Search results

Showing 1 – 32 of 32 results.
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 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
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc. have initiated a new data collection that replicates the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implements two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collects data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. Data collection has been conducted across two back-to-back quarters in each of 10 counties from a county-based representative sample of 250 male arrestees per quarter for a total of 500 arrestees annually per site or a total of 5,000 arrestees across sites annually. A total of 7,717 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2008. Collection occurs in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2007 and ending March 31, 2008. Additional data collection periods were optioned by ONDCP, and subsequent cycles of back-to-back data collection (not yet available) began April 1, 2008. Participation is voluntary and confidential, and the procedures include a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated

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

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

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

Released/updated on: 2011-11-04
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc., initiated a new data collection that replicated the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. A total of 8,332 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2010. Collection occurred in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2010, and ending September 30, 2010. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

EMBED: A Pragmatic Trial of User Centered Clinical Decision Support for EMergency Department Initiated BuprenorphinE for Opioid Use Disorder, 5 U.S. states, 2019-2021 (ICPSR 38568)

Released/updated on: 2022-11-03
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States, Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Alabama
Time period: 2019-10-15--2021-05-31
Buprenorphine (BUP) is a highly efficacious drug for treatment of addiction for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) patients. Although it is safe and effective to initiate this treatment in the emergency departments (ED) where a lot of OUD patients seek care, due to challenges related to lack of knowledge, etc. this practice has not been widely adopted. The goal of this trial was to test the efficacy of a user centered clinical decision support (CDS) tool (EMBED) that was developed to facilitate ED clinicians to administer/prescribe BUP for OUD patients presenting to the ED. This was an 18-month long, pragmatic, parallel, group randomized trial implemented across 18 ED clusters (21 sites) in 5 healthcare systems randomly allocated in 1:1 ratio to intervention versus usual care arm. For the intervention, CDS was to support diagnosis and withdrawal assessment and automate electronic health record (EHR) documentation. The primary outcome was the initiation of BUP in ED at patient level.
Curated

Epidemiologic Catchment Area Program Sites 1-4, 1979-1983 with National Death Index Data through 2007 (ICPSR 36621)

Released/updated on: 2017-10-17
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Baltimore, New Haven, United States, Connecticut, Missouri, St. Louis, Durham, Maryland
Time period: 1979-01-01--1982-01-01, 1980-01-01--1983-01-01, 1979-01-01--2007-01-01

The Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) program of research was initiated in response to the 1977 report of the President's Commission on Mental Health. The purpose was to collect data on the prevalence and incidence of mental disorders and on the use of and need for services by the mentally ill. Independent research teams at five universities (Yale University, Johns Hopkins University, Washington University, Duke University, and University of California at Los Angeles), in collaboration with the National Institute for Mental Health, conducted the studies with a core of common questions and sample characteristics. The sites were areas that had previously been designated as Community Mental Health Center catchment areas: New Haven, Connecticut, Baltimore, Maryland, St. Louis, Missouri, Durham, North Carolina, and Los Angeles, California. Each site sampled over 3,000 community residents and 500 residents of institutions, yielding 20,861 respondents overall. The longitudinal ECA design incorporated two waves of personal interviews administered one year apart and a brief telephone interview in between (for the household sample). The diagnostic interview used in the ECA was the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS), Version III (with the exception of the Yale Wave I survey, which used Version II). Diagnoses were categorized according to the DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, 3rd Edition (DSM-III). Diagnoses derived from the DIS include manic episode, dysthymia, bipolar disorder, single episode major depression, recurrent major depression, atypical bipolar disorder, alcohol abuse or dependence, drug abuse or dependence, schizophrenia, schizophreniform, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, somatization, panic, antisocial personality, and anorexia nervosa. The DIS uses the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), which measures cognitive functioning, as an indirect measure of the DSM-III Organic Mental Disorders. In the ECA survey, this diagnosis is called cognitive impairment.

This collection features data from 17,327 participants across 2,005 variables. Data from the Los Angeles, California, Catchment (UCLA) are not included. Baseline data (Wave 1) and Wave 2 data were linked to the National Death Index through 2007, which includes primary and contributing causes of death, International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes, and nature of injury variables.

