriage, and significant relationships
  • Family roles, obligations, burdens
  • Employment: experiences, income, financial security, satisfaction
  • Leisure time
  • Local and global concerns
  • Political interest and preferences
  • Happiness; satisfaction with life domains and self
  • Psychosocial constructs: self-esteem, locus of control, loneliness, risk-taking, boredom
  • Health symptoms and illnesses, healthy behaviors, COVID-19

Please see the study documentation available on the MTF Panel series page for question-specific details, including content areas included in all survey forms.

HIGHLIGHTS of this update:

  • Missing data coding has been changed/simplified in this release. Please see the User Guide for details.
  • Panel analysis weights are now included in the data file instead of a stand-alone file. Please see the updated documentation for information.

Please be alert for variable coding differences between paper and web survey versions, especially for questions skipped based on answers to other questions. Note the following:

  • The web-based version of the survey was introduced in 2020.
  • Paper vs. Web coding differences will be most noticeable for the questions related to substance use, relationship/marital status, employment, and family composition.
  • Users will need to explore their data using V40035/V45035 (89940:FZ PAPER OR WEB - RESPONSE) to look for and understand any coding differences.

Extensive work has been done to document the history and use of the MTF substance use disorder questions and criteria. Please see Substance use disorder criteria sums in the Monitoring the Future Panel Study (Occasional Paper No. 101)

More information about the MTF project can be accessed through the Monitoring the Future website. Annual reports are published by the research team, describing the data collection and trends over time.

Curated
Restricted

Monitoring the Future: Ages 50 and 55 Panel Data, United States, 2008-2021 [Restricted-Use] (ICPSR 39804)

Released/updated on: 2026-05-07
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2008-01-01--2021-01-01, 2013-01-01--2021-01-01

The longitudinal MTF Panel study extends the work of the cross-sectional MTF Main study by following a subsample of graduating seniors through the entire adult life course. The selected respondents are surveyed every two years from ages 19-30. Starting at age 35, respondents are surveyed every five years, at ages 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, and 60 (FZ surveys). The FZ surveys cover many of the same topics as the 12th grade and follow-up surveys and include additional questions on life events and health.

This study contains only the survey data for ages 50 and 55 for the MTF longitudinal panel study participants that have reached age 50 (FZ4) and/or age 55 (FZ5) through the 2021 data collection.

NOTE: Users must also request the core panel data file: MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Core Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39223) because demographic information (e.g. sex, race/ethnicity) for the participants of the age 50 and 55 surveys is included in the core panel data file.

Researchers can merge the Age 50-55 study data file with other MTF follow-up data in this series. This includes:

  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Core Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39223)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 1 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39282)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 2 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39325)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 3 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39389)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 4 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39326)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 5 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1976-2021 (ICPSR 39283)
  • MTF: Base Year and Follow-Up Form 6 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, 1989-2021 (ICPSR 39388)
  • MTF: Age 35 Panel Data, 1993-2021 [Restricted-Use] (ICPSR 39749)
  • MTF: Ages 40 and 45 Panel Data, 1998-2021 [Restricted-Use] (ICPSR 39767)
  • MTF: Age 60 Panel Data, 2018-2021 [Restricted-Use] (ICPSR 39779)

In addition to questions about lifetime, annual, and 30-day substance use, the Age 50 (FZ4) and Age 55 (FZ5) surveys also includes questions covering:

  • Substance use and its consequences (alcohol, marijuana/cannabis, other illicit drugs, substance use disorder symptoms)
  • Methods of marijuana/cannabis use
  • Own attitudes and perceptions about substance use
  • Living arrangements and household characteristics
  • Dating, marriage, and significant relationships
  • Family roles, obligations, burdens, emotional support
  • Employment: income, financial security, satisfaction
  • Community involvement, social issues
  • Local and global concerns
  • Political interest and preferences
  • Happiness; satisfaction with life domains and self
  • Psychosocial constructs: self-esteem, locus of control, loneliness, risk-taking, boredom
  • Health symptoms and illnesses, healthy behaviors, COVID-19, medical treatments

Please see the study documentation available on the MTF Panel series page for question-specific details, including content areas included in all survey forms.

