Search results

Showing 1 – 45 of 45 results.

Curated

Restricted

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

Released/updated on: 2026-04-20

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

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

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

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2020-06-18

Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state), Erie County

Time period: 2007-04-01--2017-05-31

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

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

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Detroit, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Laredo, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Colorado, Honolulu, Missouri, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, Kansas City (Missouri), New York (state), Birmingham, Michigan, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Philadelphia

Time period: 2001-01-01--2001-12-31

The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2001 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 33 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2001 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Washington, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Laredo, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia

Time period: 2002-01-01--2002-12-31

The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2002 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 36 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2002 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Boston, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Tampa, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, District of Columbia, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, Miami, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Houston

Time period: 2003-01-01--2003-12-31

The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2003 up to four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 39 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. The ADAM program in 2003 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult male and female files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) for males, weights.

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2013-08-29

Geographic coverage: New York City, Sacramento, United States, Chicago, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Denver, California, Georgia, New York (state)

Time period: 2012-04-30--2012-07-29

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

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2014-08-01

Geographic coverage: New York City, Sacramento, United States, Chicago, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Denver, California, Georgia, New York (state)

Time period: 2013-05-05--2013-07-28

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

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2010-01-28

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis

Time period: 2007-04-01--2007-09-01

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

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2010-03-31

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

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2011-02-24

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

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2011-11-04

The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc., initiated a new data collection that replicated the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. A total of 8,332 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2010. Collection occurred in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2010, and ending September 30, 2010. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.

Curated

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crack, Powder Cocaine, and Heroin: Drug Purchase and Use Patterns in Six Cities in the United States, 1995-1996 (ICPSR 2564)

Released/updated on: 2012-08-22

Geographic coverage: New York City, Oregon, District of Columbia, San Diego, San Antonio, United States, Chicago, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), California, New York (state)

Time period: 1995-01-01--1996-01-01

This study was designed to address the practical and policy implications of various drug market participation patterns. In 1995, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) collaborated on a project called the Procurement Study. This study was executed as an addendum to NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]) with the goal of extending previous research in which heroin users were interviewed on various aspects of drug market activity. The present study sought to explore additional features of drug market participation and use, both within and across drug types and cities, and included two additional drugs -- powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Data were collected from recently arrested users of powder cocaine, crack cocaine, and heroin in six DUF cities (Chicago, New York, Portland, San Diego, San Antonio, and Washington, DC). Each of the three files in this collection, Crack Data (Part 1), Heroin Data (Part 2), and Powder Cocaine Data (Part 3), is comprised of data from a procurement interview, urine test variables, and a DUF interview. During the procurement interview, information was collected on purchase and use patterns for specific drugs. Variables from the procurement interview include the respondent's method of using the drug, the term used to refer to the drug, whether the respondent bought the drug in the neighborhood, the number of different dealers the respondent bought the drug from, how the respondent made the connection with the dealer (i.e., street, house, phone, beeper, business/store, or friends), their main drug source, whether the respondent went to someone else if the source was not available, how the respondent coped with not being able to find drugs to buy, whether the respondent got the drug for free, the means by which the respondent obtained money, the quantity and packaging of the drug, and the number of minutes spent searching for, traveling to, and waiting for their last purchase. Urine tests screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography). Data from the DUF interview provide detailed information about each arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs. For each drug type, arrestees were asked whether they had ever used the drug, the age at which they first used the drug, whether they had used the drug within the past three days, how many days they had used the drug within the past month, whether they had ever needed or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were dependent on the drug at the time of the interview. Data from the DUF interview instrument also included alcohol/drug treatment history, information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs, and whether they were influenced by drugs when the crime that they were charged with was committed. The data also include information about whether the arrestee had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether he or she had had prior arrests in the past 12 months. Demographic data include the age, race, sex, educational attainment, marital status, employment status, and living circumstances of each respondent.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): Transitional Care Management (TCM), Increasing Aftercare Participation for Parolees, 2004-2008 [United States] (ICPSR 31621)