Curated

The Great Smoky Mountains Study (GSMS): Alcohol, Cannabis, Depression Disorders, North Carolina, 1992-2003 (ICPSR 37221)

Released/updated on: 2018-12-12
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States
Time period: 1992-01-01--2003-01-01

The Great Smoky Mountain Study (GSMS) is a longitudinal epidemiological study of 1,420 children begun in 1992 in 11 rural counties in western North Carolina. Originally, the study had three aims: 1) to estimate the prevalence of common psychiatric disorders; 2) to study their development over time; and 3) to determine the level of mental health service use. The study expanded over time to include correlates and predictors of substance abuse and psychiatric problems. The study continued for over 20 years, with the original participants assessed up to 11 times from ages 9 to 30 (over 11,000 assessments total).

This collection includes data from study modules related to alcohol, cannabis, and depressive disorders in addition to core data on participants. This core data includes demographic variables related to age, sex, socioeconomic status, and race.

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection includes data from the JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 2000-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27542) that were aggregated to the state level. The JRFC collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bed space in the facility to indicate whether the facility is experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the JRFC concatenated data file (ICPSR 27542) were aggregated to the state level and variables providing United States Census population data and upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction were added. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Restricted

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

Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2000, the JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Restricted

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

Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2002-10-31--2003-04-15
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2002, the JRFC used two modules to collect information on the substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Restricted

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

Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2005-02-06--2005-06-29
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2004, the JRFC used two modules to collect information on the physical health and educational services provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Restricted

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

Released/updated on: 2016-08-11
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2007-03-02--2007-11-30
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2006, the JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Restricted

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

Released/updated on: 2016-08-11
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2008-10-26--2009-06-24
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Restricted

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

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

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
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: 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

Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE), 2003-2009 (ICPSR 30983)

Released/updated on: 2012-11-05
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, New York, United States, Illinois, Georgia, Florida, Washington, South Carolina, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2004-02-01--2004-06-01, 2005-03-01--2006-06-01, 2005-08-01--2006-12-01, 2006-09-01--2008-01-01, 2006-09-01--2008-01-01

The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) study included 23 drug courts and 6 comparison sites selected from 8 states across the country. The purpose of the study was to: (1) Test whether drug courts reduce drug use, crime, and multiple other problems associated with drug abuse, in comparision with similar offenders not exposed to drug courts, (2) address how drug courts work and for whom by isolating key individual and program factors that make drug courts more or less effective in achieving their desired outcomes, (3) explain how offender attitudes and behaviors change when they are exposed to drug courts and how these changes help explain the effectiveness of drug court programs, and (4) examine whether drug courts generate cost savings.

Offenders in all 29 sites were surveyed in 3 waves, at baseline, 6 months later, and 18 months after enrollment. The research comprises three major components: process evaluation, impact evaluation, and a cost-benefit analysis. The process evaluation describes how the 23 drug court sites vary in program eligibility, supervision, treatment, team collaboration, and other key policies and practices. The impact evaluation examines whether drug courts produce better outcomes than comparison sites and tests which court policies and offender attitudes might explain those effects. The cost-benefit analysis evaluates drug court costs and benefits.

Curated
Restricted

NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development: Phase I, 1991-1994 [United States] (ICPSR 21940)

Released/updated on: 2018-06-25
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States, Massachusetts, California, Kansas, Virginia, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Washington, Pennsylvania
Time period: 1991-01-01--1994-01-01

The overall purpose of this study was to examine the influence of variations in early childcare histories on the psychological development of infants and toddlers from a variety of family backgrounds. This general objective was addressed through a prospective, longitudinal study of the experiences of 1,364 children and their families, which took into account the complex interactions among child characteristics and those of the human and physical environments in which the children were reared.

Research Goals

The specific research aims were as follows:

  • Examining the relationship between infants' childcare arrangements (defined in terms of hours, type, quality, and stability of care and the age at which the child entered care) and children's concurrent and long-term development. Specifically, the study investigated the association between children's experiences in childcare and their social, emotional, language, and cognitive development. The social-emotional assessments included measures of attachment, independence, compliance, behavior problems, prosocial and antisocial behavior, and general competence in interacting with peers. Cognitive variables include general developmental level and problem solving skills. Language assessments incorporated measures of children's expressive and receptive communicative competence.