HIGHLIGHTS of this update:

  • Missing data coding has been changed/simplified in this release. Please see the User Guide for details.
  • Panel analysis weights are now included in the data file instead of a stand-alone file. Please see the updated documentation for information.

Please be alert for variable coding differences between paper and web survey versions, especially for questions skipped based on answers to other questions. Note the following:

  • The web-based version of the survey was introduced in 2020.
  • Paper vs. Web coding differences will be most noticeable for the questions related to substance use, relationship/marital status, employment, and family composition.
  • Users will need to explore their data using V50035/V55035 (89940:FZ PAPER OR WEB - RESPONSE) to look for and understand any coding differences

Extensive work has been done to document the history and use of the MTF substance use disorder questions and criteria. Please see Substance use disorder criteria sums in the Monitoring the Future Panel Study (Occasional Paper No. 101).

More information about the MTF project can be accessed through the Monitoring the Future website. Annual reports are published by the research team, describing the data collection and trends over time.

Curated
Restricted

Monitoring the Future: Base Year & Follow-Up Core Panel Data, Ages 18-30, United States, 1976-2021 [Restricted-Use] (ICPSR 39223)

Released/updated on: 2025-07-02
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1976-01-01--2021-01-01

The Monitoring the Future (MTF) project is a long-term epidemiologic and etiologic study of substance use among youth and adults in the United States. It is conducted at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research and is funded by a series of investigator-initiated research grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

The MTF panel study consists of six different survey forms (five forms from 1976-1988), and each survey contains a "core" set of questions about demographics and substance use. This study contains the "core" data for these questions compiled across all survey forms and years in which they are included for the longitudinal panel participants. Each record in the core panel dataset includes the respondent's data for their base year (BY) 12th grade survey (modal age 18) and their young adult follow-up FU surveys (modal ages 19-30).

The core panel dataset should be selected by all researchers. Use the linking variable available on all datasets, MTFID, to link the core dataset with all other MTF panel datasets.

Here is a list of subjects included in the core dataset:

Administrative variables

  • Year of administration
  • Survey form
  • Survey date
  • BY survey weight, sampling stratum and cluster
  • FU panel analysis weights

Demographics

BY only

  • #Parents in household
  • Parent education levels
  • Respondent's age in months
  • Sex
  • Race/Ethnicity
  • Region of the country (school location)
  • Population density/Urbanicity (school location)
  • High school Zip Code, State and County FIPS codes (can be linked to user-provided data; results can be reported at no unit smaller than US geographical region)
  • Absenteeism (illness, cutting, skipping class)
  • High school program, Grades, post-high school plans

FU only

  • Pregnancy status
  • Household type
  • Urbanicity
  • Absenteeism (missing work due to illness, other)
  • Vocational/Technical education, Armed forces, College attendance
  • College grades, attendance, Greek life

BY and FU

  • Marital status
  • Household composition
  • Political preference
  • Religious attendance, importance, preference
  • Evenings out, Dating
  • Employment
  • Salary/earned Income and Other Income
  • Driving, tickets, and accidents related to alcohol and other substance use

Substance use

  • Cigarette use
  • Alcohol use (including binge drinking (e.g. 5+ drinks in a row/2 weeks), drunkenness)
  • Marijuana/cannabis, hashish use
  • LSD use
  • Hallucinogen use, other than LSD
  • Cocaine use (including cocaine, crack, other forms)
  • Amphetamine use
  • Sedatives/Barbiturate use
  • Tranquilizer use
  • Heroin use (with and without needles)
  • Narcotics use (other than Heroin)
  • Inhalant use
  • Steroid use
  • Ice use
  • Methamphetamine use
  • MDMA use
  • Vaping: nicotine, marijuana, flavoring

Please see the study documentation available on the MTF Panel series page for question-specific details.

