Showing 1 – 50 of 82 results.
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2001 (ICPSR 3688)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Detroit, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Laredo, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Colorado, Honolulu, Missouri, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, Kansas City (Missouri), New York (state), Birmingham, Michigan, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Philadelphia
Time period: 2001-01-01--2001-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2001 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 33 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2001 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2002 (ICPSR 3815)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Washington, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Laredo, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia
Time period: 2002-01-01--2002-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2002 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 36 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2002 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2003 (ICPSR 4020)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Boston, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Tampa, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, District of Columbia, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, Miami, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Houston
Time period: 2003-01-01--2003-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2003 up to four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 39 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. The ADAM program in 2003 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult male and female files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) for males, weights.
Curated
Partially restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2007 (ICPSR 25821)
Released/updated on: 2010-01-28
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
Time period: 2007-04-01--2007-09-01
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) II program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, the ONDCP and Abt Associates have initiated a new data collection that replicates the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. A total of 8,296 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2007. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated
Partially restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2008 (ICPSR 27221)
Released/updated on: 2010-03-31
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc. have initiated a new data collection that replicates the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implements two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collects data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. Data collection has been conducted across two back-to-back quarters in each of 10 counties from a county-based representative sample of 250 male arrestees per quarter for a total of 500 arrestees annually per site or a total of 5,000 arrestees across sites annually. A total of 7,717 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2008. Collection occurs in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2007 and ending March 31, 2008. Additional data collection periods were optioned by ONDCP, and subsequent cycles of back-to-back data collection (not yet available) began April 1, 2008. Participation is voluntary and confidential, and the procedures include a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated
Partially restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2009 (ICPSR 30061)
Released/updated on: 2011-02-24
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc., initiated a new data collection that replicated the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. A total of 7,794 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2009. Collection occurred in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2009, and ending September 30, 2009. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated
Partially restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2010 (ICPSR 32321)
Released/updated on: 2011-11-04
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc., initiated a new data collection that replicated the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. A total of 8,332 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2010. Collection occurred in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2010, and ending September 30, 2010. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), 2003 (ICPSR 34085)
Released/updated on: 2013-08-05
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, Indiana, United States, Oklahoma, Maine, Utah, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Montana, Hawaii, Kansas, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, Iowa, New Mexico, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland
The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is a state-based system of health surveys that collects information on health risk behaviors, preventive health practices, and health care access primarily related to chronic disease and injury. For many states, the BRFSS is the only available source of timely, accurate data on health-related behaviors. BRFSS was established in 1984 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); currently data are collected monthly in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and Guam. More than 350,000 adults are interviewed each year, making the BRFSS the largest telephone health survey in the world. States use BRFSS data to identify emerging health problems, establish and track health objectives, and develop and evaluate public health policies and programs. The BRFSS is a cross-sectional telephone survey conducted by state health departments with technical and methodologic assistance provided by CDC. States conduct monthly telephone surveillance using a standardized questionnaire to determine the distribution of risk behaviors and health practices among adults. Responses are forwarded to CDC, where the monthly data are aggregated for each state, returned with standard tabulations, and published at the year's end by each state. The BRFSS questionnaire was developed jointly by CDC's Behavioral Surveillance Branch (BSB) and the states. When combined with mortality and morbidity statistics, these data enable public health officials to establish policies and priorities and to initiate and assess health promotion strategies.