Released/updated on: 2014-03-14

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, Connecticut, Kentucky, Los Angeles, Hartford, California, New York (state), Lexington

Time period: 2004-11-01--2008-05-01

In an effort to increase participation in community aftercare treatment for substance-abusing offenders who have paroled from prison, the Transitional Case Management (TCM) intervention tested a model of strengths-based case management consisting of (1) completion by the inmate of a strengths and goals assessment as part of discharge planning, (2) a telephone conference call that included the inmate and people central to the inmate's aftercare plan (including the parole officer), and (3) strengths case management for 12 weeks in the community to promote treatment participation and increase the client's access to needed services. (For a more detailed description, see Prendergast Law and Cartier, 2008). With four CJ-DATS Research Centers participating, the study randomized 812 prison treatment clients to the Transitional Case Management condition or to the Standard Referral condition. Detailed assessments occurred at baseline and at three and nine months following release to parole. Data from treatment and criminal justice records, including costs, were also collected. Treatment and criminal justice staff completed surveys on agency collaboration and cooperation. Respondents were asked questions regarding the barriers to treatment/recovery, education/job training, relationships, finance, living arrangement/housing, health and documentation. They were also asked question related to whether they needed or received certain services. Other variables included socio-demographic and family background, peer relation and criminal history, health and psychological status, drug and treatment history.

Curated

Restricted

Developmental Pathways of Teen Dating Violence in a High-Risk Sample, Erie County, New York, 2013-2015 (ICPSR 36430)

Released/updated on: 2017-12-18

Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state), Erie County

Time period: 2013-01-01--2015-01-01

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This study examined etiological pathways to teen dating violence (TDV) in a sample of adolescents who had been followed since infancy and were at high-risk due to parental alcohol problems. Adolescents (M=17.68 years of age) who had been participating, along with their parents, in a longitudinal study of the effects of parental alcohol problems on child development completed an additional wave of survey data in 11-12th grades. Families (N=227) were initially recruited from county birth records when the child was 12 months of age and had been previously assessed at 12-, 18-, 24-, 36-months, kindergarten, 4th, 6th, and 8th grades. For the current wave of data collection, adolescent participants (n=185) used computer-assisted interviewing to complete questionnaires assessing their individual characteristics, family and peer relationships, substance use, dating behaviors and involvement in TDV as a victim or perpetrator.

Curated

Dynamics of Retail Methamphetamine Markets in New York City, 2007-2009 (ICPSR 29821)

Released/updated on: 2014-01-06

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 2007-01-01--2009-12-31

The study was conducted to provide information about markets for, distribution of, and use of methamphetamine in New York City, both inside and outside of the MSM (men who have sex with men)/gay community. The study used Respondent Driven Sampling to recruit 132 methamphetamine market participants. Each respondent participated in a one to two hour structured interview combining both qualitative and quantitative responses. Each respondent was invited to recruit three additional eligible participants. Data collected included demographics, social network data, the respondent's market participation in obtaining and providing methamphetamine, consumption of methamphetamine, and experience with the criminal justice system and crime associated with participation in methamphetamine markets.

Curated

Evaluation of the Adolescent Portable Therapy (APT) Program [New York City], 2001-2004 (ICPSR 4299)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 2001-01-01--2004-01-01

