Search results

Showing 1 – 25 of 25 results.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curated
Restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS) 2: Organizational Process Improvement Intervention (OPII), 2010-2013 [United States] (ICPSR 35082)

Released/updated on: 2015-08-07
Geographic coverage: Rhode Island, United States, Illinois, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Virginia, New Jersey, Arizona, Washington, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2010-01-01--2013-01-01

The Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies 2 (CJ-DATS 2) was launched in 2008 with a focus on conducting implementation research in criminal justice settings. NIDA's ultimate goal for CJ-DATS 2 was to identify implementation strategies that maximize the likelihood of sustained delivery of evidence-based practices to improve offender drug abuse and HIV outcomes, and to decrease their risk of incarceration.

The Organizational Process Improvement Intervention (OPII) study (aka Assessment study) focused on implementing assessment and treatment planning processes. Screening and assessment were used to identify substance abuse-related problems and to develop programming to address the problems so identified.

The OPII study engaged corrections and treatment agencies to improve the quality of interagency communication through the effective use of assessment and case planning processes and treatment referrals. Both inter-agency and intra-agency change processes were targeted. A multi-phase implementation protocol was used, wherein agencies engaged in team development, needs assessment, planning, implementation, and sustainability in distinct steps. Early- and delayed-start sites allowed the research team to control for effects of environmental changes within states. The protocol targeted critical communications channels between otherwise often highly segregated correctional and treatment agencies.

Evaluation of the OPII used a multi-site cluster randomized design with multiple measures over the course of the intervention. Clusters consisted of a criminal justice agency and one or more community treatment providers that received referrals from that criminal justice agency. Each of the 9 centers had two clusters (one had three), and each cluster was randomized to an Early-Start or a Delayed-Start condition with multiple measures over the course of the intervention. After randomization, the Early-Start sites began the OPII, while the Delayed-Start sites conducted business as usual, without any additional intervention. After approximately 12 months, or when the Early-Start change team completed the Implementation phase, the Delayed-Start change team began to carry out the protocol.

Throughout the study period different subsets of individuals working at correctional facilities and treatment programs at the study sites were asked to complete surveys. During the Baseline period of the study survey data were collected from correctional staff, correctional directors, treatment staff, treatment directors, correctional executives and treatment executives. These data can be found in (DS1-DS12). The executive respondents provided information at the organizational level for the programs they oversaw (DS5, DS6). Next, Needs Assessments were completed by the change teams and their facilitators (DS13-DS14). The change teams and facilitators also responded to surveys on Process Improvement Planning (DS15-DS19). During the Implementation stage, surveys were administered to select substance abuse treatment programs, change team facilitators, change team members and the immediate supervisors of the change team members (DS20-DS27). Selected correctional and treatment staff members (in the Early-Start sites only) were asked to complete Follow-up surveys at the end of the OPII process (DS28-DS33). Staff members who completed surveys also provided demographic data (DS36-DS41). DS42 is a restricted use version of DS41. Change team members kept track of the time they spent on OPII activities (DS35). Change team success was evaluated by a subset of raters (DS34).

Surveys were administered at 21 study sites and there was a total of over 2,700 survey respondents.

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
Simple Crosstabs

Multi-site Family Study on Incarceration, Parenting and Partnering, 5 U.S. states, 2008-2014 (ICPSR 36639)

Released/updated on: 2022-10-17
Geographic coverage: Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey

This collection contains data from the Multi-site Family Study on Incarceration, Parenting and Partnering [MSF-IP]. The MSF-IP is an evaluation of a grant program funded by the Office of Family Assistance (OFA) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to promote or sustain healthy relationships and to strengthen families in which a father was incarcerated or otherwise involved with the criminal justice system (e.g., recently released or on parole or probation). From 2006-2011, grantees were required to serve justice-involved fathers and their committed partners with services to promote healthy marriage; they were also permitted to provide activities to support parenting and foster economic stability.

The MFS-IP evaluation was funded to document program implementation and the impact of programming on outcomes such as relationship quality and stability, parenting and co-parenting, family financial well-being, and recidivism. This collection includes data from the impact study, conducted across five grantees: the Indiana Department of Correction, the RIDGE Project (Ohio), the New Jersey Department of Corrections, the Osborne Association (New York), and the Minnesota Council on Crime and Justice. The collection includes de-identified interview data for 1,991 men and 1,482 intimate and co-parenting partners.

The interviews took place from December 2008 through August 2014. Couples were first interviewed during the male partner's incarceration (with the timing of baseline interviews not related to the man's admission or release date in most sites) and then interviewed again nine and 18 months after baseline. In the two largest sites (Indiana and Ohio), an additional 34-month follow-up interview was conducted. The interviews were similar in content at each interview wave and for the male and female interviews, but differed based on male partner's trajectory of incarceration and release over the follow-up period.