Curated
Partially restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched Data [United States] (ICPSR 27543)
Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27541) and the JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 2000-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27542) that were matched on the facility identifier to create one data file. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Each record in the concatenated matched data file provides information about the juvenile and also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held from both the CJRP and JRFC collections. Therefore, these data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date are included in this file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not be included in this concatenated matched file. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Partially restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched Facility-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27544)
Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP) AND JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED MATCHED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27543) that were aggregated to the facility level. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the concatenated matched data file (ICPSR 27543) were aggregated to the facility level. Therefore, the CJRP/JRFC concatenated matched facility-level data provide information about the characteristics of the facility from both the CJRP and JRFC collections and the juvenile population held in that facility from the CJRP collection. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date are included in this file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not be included in this concatenated matched facility-level file. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Partially restricted
Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched State-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27545)
Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP) AND JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED MATCHED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27543) that were aggregated to the state level. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the concatenated matched data file (ICPSR 27543) were aggregated to the state level. Therefore, the CJRP/JRFC concatenated matched state-level data provide information about the characteristics of juvenile residential facilities in the state from both the CJRP and JRFC collections and the juvenile population held in these facilities from the CJRP collection. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date were included in the concatenated matched file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not have been included in the file used for the aggregation. Variables providing United States Census population data and upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction were also added. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
The Community Vulnerability and Responses to Drug-User-Related HIV/AIDS, 1990-2013 [96 Metropolitan Statistical Areas, United States] (ICPSR 36575)
Released/updated on: 2017-08-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Milwaukee, Indiana, Ocean (New Jersey), Fort Worth, Cincinnati, Austin, Monmouth (New Jersey), Utah, San Jose, Rock Hill, Gastonia, San Diego, Columbus (Ohio), Syracuse, Springfield (Massachusetts), North Little Rock (Arkansas), Arizona, Las Vegas, Arlington, Springfield (Ohio), Boston, San Bernardino, Providence, Seattle, Kentucky, St. Petersburg, Bethlehem, Niagara Falls (New York), Nashville, California, Florida, Delaware, Hunterdon (New Jersey), Boca Raton (Florida), Troy, Knoxville, Mississippi, Fresno, New Haven, Sarasota, Illinois, Newark, Georgia, Little Rock, Virginia, Maryland, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Suffolk County (New York), United States, Oklahoma, Grand Rapids, Louisville, Waukesha (Wisconsin), Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Albany (New York), Wichita, Mesa (Arizona), Carlisle (Pennsylvania), Fall River, Massachusetts, Missouri, Winston-Salem, Holland (Michigan), New Orleans, Scranton, Denver, Salt Lake City, Harrisburg, Dallas, St. Louis, Nevada, Schenectady, Allentown, Raleigh, San Antonio, Muskegon, St. Paul, Clearwater, Hawaii, Rochester (New York), Passaic, Ventura (California), Birmingham, Michigan, Lebanon, Baltimore, New Mexico, Orlando, Louisiana, Toledo, Middlesex (New Jersey), Philadelphia, Riverside, Oklahoma City, Akron, Greensboro, Detroit, Charlotte, High Point, Tucson, Albuquerque, Everett, Oakland, Bakersfield, New York City, Somerset (New Jersey), Petersburg, Memphis, Ogden, Jacksonville, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Nassau (New York), Orange County (California), Sacramento, El Paso, Greenville, Kansas, Meriden, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Chapel Hill (North Carolina), West Palm Beach, Iowa, Texas, Lorain, Portland (Oregon), Hazleton, Tampa, Durham, San Marcos (Texas), Indianapolis, Richmond, Oregon, Warwick, Bergen (New Jersey), Newport News, Ann Arbor, Alabama, Cleveland, Dayton, Nebraska, Omaha, Warren, West Virginia, Elyria, Tacoma, Minneapolis, Youngstown, Atlanta, Honolulu, Phoenix, Bradenton, Wilmington (Delaware), Gary, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Vancouver (Washington), Lodi (California), Chicago, Fort Lauderdale, Wilkes-Barre, Minnesota, Kansas City (Missouri), Bellevue, New York (state), Anderson, New Jersey, Miami, San Francisco, Charleston (South Carolina), Jersey City, Long Beach, Spartanburg (South Carolina), New Hampshire, Easton, Ohio, Los Angeles, Hartford, Stockton, Houston
Time period: 1990-01-01--2013-01-01
The Community Vulnerability and Responses to Drug-User-Related HIV/AIDS, 1990-2013 [96 Metropolitan Statistical Areas, United States] study (CVAR) was a research study of why large United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) vary over time in their vulnerability to HIV/AIDS among drug users and in MSA responses to HIV/AIDS. This collection contains estimates of HIV prevalence among people who injected drugs (PWID) and among sub-populations of PWID. This collection is comprised of ten datasets with differing amounts of variables and provides trend data that describe the following:
- Epidemiologic outcomes including population prevalence of PWIDs and Non-injecting drug users (NIDUs), and particularly their prevalence among youth; and, among PWIDs, HIV prevalence, late-diagnosis HIV cases, and AIDS incidence and mortality.