This study contains data collected for an evaluation of the Adolescent Portable Therapy (APT) Program, which provided family-based drug treatment services to adolescents involved with the New York City juvenile justice system on charges of Persons In Need of Supervision (PINS) or delinquency. The program aimed to improve five core areas of the young peoples' lives: substance use, mental health, schooling, family functioning, and recidivism. Recruitment for the study occurred at juvenile detention facilities in New York City. Intake staff conducted screening interviews with the detainees. Those who reported using substances at least 30 times in the previous 30 days, or who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition (DSM IV) criteria for substance abuse or dependence were eligible for selection. After the respondents and their families consented to participate, the respondents were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups. The treatment group went on to receive services from APT, while control group subjects received no APT services but had access to all other standard facilities and community based services. The evaluation participants were interviewed at four time points: at intake into the study in the juvenile detention facilities (baseline), three months after release from detention (T1), nine months after release from detention (T2), and 15 months after release from detention (T3). Whenever subjects were interviewed outside of a detention facility for T1, T2, and T3, study staff attempted to collect urine samples which were tested for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, phencyclidine (PCP), and opiates. Topics covered by the interviews included substance use and treatment, physical health, risk behaviors and disease prevention, mental and emotional health, living situation and environment, crime and legal issues, school, work, income, and demographic characteristics.

Curated

Evaluation of the Health Link Program [New York City]: The Community Reintegration Model to Reduce Substance Abuse Among Jail Inmates, 1997-2002 (ICPSR 3978)

Released/updated on: 2004-08-20

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 1997-01-01--2002-01-01

This evaluation study, funded by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, was designed to provide a rigorous assessment of the effects of making Health Link's community-based services available to former inmates of New York City's jail system at Rikers Island. The goal of the Health Link Project was to promote healthy reintegration of persons leaving Rikers into their communities by (1) providing direct services to incarcerated and formerly incarcerated clients, (2) assisting community organizations that served this population, (3) establishing linkages between organizations, and (4) strengthening linkages between them and public agencies. The signature component of Health Link was case management in the community. Meeting with clients after their release from jail, caseworkers provided a support structure, made referrals to services, offered crisis intervention and counseling, and served as advocates for clients. Only adult females and adolescent males were included in the study. Eligible inmates who volunteered for the evaluation study were assigned to one of two groups: the Jail-and-Community Services group (JC group) or the Jail Services Only group (J group). JC group members were eligible for Health Link's intensive discharge planning and community case management services, while J group members were eligible for less intensive discharge planning services and ineligible for Health Link's community case management services. Evaluation subjects initially completed an intake questionnaire, which collected information on age, race, Hispanic origin, ethnicity, place and type of residence, family relations, criminal background, employment and education, substance abuse, health and medical history, sexual at-risk behavior and reproductive health, and history of trauma. Follow-up interviews were conducted, on average, about 15 months after release from jail, a sufficient time to observe the 12-month period for which clients were eligible for community-based services. Topics covered in the follow-up 12 Month Questionnaire included involvement in the criminal justice system, criminal activity, substance abuse, participation in substance abuse treatment programs, education and employment outcomes, health status, access to and utilization of health care services, sexual activity and HIV risk, housing, and involvement with family and community. Subjects who were not incarcerated at the time of their follow-up interview were asked to voluntarily provide hair samples, which were tested for metabolites of cocaine, opiates, PCP, methamphetamine, and marijuana.

Curated

Evaluation of the Midtown Community Court in New York City, 1992-1994 (ICPSR 2311)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 1992-01-01--1994-01-01

In October 1993, the Midtown Community Court opened as a three-year demonstration project designed to forge links with the community in developing a problem-solving approach to quality-of-life offenses. The problems that this community-based courthouse sought to address were specific to the court's midtown New York City location: high concentration of quality-of-life crimes, broad community dissatisfaction with court outcomes, visible signs of disorder, and clusters of persistent high-rate offenders with serious problems, including addiction and homelessness. This study was conducted to evaluate how well the new court was able to dispense justice locally and whether the establishment of the Midtown Community Court made a difference in misdemeanor case processing. Data were collected at two time periods for a comparative analysis. First, a baseline dataset (Part 1, Baseline Data) was constructed from administrative records, consisting of a ten-percent random sample of all nonfelony arraignments in Manhattan during the 12 months prior to the opening of the Midtown Community Court. Second, comparable administrative data (Part 2, Comparison Data) were collected from all cases arraigned at the Midtown Court during its first 12 months of operation, as well as from a random sample of all downtown nonfelony arraignments held during this same time period. Both files contain variables on precinct of arrest, arraignment type, charges, bonds, dispositions, sentences, total number of court appearances, and total number of warrants issued, as well as prior felony and misdemeanor convictions. Demographic variables include age, sex, and race of offender.