Topics within this collection include demographics, personal characteristics and attitudes, criminal history and behavior, incarceration experiences (including family contact during incarceration), program and service receipt, expectations for release, family structure and functioning, intimate relationship quality, parenting and co-parenting quality, child well-being, employment, housing, substance use, and experiences with reentry.

Curated

National Supported Work Evaluation Study, 1975-1979: Public Use Files (ICPSR 7865)

Released/updated on: 2009-02-02
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, California, Oakland, New York (state), New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York City, Atlanta, Illinois, Connecticut, Hartford, Georgia, Wisconsin, Philadelphia
Time period: 1975-01-01--1979-01-01
This study is an evaluation of the National Supported Work Demonstration project, a transitional, subsidized work experience program for four target groups of people with longstanding employment problems: ex-offenders, former drug addicts, women who were long-term recipients of welfare benefits, and school dropouts, many with criminal records. The program provided up to 12-18 months of employment to about 10,000 individuals at 15 locations across the country for four years. In ten of these sites -- Atlanta, Chicago, Hartford, Jersey City, Newark, New York, Philadelphia, Oakland, San Francisco, and Wisconsin, 6,600 eligible applicants were randomly assigned either to experimental groups (offered a job in supported work) or to control groups, and an evaluation was conducted on the effects of the Supported Work Program. At the time of enrollment, each respondent was given a retrospective baseline interview, generally covering the previous two years, followed by up to four follow-up interviews scheduled at nine-month intervals. Two public use files were originally distributed for this data collection: Supported Work Employment and Earnings File, and Supported Work Deviant Behavior File. Each file contained data for up to five interviews, a cross-document dataset and an Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients follow-up. The Employment and Earnings File contains data from all interview modules except the drug and crime sections, and the Deviant Behavior File contains all variables on the Employment and Earnings File as well as additional information on drugs and crime. Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients were further asked about children in school and welfare participation, while all non-AFDC respondents were questioned about any extralegal activities. Demographic items specify age, sex, race, marital status, education, number of children, employment history, job search, job training, mobility, household income, welfare assistance, housing, military discharge status, and drug use. Each respondent has up to six logical, fixed-length records, with each record corresponding to a completed interview (up to five) and one additional short "cross-document" record. A User's Guide describing the collection and its components is available and should be read before the collection or any part of it is ordered.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN), 2001-2003: Visit 05 Dataset (ICPSR 30501)

Released/updated on: 2025-08-05
Geographic coverage: Inkster, Hackensack, United States, Chicago, Ypsilanti, California, New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, Los Angeles, Boston, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2001-03-01--2003-02-15
The Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN), is a multisite longitudinal, epidemiologic study designed to examine the health of women during their middle years. The study examines the physical, biological, psychological, and social changes during this transitional period. The goal of SWAN's research is to help scientists, health care providers, and women learn how mid-life experiences affect health and quality of life during aging. The data include questions about doctor visits, medical conditions, medications, treatments, medical procedures, relationships, smoking, and menopause related information such as age at pre-, peri- and post-menopause, self-attitudes, feelings, and common physical problems associated with menopause. The study began in 1994. Between 2001 and 2003, 2,617 of the 3,302 women that joined SWAN were seen for their fifth follow-up visit. The research centers are located in the following communities: Ypsilanti and Inkster, MI (University of Michigan); Boston, MA (Massachusetts General Hospital); Chicago, IL (Rush Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center); Alameda and Contra Costa County, CA (University of California-Davis, and Kaiser Permanente); Los Angeles, CA (University of California-Los Angeles); Hackensack, NJ (Hackensack University Medical Center); and Pittsburgh, PA (University of Pittsburgh). SWAN participants represent five racial/ethnic groups and a variety of backgrounds and cultures. Demographic and background information includes age, language of interview, marital status, household composition, and employment.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN), 2002-2004: Visit 06 Dataset (ICPSR 31181)