- Implementation of evidence-based drug-related interventions including drug abuse treatment, syringe exchange, HIV counseling and testing.
- Implementation of non-evidence-based drug-related interventions including incarceration and arrests of drug users.
The collection contains data on the MSA sub-populations including Black, Hispanic, White and "other" race categories. In addition, some statistics are presented in age range categories such as ages 15-29, 30-64 and 15-64.
Curated
Restricted
Crack, Powder Cocaine, and Heroin: Drug Purchase and Use Patterns in Six Cities in the United States, 1995-1996 (ICPSR 2564)
Released/updated on: 2012-08-22
Geographic coverage: New York City, Oregon, District of Columbia, San Diego, San Antonio, United States, Chicago, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), California, New York (state)
Time period: 1995-01-01--1996-01-01
This study was designed to address the practical and policy implications of various drug market participation patterns. In 1995, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) collaborated on a project called the Procurement Study. This study was executed as an addendum to NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]) with the goal of extending previous research in which heroin users were interviewed on various aspects of drug market activity. The present study sought to explore additional features of drug market participation and use, both within and across drug types and cities, and included two additional drugs -- powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Data were collected from recently arrested users of powder cocaine, crack cocaine, and heroin in six DUF cities (Chicago, New York, Portland, San Diego, San Antonio, and Washington, DC). Each of the three files in this collection, Crack Data (Part 1), Heroin Data (Part 2), and Powder Cocaine Data (Part 3), is comprised of data from a procurement interview, urine test variables, and a DUF interview. During the procurement interview, information was collected on purchase and use patterns for specific drugs. Variables from the procurement interview include the respondent's method of using the drug, the term used to refer to the drug, whether the respondent bought the drug in the neighborhood, the number of different dealers the respondent bought the drug from, how the respondent made the connection with the dealer (i.e., street, house, phone, beeper, business/store, or friends), their main drug source, whether the respondent went to someone else if the source was not available, how the respondent coped with not being able to find drugs to buy, whether the respondent got the drug for free, the means by which the respondent obtained money, the quantity and packaging of the drug, and the number of minutes spent searching for, traveling to, and waiting for their last purchase. Urine tests screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography). Data from the DUF interview provide detailed information about each arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs. For each drug type, arrestees were asked whether they had ever used the drug, the age at which they first used the drug, whether they had used the drug within the past three days, how many days they had used the drug within the past month, whether they had ever needed or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were dependent on the drug at the time of the interview. Data from the DUF interview instrument also included alcohol/drug treatment history, information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs, and whether they were influenced by drugs when the crime that they were charged with was committed. The data also include information about whether the arrestee had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether he or she had had prior arrests in the past 12 months. Demographic data include the age, race, sex, educational attainment, marital status, employment status, and living circumstances of each respondent.