  • Examining whether the social ecology of the home moderates the effects of childcare, i.e., whether children from different home environments are differentially affected by similar childcare experiences. The study examined the moderating effects of parents' values and attitudes, psychological adjustment and mental health, stress and social support, child-rearing practices, time use, interactions with the child, the marital relationship, and family demographics.

  • Examining whether individual differences among children moderate the effects of infant care on child development. The study examined the moderating effects of such child characteristics as age, sex, health, birth order, and temperament.

  • Identify demographic and family characteristics associated with families' childcare decisions. The study examined whether specific childcare arrangements are related to the parents' social class, marital status, psychological adjustment and personality, child-rearing values and attitudes, parenting practices, stress, social support, marital relationship, and the availability of childcare in the community.

  • Provide a natural history of infant care in the 1990s, and help establish a baseline of data pertaining to the kinds of care being used by families. Whereas other national databases, such as those provided by the United States Census Bureau, provide static estimates of the number of children in different types of childcare, this network study supplements that knowledge with longitudinal data on successive enrollments into day care at various ages, patterns of arrangements used concurrently and over time, and the stability of arrangements during the first three years of life. One of the most valuable aspects of the collaborative study is the opportunity it provides to obtain a more complete and accurate picture of patterns of infant care used by families today. Census surveys use only gross categories of care (e.g., center vs. in-home). In this study, more fine-grained information regarding the types of centers and home-care facilities was gathered.

  • Examine the consequences for families of maternal employment and childcare choices. Family relationships, parental mental health, family stress, and so on, are not just inputs to child development or moderators of childcare effects, they are also outcomes. High-quality childcare may alleviate family stress and enhance parental adjustment. Low-quality childcare may add to the stress parents experience. Although the main focus in the study was on the effect of childcare on the child, the study also examined the effect of childcare on the family.

  • Identify demographic characteristics of childcare associated with childcare quality. Of interest to policy makers is another aspect of the study, the investigation of those regulatory characteristics that predict care of higher quality. These characteristics included the level and type of caregiver training, the size of the childcare group, the auspices of the childcare program (public/private, profit/nonprofit, independent/chain, employer-sponsored/church-based), whether the facility was licensed or unlicensed, the level of payment and fees, and whether the caregiver was a relative of the family.

Data File Organization

309 data files were compiled for this study and are organized into 3 main groups:

  1. Analytical Data Sets (ADS) -- The raw data were examined and composites defined by small groups of individual principal investigators according to the demographic, family, childcare, and child outcome content of the data. The psychometric and distributional qualities of the variables, along with site differences, were examined. A set of variables that were psychometrically and distributionally acceptable to be used in analytic analyses was designed to test the study hypotheses. These data files comprise Parts 1-42 of the study data material.

  2. Supplemental Data Sets -- New and revised analysis variables as well as across-time mean scores and primary composites were produced as a supplement to the original Analytical Datasets. These data files comprise Parts 43-55 of the study data material.

  3. Raw Data Sets -- The raw data were made available and comprise Parts 56-309 of the study data material.

Training Workshop

A three-day summer training workshop on the SECCYD was put on by NICHD at the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 2010. The binder from that workshop, which includes the Powerpoint slides used during presentations, are freely available to the public as part of the study documentation.

Curated
Restricted

NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development: Phase II, 1995-1999 [United States] (ICPSR 21941)

Released/updated on: 2018-06-25
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States, Massachusetts, California, Kansas, Virginia, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Washington, Pennsylvania
Time period: 1995-01-01--1999-01-01

The overall purpose of this study was to examine the influence of variations in early childcare histories on the psychological development of infants and toddlers from a variety of family backgrounds. This general objective was addressed through a prospective, longitudinal study of the experiences of 1,364 children and their families, which took into account the complex interactions among child characteristics and those of the human and physical environments in which the children were reared.