Curated

Partially restricted

Simple Crosstabs

EVarQuit: Extinguishing Cigarette Smoking via Extended Pre-Quit Varenicline, Buffalo, New York, 2017-2020 (ICPSR 39157)

Released/updated on: 2025-06-18

Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state), Buffalo

Time period: 2017-10-02--2020-12-09

Learning theory and previous human and animal research support the hypothesis that a longer period of varenicline treatment prior to the target quit date (TQD) will lead to greater reductions in smoking before quitting, and higher long-term cessation rates, compared to standard varenicline treatment.

Building on promising preliminary clinical data, this study tested these hypotheses with a full-scale randomized clinical trial (RCT). 320 treatment-seeking adults reporting smoking at least 5 cigarettes per day (CPD) were randomized to a standard run-in group (3 weeks of placebo, followed by the standard 1 week of pre-TQD varenicline) or an extended run-in group (4 weeks of pre-TQD varenicline). Both groups received brief individual cessation counseling and 11 weeks of post-TQD varenicline.

The primary outcome consisted of cotinine-verified (at end of treatment [EOT]) self-reported continuous abstinence from smoking (in CPD) during the last 4 weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes included bioverified self-report of continuous abstinence at the 6-month follow-up and percentage of reduction in self-reported smoking rate during the pre-quit period (week 1 vs week 4). Supplemental measures included repeated assessments of craving, withdrawal, medication adherence, and adverse events.

Curated

HIV Transmission Network Metastudy Project: An Archive of Data From Eight Network Studies, 1988--2001 (ICPSR 22140)

Released/updated on: 2011-08-09

Geographic coverage: Manitoba, United States, Brooklyn, Flagstaff, New York (state), Global, Canada, Baltimore, Atlanta, Texas, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Colorado Springs, Arizona, Houston

Time period: 1988-01-01--2001-01-01

The purpose of this project was to establish a collection of datasets that could be used (1) to analyze the influence of partnership networks on the transmission of sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections, and (2) to examine the influence of study design on estimation of network properties and impacts. Eight studies contributed datasets to the collection.

They include:

Colorado Springs Project 90, 1988-1992
Bushwick [Brooklyn, NY] Social Factors and HIV Risk (SFHR) Study, 1991-1993
Atlanta Urban Networks Project, 1996-1999
Flagstaff Rural Network Study, 1996-1998
Atlanta Antiretroviral Adherence Study, 1998-2001
Houston Risk Networks Study, 1997-1998
Baltimore SHIELD (Self-Help in Eliminating Life-Threatening Diseases), 1997-1999
Manitoba Chlamydia Study, 1997-1998

Each study contains information on sexual, needle sharing, and/or social networks. Each dataset was harmonized to permit comparative analysis. Almost all of the studies were research projects funded by federal agency sources (e.g., United States Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health); one was funded by Canadian sources. These studies, all closed for further enrollment, provide a range of designs and study types as well as a range of transmitted diseases. This allows researchers to investigate the relative effect of personal behavior and network connections on the dynamics of disease transmission, and to explore the impact of sampling design on estimation of network properties. Respondents were asked questions about different test results such as HIV, chlamydia, syphilis and hepatitis. Demographic variables include race, ethnicity, marital status, age, and gender.