Curated
Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): Inmate Pre-Release Assessment (IPASS), 2001 [United States] (ICPSR 29201)
Released/updated on: 2011-01-06
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, New Mexico, California, Maryland
Time period: 2001-05-01--2001-07-01
The UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs (ISAP), in conjunction with Texas Christian University, the University of Kentucky, and Brown University, proposes to develop and test the Inmate Pre-Release Assessment (IPASS) as a method of (1) prioritizing aftercare treatment need among graduates of prison-based substance abuse treatment programs, and (2) specifying an appropriate level of care (residential, outpatient, or self-help groups). The IPASS was developed specifically as a post-release risk measure for prison-based substance abuse treatment graduates by taking into account the inmates' historical drug use and criminal activity, as well as his or her performance during the prison-based treatment program. IPASS forms were administered to inmates housed in 14 institutions in four states: California, Maryland, New Mexico, and Oregon. While the IPASS has demonstrated sound psychometric properties as a continuous measure of post-release risk and general treatment need for substance-abusing parolees (Farabee & Knight, 2001), its ability to predict relapse and recidivism risk has not been tested using a prospective design. Part 1 of this study is the main part which is based on the IPASS Intake Form (479) and is designed to provide a quick assessment of criminal risk based on pre-incarceration risk factors. The first part of this form focuses heavily on criminal history, with questions about arrest and incarceration history, revocation history, and age of first criminal activity. It also asks about education level achieved, marital status and happiness, and friends drug use. The next part on the IPASS Intake Form (479) is designed to provide a quick screen for pre-incarceration drug use severity. It is based on the first ten items of the TCU Drug Screen II with the items corresponding to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) classification criteria for Drug Dependence. And the last part of the IPASS Intake form begins by asking inmates if they want to enter a drug treatment program after leaving prison; and if so, which treatment modality is preferred. Inmates were asked to indicate how much they disagree or agree with nine items pertaining to their interactions with the treatment staff. These items include the treatment staff being easy to talk to, easy to understand, listening to you, organized and prepared, treating you with respect, helping you solve problems, supportive of your progress, helping you with your recovery, and happy with your progress. Part 2 of the study mainly focused on arrest information and the number of criminal activities. Part 3 of the study is based on the IPASS Continuing Care Referral Form (484) and begins by asking inmates if they want to enter a drug treatment program after leaving prison; and if so, which treatment modality is preferred. Part 4 of the study is based on the IPASS Continuing Care Admit/Discharge Form (481A) and provides information regarding the Admission and Discharge of the inmates. And finally, Part 5 of the study is completed by the inmates' primary counselor and begins by recording the number of "major" disciplinary acts an inmate committed prior to and during their time at the treatment program.
Curated
Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): Step 'N Out, 2002-2006 [United States] (ICPSR 30221)
Released/updated on: 2011-07-27
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Rhode Island, United States, Connecticut, Delaware, Virginia
Time period: 2002-01-01--2006-01-01
Step 'N Out is a research study designed to examine the potential of a new approach to address the re-entry needs of offenders who have substance abuse issues, one which integrates the systems of supervision and treatment. The study is a randomized clinical trial which enrolls subjects who are new to supervision. Those who are in the treatment arm of the study meet with their probation officer weekly for 12 weeks, with every other meeting including a treatment counselor. The PO and counselor have been trained to use motivational interviewing and collaborative behavioral techniques to explore the client's personal issues and triggers that may hamper his/her successful re-entry into the community. The probation officer and counselor work with the client to establish weekly recovery and social goals in the form of a written contract that enables the client to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions. In addition, the variables in this study generally cover topics on drug use and testing; demographics and criminal background; treatment programs and sessions; and finally, relationships between clients and their parole/probation officers.
Curated
Partially restricted
Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 10), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38754)
Released/updated on: 2023-11-13
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, and 10.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
Curated
Partially restricted
Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 2), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38407)
Released/updated on: 2022-07-05
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. This data includes home-based assessments carried out at age 2 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
Curated
Partially restricted
Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 3), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38745)
Released/updated on: 2023-06-08
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 3 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside of Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson. A list of more than 80 published papers using the data set can be found at www.pitt.edu/ppcl under the Early Steps Publications section.