Research Goals

The specific research aims were as follows:

  • Examining the relationship between infants' childcare arrangements (defined in terms of hours, type, quality, and stability of care and the age at which the child entered care) and children's concurrent and long-term development. Specifically, the study investigated the association between children's experiences in childcare and their social, emotional, language, and cognitive development. The social-emotional assessments included measures of attachment, independence, compliance, behavior problems, prosocial and antisocial behavior, and general competence in interacting with peers. Cognitive variables include general developmental level and problem solving skills. Language assessments incorporated measures of children's expressive and receptive communicative competence.

  • Examining whether the social ecology of the home moderates the effects of childcare, i.e., whether children from different home environments are differentially affected by similar childcare experiences. The study examined the moderating effects of parents' values and attitudes, psychological adjustment and mental health, stress and social support, child-rearing practices, time use, interactions with the child, the marital relationship, and family demographics.

  • Examining whether individual differences among children moderate the effects of infant care on child development. The study examined the moderating effects of such child characteristics as age, sex, health, birth order, and temperament.

  • Identify demographic and family characteristics associated with families' childcare decisions. The study examined whether specific childcare arrangements are related to the parents' social class, marital status, psychological adjustment and personality, child-rearing values and attitudes, parenting practices, stress, social support, marital relationship, and the availability of childcare in the community.

  • Provide a natural history of infant care in the 1990s, and help establish a baseline of data pertaining to the kinds of care being used by families. Whereas other national databases, such as those provided by the United States Census Bureau, provide static estimates of the number of children in different types of childcare, this network study supplements that knowledge with longitudinal data on successive enrollments into day care at various ages, patterns of arrangements used concurrently and over time, and the stability of arrangements during the first three years of life. One of the most valuable aspects of the collaborative study is the opportunity it provides to obtain a more complete and accurate picture of patterns of infant care used by families today. Census surveys use only gross categories of care (e.g., center vs. in-home). In this study, more fine-grained information regarding the types of centers and home-care facilities was gathered.

  • Examine the consequences for families of maternal employment and childcare choices. Family relationships, parental mental health, family stress, and so on, are not just inputs to child development or moderators of childcare effects, they are also outcomes. High-quality childcare may alleviate family stress and enhance parental adjustment. Low-quality childcare may add to the stress parents experience. Although the main focus in the study was on the effect of childcare on the child, the study also examined the effect of childcare on the family.

  • Identify demographic characteristics of childcare associated with childcare quality. Of interest to policy makers is another aspect of the study, the investigation of those regulatory characteristics that predict care of higher quality. These characteristics included the level and type of caregiver training, the size of the childcare group, the auspices of the childcare program (public/private, profit/nonprofit, independent/chain, employer-sponsored/church-based), whether the facility was licensed or unlicensed, the level of payment and fees, and whether the caregiver was a relative of the family.

Data File Organization

193 data files were compiled for this study and are organized into 3 main groups:

  1. Analytical Data Sets (ADS) -- The raw data were examined and composites defined by small groups of individual principal investigators according to the demographic, family, childcare, and child outcome content of the data. The psychometric and distributional qualities of the variables along with site differences were examined. A set of variables that was psychometrically and distributionally acceptable to be used in analytic analyses was designed to test the study hypotheses. These data files comprise Parts 1-24 of the study data material.

  2. Supplemental Data Sets -- New and revised analysis variables as well as across-time mean scores and primary composites were produced as a supplement to the original Analytical Data Sets. These data files comprise Parts 25-27 of the study data material.

  3. Raw Data Sets -- The raw data were made available and comprise Parts 28-193 of the study data material.

Training Workshop

A three-day summer training workshop on the SECCYD was put on by NICHD at the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 2010. The binder from that workshop, which includes the Powerpoint slides used during presentations, are freely available to the public as part of the study documentation.

Curated
Restricted

NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development: Phase III, 2000-2004 [United States] (ICPSR 21942)

Released/updated on: 2018-06-25
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States, Massachusetts, California, Kansas, Virginia, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Washington, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2000-01-01--2004-01-01

The overall purpose of this study was to examine the influence of variations in early childcare histories on the psychological development of infants and toddlers from a variety of family backgrounds. This general objective was addressed through a prospective, longitudinal study of the experiences of 1,364 children and their families, which took into account the complex interactions among child characteristics and those of the human and physical environments in which the children were reared.