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08

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

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

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modeling Impacts of Policing Initiatives on Drug and Criminal Careers of Arrestees in New York City, New York, 1999 (ICPSR 3604)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

This study sought to understand the accuracy and validity of arrestee self-reports of drug use and the overall contact of arrestees with the criminal justice system, with a secondary focus on how arrestee self-reports of drug use correspond to urinalysis results. Moreover, this study investigated whether arrestees were aware of the New York City Police Department's Quality-of-Life (QOL) policing efforts and whether they had changed their criminal behavior as a result. A QOL Policing Supplement, designed to explore new means of evaluating police behavior, was administered to all adult arrestees in the five boroughs of New York City (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Staten Island, and Queens) who had completed an Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program interview, provided a urine specimen, and were willing to answer additional questions concerning QOL policing. Part 1, Policing Study Data, is a large integrated dataset containing all of the variables derived from the 1999 ADAM interviews, the Policing Supplement instrument, and administrative records data from the Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) and the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. This dataset is linked, via an anonymous case number, to Part 2, Arrestee Criminal History Data, which contains each arrestee's official criminal history.

Curated

Monitoring Drug Epidemics and the Markets That Sustain Them, Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) and ADAM II Data, 2000-2003 and 2007-2010 (ICPSR 33201)

Released/updated on: 2012-12-13

Time period: 2000-01-01--2003-01-01, 2007-01-01--2010-01-01

This study examined trends in the use of five widely abused drugs among arrestees at 10 geographically diverse locations from 2000 to 2010: Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Denver, Indianapolis, Manhattan, Minneapolis, Portland Oregon, Sacramento, and Washington DC. The data came from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program reintroduced in 2007 (ADAM II) and its predecessor the ADAM program. ADAM data included urinalysis results that provided an objective measure of recent drug use, provided location specific estimates over time, and provided sample weights that yielded unbiased estimates for each location. The ADAM data were analyzed according to a drug epidemics framework, which has been previously employed to understand the decline of the crack epidemic, the growth of marijuana use in the 1990s, and the persistence of heroin use. Similar to other diffusion of innovation processes, drug epidemics tend to follow a natural course passing through four distinct phases: incubation, expansion, plateau, and decline. The study also searched for changes in drug markets over the course of a drug epidemic.

Curated

Monitoring Drug Markets in Manhattan [New York City], With the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, 1998-2002 (ICPSR 22381)

Released/updated on: 2009-06-03

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 1998-01-01--2002-01-01

The purpose of the study was to determine how much Manhattan (New York City) arrestees surveyed by the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program spend on drug expenses. The program obtained both self-report and urinalysis data from a total of 5,210 Manhattan arrestees surveyed by the ADAM program from 1998 to 2002. The principal investigators developed a formula for an episodic estimator of a respondent's drug expense for cash, noncash, and cash-combination transactions. The dataset contains a total of 267 variables relating to Manhattan arrestees' demographics, interview information, criminal history, urinalysis test results, drug use, drug market transactions, and drug expenses.

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

Restricted

Peer-Driven Intervention to Seek, Test, and Treat Heterosexuals at High Risk for HIV, New York City, 2011-2016 (ICPSR 39781)

Released/updated on: 2026-04-14

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, Brooklyn, New York (state)

Time period: 2012-04-01--2016-04-01, 2015-02-01--2016-08-01

This study is divided into BCAP1/2 and BCU (or BCAP3):

BCAP1/2

Compares Respondent-driven sampling (RDS)and Venue-based sampling (VBS) recruitment in terms of numbers of new diagnosis of HIV+ and examines the effectiveness of peer-driven intervention (PDI) in heterosexuals at high risk (HHR). BCAP2 only includes those who tested HIV+ in BCAP1 who were included in recruitment but not in the main analyses. PDI involving structured intervention sessions including a computerized "CARE for Prevention" tool and HIV pre-test and post-test counseling, the opportunity to educate three peers on core education messages, and navigation for those HIV infected. If HIV-negative: total 3.5 hours of facilitated/computer intervention activities, plus peer education experiences; if HIV-positive: 5 hrs facilitated/computer activities, plus peer education experiences and six months of navigation.