More information about the MTF project can be accessed through the Monitoring the Future website. Annual reports are published by the research team, describing the data collection and trends over time.

Curated
Restricted

Monitoring the Future: Base Year & Follow-Up Form 1 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, United States, 1976-2021 [Restricted-Use] (ICPSR 39282)

Released/updated on: 2025-03-20
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1976-01-01--2021-01-01

The MTF study consists of six different survey forms (five forms from 1976-1988). This study contains the data for Form 1 longitudinal panel participants. The MTF Form 1 Panel dataset includes data for the base year (BY) 12th grade surveys (modal age 18) and their young adult follow-up FU surveys (modal ages 19-30).

In addition to demographic-related questions and questions about lifetime, annual, and 30-day substance use that are included on all survey forms, Form 1 also includes questions covering:

  • incidence of first use
  • co-use of substances
  • sources of obtaining substances
  • perceived friends' use
  • perceived availability of substances
  • when, where, and with who substance use is occurring
  • modes of substance use administration
  • reasons for use or non-use
  • own attitudes about substance use
  • perceived risk of use
  • substance use advertising
  • sources of help and treatment
  • free time and activities
  • role of citizens in government, confidence in government
  • voting and political activism
  • attitudes towards discrimination
  • satisfaction with life domains
  • healthy behaviors
  • physical health symptoms

Please see the study documentation available on the MTF Panel series page for question-specific details.

More information about the MTF project can be accessed through the Monitoring the Future website. Annual reports are published by the research team, describing the data collection and trends over time.

Curated
Restricted

Monitoring the Future: Base Year & Follow-Up Form 2 Panel Data, Ages 18-30, United States, 1976-2021 [Restricted-Use] (ICPSR 39325)

Released/updated on: 2025-05-01
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1976-01-01--2021-01-01

The MTF study consists of six different survey forms (five forms from 1976-1988). This study contains the data for Form 2 longitudinal panel participants. The MTF Form 2 restricted panel dataset includes data for the base year (BY) 12th grade surveys (modal age 18) and their young adult follow-up FU surveys (modal ages 19-30).

In addition to demographic-related questions and questions about lifetime, annual, and 30-day substance use that are included on all survey forms, Form 2 also includes questions covering:

  • Availability of drugs
  • Confidence/trust in government
  • Dating, marriage, and family
  • Delinquency and victimization
  • Expected future substance use
  • Exposure to substance use
  • Healthy behaviors, illness, COVID-19
  • Leisure time activities, high school and post-high school
  • Methods of marijuana use
  • Military: plans for service, draft opinion
  • Own attitudes and perceptions about substance use
  • Perceived friends' substance use
  • Perceived risk of substance use
  • Psychosocial domains: boredom, loneliness, self-esteem, depressive affect, social support, self-efficacy, risk taking
  • Satisfaction with life domains
  • Sources of help and treatment for substance use
  • Sources of marijuana
  • Substance use initiation
  • Vaping, including nicotine, marijuana, flavoring, sources
  • Voting, political activism

NOTE: In 2020, school-based data collection was halted due to COVID-19. BY sample sizes were affected, and data for some questions on forms 2 and 3 were suppressed. The list of variables affected is found in the 2020 12th grade Codebook available through NAHDAP.

Please see the study documentation available on the MTF Panel series page for question-specific details , including content areas included in all survey forms.

NOTE: Researchers are encouraged to begin their work with the "core" data file, NAHDAP study 39223. Please see the User's Guide, IV. Working with the MTF Restricted Panel Data, for details.

More information about the MTF project can be accessed through the Monitoring the Future website. Annual reports are published by the MTF research team, describing the data collection and trends over time.

Back to top