Research Goals

The specific research aims were as follows:

  • Examining the relationship between infants' childcare arrangements (defined in terms of hours, type, quality, and stability of care and the age at which the child entered care) and children's concurrent and long-term development. Specifically, the study investigated the association between children's experiences in childcare and their social, emotional, language, and cognitive development. The social-emotional assessments included measures of attachment, independence, compliance, behavior problems, prosocial and antisocial behavior, and general competence in interacting with peers. Cognitive variables include general developmental level and problem solving skills. Language assessments incorporated measures of children's expressive and receptive communicative competence.

  • Examining whether the social ecology of the home moderates the effects of childcare, i.e., whether children from different home environments are differentially affected by similar childcare experiences. The study examined the moderating effects of parents' values and attitudes, psychological adjustment and mental health, stress and social support, child-rearing practices, time use, interactions with the child, the marital relationship, and family demographics.

  • Examining whether individual differences among children moderate the effects of infant care on child development. The study examined the moderating effects of such child characteristics as age, sex, health, birth order, and temperament.

  • Identify demographic and family characteristics associated with families' childcare decisions. The study examined whether specific childcare arrangements are related to the parents' social class, marital status, psychological adjustment and personality, child-rearing values and attitudes, parenting practices, stress, social support, marital relationship, and the availability of childcare in the community.

  • Provide a natural history of infant care in the 1990s, and help establish a baseline of data pertaining to the kinds of care being used by families. Whereas other national databases, such as those provided by the United States Census Bureau, provide static estimates of the number of children in different types of childcare, this network study supplements that knowledge with longitudinal data on successive enrollments into day care at various ages, patterns of arrangements used concurrently and over time, and the stability of arrangements during the first three years of life. One of the most valuable aspects of the collaborative study is the opportunity it provides to obtain a more complete and accurate picture of patterns of infant care used by families today. Census surveys use only gross categories of care (e.g., center vs. in-home). In this study, more fine-grained information regarding the types of centers and home-care facilities was gathered.

  • Examine the consequences for families of maternal employment and childcare choices. Family relationships, parental mental health, family stress, and so on, are not just inputs to child development or moderators of childcare effects, they are also outcomes. High-quality childcare may alleviate family stress and enhance parental adjustment. Low-quality childcare may add to the stress parents experience. Although the main focus in the study was on the effect of childcare on the child, the study also examined the effect of childcare on the family.

  • Identify demographic characteristics of childcare associated with childcare quality. Of interest to policy makers is another aspect of the study, the investigation of those regulatory characteristics that predict care of higher quality. These characteristics included the level and type of caregiver training, the size of the childcare group, the auspices of the childcare program (public/private, profit/nonprofit, independent/chain, employer-sponsored/church-based), whether the facility was licensed or unlicensed, the level of payment and fees, and whether the caregiver was a relative of the family.

Data File Organization

504 data files were compiled for this study and are organized into 4 main groups:

  1. Analytical Data Sets (ADS) -- The raw data were examined and composites defined by small groups of individual principal investigators according to the demographic, family, childcare, and child outcome content of the data. The psychometric and distributional qualities of the variables along with site differences were examined. A set of variables that was psychometrically and distributionally acceptable to be used in analytic analyses was designed to test the study hypotheses. These data files comprise Parts 1-49 of the study data material.

  2. Supplemental Data Sets -- New and revised analysis variables as well as across-time mean scores and primary composites were produced as a supplement to the original Analytical Data Sets. These data files comprise Parts 50-55 of the study data material.

  3. Raw Census-Related Data Sets -- Files were produced using geocoded addresses for survey respondents to match block group level data from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses for investigators to create additional measures of interest from the geocoded addresses. These data files comprise Parts 56-58 of the study data material.

  4. Raw Data Sets -- The raw data were made available and comprise Parts 59-505 of the study data material.

Training Workshop

A three-day summer training workshop on the SECCYD was put on by NICHD at the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 2010. The binder from that workshop, which includes the Powerpoint slides used during presentations, are freely available to the public as part of the study documentation.