Released/updated on: 2025-06-30
Geographic coverage: Inkster, Hackensack, Contra Costa County, Alameda County, United States, Chicago, Ypsilanti, California, New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, Los Angeles, Boston, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-03-15--2004-02-15
The Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN), is a multi-site longitudinal, epidemiologic study designed to examine the health of women during their middle years. The study examines the physical, biological, psychological and social changes during this transitional period. The goal of SWAN's research is to help scientists, health care providers and women learn how mid-life experiences affect health and quality of life during aging. Data were collected about doctor visits, medical conditions, medications, treatments, medical procedures, relationships, smoking, and menopause related information such as age at pre-, peri- and post-menopause, self-attitudes, feelings, and common physical problems associated with menopause. The study began in 1994. Between 2002 and 2004, 2,448 of the 3,302 women that joined SWAN were seen for their sixth follow-up visit. The research centers are located in the following communities: Ypsilanti and Inkster, MI (University of Michigan); Boston, MA (Massachusetts General Hospital); Chicago, IL (Rush Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center); Alameda and Contra Costa County, CA (University of California-Davis and Kaiser Permanente); Los Angeles, CA (University of California-Los Angeles); Hackensack, NJ (Hackensack University Medical Center); and Pittsburgh, PA (University of Pittsburgh). SWAN participants represent five racial/ethnic groups and a variety of backgrounds and cultures. Demographic and background information includes age, language of interview, marital status, household composition, and employment.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN), 2006-2008: Visit 10 Dataset (ICPSR 32961)

Released/updated on: 2018-11-15
Geographic coverage: Inkster, Hackensack, United States, Chicago, Ypsilanti, California, New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, Los Angeles, Boston, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2006-02-15--2008-01-31
The Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN) is a multi-site longitudinal, epidemiologic study designed to examine the health of women during their middle years. The study examines the physical, biological, psychological and social changes during this transitional period. The goal of SWAN's research is to help scientists, health care providers and women learn how mid-life experiences affect health and quality of life during aging. Data were collected about doctor visits, medical conditions, medications, treatments, medical procedures, relationships, smoking, and menopause related information such as age at pre-, peri- and post-menopause, self-attitudes, feelings, and common physical problems associated with menopause. The study began in 1994. Between 2006 and 2008, 2,245 of the 3,302 women that joined SWAN were seen for their tenth follow-up visit. The research centers are located in the following communities: Ypsilanti and Inkster, MI (University of Michigan), Boston, MA (Massachusetts General Hospital), Chicago, IL (Rush Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center), Almaeda and Contra Costa County, CA (University of California, Davis and Kaiser Permanente), Los Angeles, CA (University of California, Los Angeles), Hackensack, NJ (Hackensack University Medical Center) and Pittsburgh, PA (University of Pittsburgh). SWAN participants represent five racial/ethnic groups and a variety of backgrounds and cultures. Though the New Jersey site was still part of the study, data was not collected from this site for the tenth visit. Demographic and background information includes age, language of interview, marital status, household composition, and employment.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN): Baseline Dataset, [United States], 1996-1997 (ICPSR 28762)

Released/updated on: 2019-05-15
Geographic coverage: Detroit, United States, Chicago, California, Oakland, New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, Los Angeles, Newark, Boston, Pittsburgh
Time period: 1996-01-01--1997-11-30

The Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN), is a multi-site longitudinal, epidemiologic study designed to examine the health of women during their middle years. The study examines the physical, biological, psychological, and social changes during this transitional period. The goal of SWAN's research is to help scientists, health care providers, and women learn how mid-life experiences affect health and quality of life during aging. The data include questions about doctor visits, medical conditions, medications, treatments, medical procedures, relationships, smoking, and menopause related information such as age at pre-, peri- and post-menopause, self-attitudes, feelings, and common physical problems associated with menopause.

The study is co-sponsored by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health. The study began in 1994. Between 1996 and 1997, 3,302 participants joined SWAN through 7 designated research centers. The research centers are located in the following communities: Detroit, MI; Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; Oakland and Los Angeles, CA; Newark, NJ; and Pittsburgh, PA. SWAN participants represent five racial/ethnic groups and a variety of backgrounds and cultures. This is the next phase of data collection after the original collection of the screening data (ICPSR 4368).

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN): Cross-Sectional Screener Dataset, [United States], 1995-1997 (ICPSR 4368)

Released/updated on: 2019-03-11
Geographic coverage: Detroit, United States, Chicago, California, Oakland, New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, Los Angeles, Newark, Boston, Pittsburgh
Time period: 1995-01-01--1997-01-01

This collection includes screener data collected as part of the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN), which is a multi-site longitudinal, epidemiologic study which began in 1994 and was designed to examine the health of women during their middle years. The study examines the physical, biological, psychological, and social changes during this transitional period. The goal of SWAN's research is to help scientists, health care providers, and women learn how mid-life experiences affect health and quality of life during aging. This data includes questions about doctor visits, medical conditions, medications, treatments, medical procedures, relationships, smoking, and menopause related information such as age at pre-, peri- and post-menopause, self-attitudes, feelings, and common physical problems associated with menopause. Also included in the data are background characteristics (age, race, occupation, education, marital status, and family size).