BCU (or BCAP3)

BCU is a supplement study to BCAP1/2 and tests an anonymous, single-session HIV testing intervention (ASTN) in the same high-risk area (HRA) in Brooklyn as BCAP1/2 and compare to CTTN in two phases: the Seek and Test phase (N=750), and Treat and Retain phase (N=65). The primary endpoint of the Seek and Test intervention phase is the relative yield (proportion of newly identified HIV infections) of the RDS-ASTN intervention. The study assesses the proportion of those newly diagnosed that engages in activities of the Treat and Retain part (i.e., feasibility). The primary endpoints for the Treat and Retain intervention phase are the proportion linked to care within three months (i.e., attending a care appointment and receiving CD4 and viral load tests) and time to the HIV care appointment.1 BCU2 only includes those who tested positive in BCU1 who were included in ST counseling sessions and blood collection but not included in TrR phase.

Curated

Rochester Intergenerational Study (RIGS), New York, United States, 1999-2019 (ICPSR 37920)

Released/updated on: 2021-10-26

Geographic coverage: United States, Rochester (New York), New York (state)

Time period: 1999-01-01--2019-01-01

The Rochester Intergenerational Study (RIGS), is an extension of the Rochester Youth Development Study (RYDS). RIGS investigates intergenerational continuity and discontinuity of drug use in a three-generation prospective design. The focal participant is the oldest biological child (G3) of the original participant in the RYDS study. The project contains developmental data collected since 1988 on the G2 parents and G1 grandparents; combining those data with the prospective data collected from 1999 to 2019 allows examination of how the parent's own developmental course influences their transition to adulthood and their behavior as parents which, in turn, can be used to explain the onset and development of the G3 child's drug use.

Variables included pertain to the parent's stressors, drug use and problem behaviors, prosocial bonds, peer networks, gang affiliation, family context, major family events, and parenting behaviors. G3 assessments include their general psychosocial development, with detailed information on the onset and course of their drug use, problem behaviors, school behavior, and prosocial behavior.

Curated

Restricted

Rochester Youth Development Study Phase 1 Data, 1988-1992 [Rochester, New York] (ICPSR 35167)

Released/updated on: 2023-10-11

Geographic coverage: United States, Rochester (New York), New York (state)

Time period: 1988-01-01--1992-01-01

The Rochester Youth Development Study (RYDS) is part of the larger "Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency" initiated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1986. The RYDS examines causes and consequences of delinquency and drug use in an urban sample of adolescents. A sample of 1,000 seventh and eighth grade students was selected from Rochester, New York, public schools during the 1987-1988 academic year. These students were selected to over-represent youth at high risk for serious delinquency and drug use. In Phase 1 each student was interviewed nine times at six-month intervals from the Spring of 1988 until the Spring of 1992. In addition, interviews with one primary caretaker of each student were conducted eight times at six-month intervals from the Spring of 1988 until the Fall of 1991. The interviews lasted about an hour and cover a wide range of topics including social class position, family structure and processes, educational success, peer relationships, neighborhood characteristics, psychological functioning, social networks, and social support systems, and involvement in prosocial and antisocial behaviors. When appropriate, the research team collected similar information from both the students and parents to provide multiple perspectives on these developmental issues. The research team also collected extensive information about problem behaviors including self-reported delinquency and drug use, gang membership, gun ownership, problem drug use, teenage parenthood, school dropout, and other problem behaviors.

Curated

Restricted

Seek, Test and Retain (STAR): Linkages for Black HIV-Positive, Substance-Using MSM, New York City, 2012-2015 (ICPSR 39794)

Released/updated on: 2026-04-20

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 1989-01-01--2015-01-01

The Seek, Test, Treat and Retain (STTR) Collaboration Project involved over twenty studies in the fields of HIV and drug abuse (a list of the studies is given below).

These studies were independently developed, but were chosen for the collaboration because they focused on one or more steps of the HIV treatment cascade: Seek, Test, Treat and Retain. These studies were grouped into Criminal Justice-related studies and Vulnerable Population-related studies. The data collected by these studies included twelve common domains (eg. Demographic characteristics, Mental Health) in each of which a shared questionnaire or instrument was taken up by the studies and adapted to fit the study.