Curated
Restricted

NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development: Phase IV, 2005-2007 [United States] (ICPSR 22361)

Released/updated on: 2018-06-25
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States, Massachusetts, California, Kansas, Virginia, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Washington, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2005-01-01--2007-01-01

The overall purpose of this study was to examine the influence of variations in early childcare histories on the psychological development of infants and toddlers from a variety of family backgrounds. This general objective was addressed through a prospective, longitudinal study of the experiences of 1,364 children and their families, which took into account the complex interactions among child characteristics and those of the human and physical environments in which the children were reared.

Research Goals

The specific research aims were as follows:

  • Examining the relationship between infants' childcare arrangements (defined in terms of hours, type, quality, and stability of care and the age at which the child entered care) and children's concurrent and long-term development. Specifically, the study investigated the association between children's experiences in childcare and their social, emotional, language, and cognitive development. The social-emotional assessments included measures of attachment, independence, compliance, behavior problems, prosocial and antisocial behavior, and general competence in interacting with peers. Cognitive variables include general developmental level and problem solving skills. Language assessments incorporated measures of children's expressive and receptive communicative competence.

  • Examining whether the social ecology of the home moderates the effects of childcare, i.e., whether children from different home environments are differentially affected by similar childcare experiences. The study examined the moderating effects of parents' values and attitudes, psychological adjustment and mental health, stress and social support, child-rearing practices, time use, interactions with the child, the marital relationship, and family demographics.

  • Examining whether individual differences among children moderate the effects of infant care on child development. The study examined the moderating effects of such child characteristics as age, sex, health, birth order, and temperament.

  • Identify demographic and family characteristics associated with families' childcare decisions. The study examined whether specific childcare arrangements are related to the parents' social class, marital status, psychological adjustment and personality, child-rearing values and attitudes, parenting practices, stress, social support, marital relationship, and the availability of childcare in the community.

  • Provide a natural history of infant care in the 1990s, and help establish a baseline of data pertaining to the kinds of care being used by families. Whereas other national databases, such as those provided by the United States Census Bureau, provide static estimates of the number of children in different types of childcare, this network study supplements that knowledge with longitudinal data on successive enrollments into day care at various ages, patterns of arrangements used concurrently and over time, and the stability of arrangements during the first three years of life. One of the most valuable aspects of the collaborative study is the opportunity it provides to obtain a more complete and accurate picture of patterns of infant care used by families today. Census surveys use only gross categories of care (e.g., center vs. in-home). In this study, more fine-grained information regarding the types of centers and home-care facilities was gathered.

  • Examine the consequences for families of maternal employment and childcare choices. Family relationships, parental mental health, family stress, and so on, are not just inputs to child development or moderators of childcare effects, they are also outcomes. High-quality childcare may alleviate family stress and enhance parental adjustment. Low-quality childcare may add to the stress parents experience. Although the main focus in the study was on the effect of childcare on the child, the study also examined the effect of childcare on the family.

  • Identify demographic characteristics of childcare associated with childcare quality. Of interest to policy makers is another aspect of the study, the investigation of those regulatory characteristics that predict care of higher quality. These characteristics included the level and type of caregiver training, the size of the childcare group, the auspices of the childcare program (public/private, profit/nonprofit, independent/chain, employer-sponsored/church-based), whether the facility was licensed or unlicensed, the level of payment and fees, and whether the caregiver was a relative of the family.

Data File Organization

158 data files were compiled for this study and are organized into 4 main groups:

  1. Analytical Data Sets (ADS)-- The raw data were examined and composites defined by small groups of individual principal investigators according to the demographic, family, childcare, and child outcome content of the data. The psychometric and distributional qualities of the variables along with site differences were examined. A set of variables that was psychometrically and distributionally acceptable to be used in analytic analyses was designed to test the study hypotheses. These data files comprise Parts 1-19 of the study data material.

  2. Supplemental Data Sets -- New and revised analysis variables as well as across-time mean scores and primary composites were produced as supplements to the original Analytical Data Sets. These data files are Parts 20-26 of the study data material.

  3. Raw Census-Related Data Sets -- Files were produced using geocoded addresses for survey respondents to match block group-level data from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses for investigators to create additional measures of interest from the geocoded addresses. These data files comprise Parts 27-30 of the study data material.