The SWAN study is co-sponsored by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health. The screener dataset contains information from 16,142 women who responded to the SWAN cross-sectional screening interview during the period from 11/1/1995 through 12/1/1997 from the 7 clinical sites participating in the SWAN longitudinal study. The sites include Boston, Massachusetts, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Oakland and Los Angeles, California, Detroit, Michigan, Newark, New Jersey and Chicago, Illinois. SWAN participants represent five racial/ethnic groups and a variety of backgrounds and cultures.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN): Visit 01 Dataset, [United States], 1997-1999 (ICPSR 29221)

Released/updated on: 2019-05-02
Geographic coverage: Detroit, United States, Chicago, California, Oakland, New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, Los Angeles, Newark, Boston, Pittsburgh
Time period: 1997-02-01--1999-01-31

The Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN) is a multi-site longitudinal, epidemiologic study designed to examine the health of women during their middle years. The study examines the physical, biological, psychological, and social changes during this transitional period. The goal of SWAN's research is to help scientists, health care providers and women learn how mid-life experiences affect health and quality of life during aging. The data include questions about doctor visits, medical conditions, medications, treatments, medical procedures, relationships, smoking, and menopause related information such as age at pre-, peri- and post-menopause, self-attitudes, feelings, and common physical problems associated with menopause.

The study is co-sponsored by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health. The study began in 1994. Between 1997 and 1999, 2,881 of the 3,302 women that joined SWAN were seen for their first follow-up visit. The research centers are located in the following communities: Detroit, MI; Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; Oakland and Los Angeles, CA; Newark, NJ; and Pittsburgh, PA. SWAN participants represent five racial/ethnic groups and a variety of backgrounds and cultures.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN): Visit 03 Dataset, [United States], 1999-2001 (ICPSR 29701)

Released/updated on: 2019-05-29
Geographic coverage: Detroit, United States, Chicago, California, Oakland, New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, Los Angeles, Newark, Boston, Pittsburgh
Time period: 1999-02-01--2001-01-31

The Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN), is a multi-site longitudinal, epidemiologic study designed to examine the health of women during their middle years. The study examines the physical, biological, psychological, and social changes during this transitional period. The goal of SWAN's research is to help scientists, health care providers, and women learn how mid-life experiences affect health and quality of life during aging. The data include questions about doctor visits, medical conditions, medications, treatments, medical procedures, relationships, smoking, and menopause related information.

The study is co-sponsored by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health. The study began in 1994. Between 1999 and 2001, 2,710 of the 3,302 women that joined SWAN were seen for their third follow-up visit. The research centers are located in the following communities: Detroit, Michigan; Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Oakland and Los Angeles, California; Newark, New Jersey; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. SWAN participants represent five racial/ethnic groups and a variety of backgrounds and cultures.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN): Visit 04 Dataset, [United States], 2000-2002 (ICPSR 30142)

Released/updated on: 2019-05-15
Geographic coverage: Detroit, United States, Chicago, California, Oakland, New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, Los Angeles, Newark, Boston, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2000-03-01--2002-01-31

The Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN) is a multi-site longitudinal, epidemiologic study designed to examine the health of women during their middle years. The study examines the physical, biological, psychological, and social changes during this transitional period. The goal of SWAN's research is to help scientists, health care providers and women learn how mid-life experiences affect health and quality of life during aging. The data include questions about doctor visits, medical conditions, medications, treatments, medical procedures, relationships, smoking, and menopause related information such as age at pre-, peri- and post-menopause, self-attitudes, feelings, and common physical problems associated with menopause.

The study is co-sponsored by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health. The study began in 1994. Between 2000 and 2002, 2,679 of the 3,302 women that joined SWAN were seen for their second follow-up visit. The research centers are located in the following communities: Boston, Massachusetts, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Oakland and Los Angeles, California, Detroit, Michigan, Newark, New Jersey and Chicago, Illinois. SWAN participants represent five racial/ethnic groups and a variety of backgrounds and cultures.

Curated
Restricted

Technology, Teen Dating Violence and Abuse, and Bullying in Three States, 2011-2012 (ICPSR 34741)

Released/updated on: 2016-02-15
Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state), New Jersey, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2011-01-01--2012-01-01

This project examined the role of technology use in teen dating violence and abuse, and bullying. The goal of the project was to expand knowledge about the types of abuse experiences youth have, the extent of victimization and perpetration via technology and new media (e.g., social networking sites, texting on cellular phones), and how the experience of such cyber abuse within teen dating relationships or through bullying relates to other life factors.

This project carried out a multi-state study of teen dating violence and abuse, and bullying, the main component of which included a survey of youth from ten schools in five school districts in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, gathering information from 5,647 youth about their experiences. The study employed a cross-sectional, survey research design, collecting data via a paper-pencil survey. The survey targeted all youth who attended school on a single day and achieved an 84 percent response rate.

Back to top