The STAR study contains information on HIV+ individuals, their emotional well-being, and possible linkages to substance-use.

Curated

Restricted

START Together: HIV Testing and Treatment In and After Jail, New York, 2011-2014 (ICPSR 39795)

Released/updated on: 2026-05-28

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 2011-01-01--2014-01-01

The overall aim of the START study is to increase the rate of HIV testing among recently released offender populations.

CARE-RAPID (RCT)

This is a pilot randomized study of a computer-assisted program, the Computer Assessment and Risk-Reduction Education--Rapid (CARE-Rapid). CARE-Rapid was used as means of educating offenders leaving jails about the risk of HIV and gaining their consent for an HIV test. The sample consisted of offenders discharged from jails within the past 90 days and entering a residential substance abuse treatment program. The study used an intent-to-treatment design with random assignment to a CARE-Rapid and a treatment-as-usual (TAU) condition. The outcome of interest was whether participants got an HIV test at admission to the treatment program. Participants were followed-up with at 3 months after baseline. CARE-RAPID was conducted at Samaritan Village Inc, a residential substance abuse treatment center, and includes individuals discharged from Riker's Island or Nassau County Jail.

Project START (Quasi-experimental study)

Project START is a quasi-experimental pilot study to evaluate the efficacy of Project START, a manualized intervention focusing on reducing risk for HIV. Project START consisted of two sessions in jail and four sessions during the first three months after discharge from a facility for offenders serving one year or less. The intervention was administered by Exponents, not-for-profit organization that offers a number of services, including outpatient substance abuse treatment. All Project START subjects were offered an HIV test and pre- and post-test counseling on their arrival at Exponents post-discharge from Rikers Island. Participants in Project Start were compared to the experimental arm from CARE-RAPID.

Qualitative Interviews

Qualitative interviews were conducted to gain a better understanding of those aspects of the offender's perceptions and circumstances that facilitate or hinder taking an HIV test. Interviews were with offenders who have been released from New York City and Nassau County Jails in the 90-days prior to entering Exponents for treatment.

Curated

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.

Curated

Variations in Criminal Patterns Among Narcotic Addicts in Baltimore and New York City, 1983-1984 (ICPSR 9586)

Released/updated on: 2013-05-15

Geographic coverage: New York City, Baltimore, United States, New York (state), Maryland

Time period: 1983-05-01--1984-04-01

This data collection was undertaken to develop a typology of narcotic addicts according to the kind, frequency, and seriousness of their crimes and to identify the most serious criminal offenders, thereby determining which individuals were best suited to rehabilitation. The following questions are addressed by the data: (1) What "types" of narcotic addicts can be distinguished in terms of their criminal behavior? Which of these types are amenable to rehabilitation? (2) At what time during their addiction careers do addicts commit the most crime? Do narcotic addicts "mature" out of addiction? (3) What is the relationship between individuals' involvement in crime prior to addiction and their criminal activity and drug use over their addiction career? (4) Which demographic, personality, or other factors are associated with serious crime committed during periods of narcotic addiction? (5) What are the contributions of situational and dispositional factors to the relationship between addiction and crime? Part 1 of the collection details the subjects' addiction careers, the age they first used various drugs, the age they first became addicted to narcotics, the amount of time they were addicted/not addicted to narcotics, and the total length of their addiction careers. Part 2 contains variables generated by cluster analysis, including cluster assignment or "type." Part 3 includes the educational, occupational, and arrest histories of the subjects, as well as the drug use and arrest histories of their families. The Part 4 file consists of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and Raven Progressive Matrix scores. The frequency and types of crime that subjects committed during the preaddiction period comprise Part 5, while the frequency and nature of drug use during the preaddiction period comprise Part 6. Parts 7 and 8 contain crime variables and drug use variables, respectively, across all nonaddiction periods. Finally, Part 9 contains data characterizing crime across all addiction periods, and Part 10 contains variables regarding drug use across total addiction periods.