  4. Raw Data Sets -- The raw data were made available and comprise Parts 31-158 of the study data material.

Included in this phase of the study are the output of several third-party software programs that were used during Phases II, III and IV to collect data for specific tasks or activities. These programs produced one output data file per subject, which were combined to produce some of the raw data files for those studies. The original program output is included as expanded documentation in this phase of the study.

Training Workshop

A three-day summer training workshop on the SECCYD was put on by NICHD at the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 2010. The binder from that workshop, which includes the Powerpoint slides used during presentations, are freely available to the public as part of the study documentation.

Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Research on Adaptive Interests, Skills, and Environments (RAISE) Study, North Carolina, 2015-2019 (ICPSR 36850)

Released/updated on: 2024-09-09
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States
Time period: 2015-01-01--2019-01-01
The Research on Adaptive Interest, Skills, and Environments (RAISE) project is a coordinated set of pilot studies funded and otherwise supported by the Center for the Study of Adolescent Risk and Resilience (C-StARR) at Duke University. The initial data collection effort (Adolescent T1; 2015; NAHDAP 100737) was conducted by telephone and focused on self-regulation and related skills during early adolescence and their role in early instances of health risk behavior. The survey was comprised of brief measures of constructs in six areas of interest to C-StARR investigators: (1) background and home environment; (2) self-regulation and personality; (3) physical and mental health; (4) problem behaviors; (5) academics and school; and (6) technology use. The representative sample of 2104 adolescents was drawn from the population of fifth through eighth graders enrolled in North Carolina public schools during the 2014-2015 school year. The Adolescent Time 2 (T2; 2016-2017) survey was administered online for virtually all participants. In addition to the measures collected for the Adolescent T1 study, the Adolescent T2 survey included measures of subjective social status, neighborhood social cohesion and relationships, neighborhood safety, stressful life events, everyday discrimination, and frequency, functions, and parental monitoring of social media use. The Adolescent Time 3 (T3; 2018-2019) survey was administered online for all participants. In addition to the measures collected for the Adolescent T1 and T2 studies, the Adolescent T3 survey included measures of perceived social mobility, peer substance use, and parental monitoring of digital technology use. The Parent Wave 1 (2017-2018) survey was administered online for all participants. Respondents were parents or legal guardians (with one respondent per participating child). In addition to demographic information, the survey included measures of work status, stressful life events, depression and anxiety, food security, home, family, and neighborhood context, parent personality, race and politics, and parent perceptions of their child's personality and behavior. The Parent Wave 2 (2018-2019) survey was administered online for all participants. Respondents were parents or legal guardians (with one respondent per participating child). In addition to the measures collected for the Parent T1 study, the Parent T2 survey included measures of perceived social mobility, parent-child relationship quality, positive parenting behaviors, experience of everyday discrimination, and parent perceptions of their monitoring of their child's digital technology use.
Curated

Sexual Acquisition and Transmission of HIV Cooperative Agreement Program (SATHCAP), 2006-2008 [United States] Restricted Use Files (ICPSR 29181)

Released/updated on: 2010-12-09
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Raleigh, United States, Chicago, Illinois, Los Angeles, California
Time period: 2006-01-01--2008-01-01
The Sexual Acquisition and Transmission of HIV Cooperative Agreement Program (SATHCAP) is a multisite study which was founded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and was designed to assess the role of drug use in the sexual transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) from traditional high-risk groups, such as men who have sex with men (MSM) and drug users (DU), to lower risk groups, such as non-drug-using sexual partners. The study was conducted in three United States cities: Los Angeles, CA; Chicago, IL; Raleigh-Durham, NC; and in St. Petersburg, Russia. NIDA brought together researchers from the University of California-Los Angeles; the University of Chicago-Illinois; Research Triangle Institute International in Raleigh-Durham, NC; Yale University, with the Biomedical Center (Yale/BMC) in St. Petersburg, Russia; and the RAND Corporation. SATHCAP conducted a cross-sectional study across the four sites using a respondent-driven sampling (RDS) sampling approach, a common questionnaire, and similar biological testing. The goal of sampling approach was to recruit an RDS sample of MSM, DU, and individuals who were both MSM and DU (MSM/DU), as well as a sample of sex partners of MSM, DU, and MSM/DU, and sex partners of sex partners. The key research questions for SATHCAP were: (1) To what extent do HIV infections among DU and MSM populations spread to uninfected non-DU and non-MSM individuals through sexual activity? (2) What is the role of drugs in this spread? (3) What individual, behavioral, network, and structural characteristics determine the speed, extent, and path of this spread? Respondents were asked questions about their sexual relationships with their partners, method of drug use, name of drugs they used, method of sharing drugs, and method of sexual activities with their partners.
Curated

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) National Cross-Site Evaluation [Restricted Use] (ICPSR 28921)

Released/updated on: 2014-03-24
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Vermont, Indiana, United States, Wyoming, Tennessee, Maine, Arkansas, Washington, West Virginia, Colorado, Missouri, Guam, Arizona, Nevada, Rhode Island, Montana, Kentucky, Florida, Michigan, New Mexico, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Palau
Time period: 2005-08-01--2007-09-01, 2006-12-14--2007-08-14, 2008-09-15--2009-06-30, 2008-10-15--2009-06-15, 2006-07-01--2006-09-30, 2005-12-01--2007-12-01, 2008-01-01--2008-06-30, 2008-07-01--2008-12-31, 2009-01-01--2009-06-30, 2009-07-01--2009-12-31, 2010-01-01--2010-06-30, 2005-12-01--2007-12-01, 2008-01-01--2008-06-30, 2008-07-01--2008-12-31, 2009-01-01--2009-06-30, 2009-07-01--2009-12-31, 2010-01-01--2010-06-30, 2005-12-01--2007-12-01, 2008-01-01--2008-06-30, 2008-07-01--2008-12-31, 2009-01-01--2009-06-30, 2009-07-01--2009-12-31, 2010-01-01--2010-06-30
The Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) National Cross-Site Evaluation was conducted to evaluate the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)'s SPF SIG initiative, which sought to: (1) prevent the onset and reduce the progression of substance abuse, including childhood and underage drinking; (2) reduce substance abuse-related problems in communities; and (3) build prevention capacity and infrastructure at the state and community levels. This cross-site evaluation included the 21 states and territories CSAP funded in FY2004 (Cohort 1) and an additional 5 States funded in Cohort 2 in FY2005 that were funded for up to 5 years to implement the SPF. The SPF is a five-step prevention planning model that requires states to: (1) conduct a statewide needs assessment, including the establishment of a State Epidemiological and Outcomes Workgroup (SEOW); (2) mobilize and build state and community capacity to address needs; (3) develop a statewide strategic plan for prevention; (4) implement evidence-based prevention, policies, and practices (EBPPP) to meet state and community needs; and (5) monitor and evaluate the implementation of their SPF SIG project. Under contract to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) with funding provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Westat, in collaboration with the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) and The MayaTech Corporation, implemented a multilevel, multi-method quasi-experimental design to evaluate SPF SIG's impact. The scope of the evaluation encompassed national, state, and community levels. The design included comparison conditions at both the state and community levels. These data represent Phase I of the restricted use data release and contains extensive data on state-level implementation, community-level implementation, and state-level infrastructure, as well as other reference elements. A subsequent release (Phase II) will include state- and community-level outcomes, as well as data on community-level implementation, community-level implementation fidelity, state-level sustainability, and mediating variables.
Curated
Restricted

Synthetic North Carolina Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) Data, 2009-2013 (ICPSR 36052)

Released/updated on: 2017-12-12
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States
Time period: 2009-01-01--2013-01-01

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.

The misuse, abuse and diversion of controlled substances have reached epidemic proportion in the United States. Contributing to this problem are providers who over-prescribe these substances. The researchers in this study developed a series of metrics to identify providers manifesting unusual prescribing practices using one state's prescription monitoring program.

The collection includes 1 Excel data file with 10,000 cases and 13 variables (2015_NC_PDMP_Synthetic_Data_Set.xlsx).

Users should note the included data file is a synthetic dataset constructed with the same variance and distributions as the original data.