Curated
Partially restricted
Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 4), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38748)
Released/updated on: 2023-06-27
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, and 10.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
Curated
Partially restricted
Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 5), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38749)
Released/updated on: 2023-07-17
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, and 10.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
Curated
Partially restricted
Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 7), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38751)
Released/updated on: 2023-06-27
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 7.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
Curated
Partially restricted
Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 8), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38752)
Released/updated on: 2024-02-13
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, and 10.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
Curated
Partially restricted
Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 9), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38753)
Released/updated on: 2023-10-16
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, and 10.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
Curated
Partially restricted
Early Steps Multisite Study (Condition Files), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38755)
Released/updated on: 2024-01-08
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, and 10.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternate caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
The Condition Files refer to feedback and intervention follow-up sessions researchers conducted with "Parent Consultants". Parent consultants were highly trained masters- or doctoral-level clinicians with backgrounds typically in social work, counseling, or clinical psychology, who conducted assessment and feedback sessions with caregivers.
Curated
Partially restricted
Helping Young Smokers Quit: Identifying Best Practices for Tobacco Cessation, Phase II National Program Evaluation, 2003-2006 (ICPSR 33161)
Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: Oregon, New York, United States, Kentucky, Minnesota, California, Utah, Washington, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Colorado, Missouri, Louisiana, Ohio, Maryland, Wisconsin, Nevada
Time period: 2003-01-01--2006-01-01
The Helping Young Smokers Quit (HYSQ) initiative was a multi-phase project that addressed the critical need to disseminate effective, developmentally appropriate cessation programs for young smokers. Phase I identified and described tobacco treatment programs available for youth in the United States, Phase II evaluated smoking secession programs tailored for youth to help understand what works, and Phase III identified factors associated with program sustainability. Phase II collected data from five sources: (1) program participants, (2) program providers, (3) program curricula, (4) organizational leaders, and (5) community leaders and community ordinances.
Program participants were interviewed at baseline, end-of program, 6-month follow-up, and 12-month follow-up. Topics covered by the interviews include age, gender, race, Hispanic origin, language spoken at home, employment, income, religiosity, school enrollment, education level, school grades, height, weight, extracurricular activities, recreation, sports, exercise, aspirations after high school, psychological well-being, alcohol consumption, cigarette use and use of other tobacco products, attitudes about smoking, plans to stop/continue smoking, attempts to quit smoking, reasons for participating in the program, topics/issues covered by the program, opinions about the program, and smoking experience since the beginning of the program. In addition, for each follow-up survey, the participants provided a breath sample for carbon monoxide analysis to validate self-reported quit status.
After the last session of each program delivery, the program providers, such as program leaders and cessation counselors, were interviewed about the content and delivery of the program and the reactions of the participants and themselves to the program as delivered. The program providers also kept attendance records.
Curriculum content was abstracted from program manuals and other materials used in each program.
Organizational leaders of the organizations that offered the programs were surveyed about various aspects of each organization, including the organization's smoking cessation program and the organization's mission, general operations, and smoking-related policies and practices.
Community-level information was collected in two ways: (1) interviews of community leaders representing local health departments, school boards, and juvenile justice offices, and (2) archival research of public ordinances relevant to tobacco and control policies.
Nine data files/datasets constitute the data. Datasets 1-4 contain the participant questionnaire data, carbon monoxide measurement data, and program attendance data. Dataset 5 comprises information about each program and its curriculum, some information about the community in which the program was located, and summary data about enforcement of tobacco-related ordinances. Dataset 6 contains information about about the program providers and each program delivery, including recruitment, logistics, content, and the reactions of providers and participants. Dataset 7 covers administrative aspects of the smoking cessation programs and each offering organization's mission, general operations, and smoking-related policies and norms. Dataset 8 contains information about local and state-level tobacco-related ordinances for every state and local jurisdiction where each program was located, and Dataset 9 condenses the information in Dataset 8 into one summary record for each community. The unit of observation for Datasets 1-4 is the participant, for Datasets 5 and 7 the smoking cessation program/offering organization, for Dataset 6 the program delivery/program cohort, for Dataset 8 the ordinance, and for Dataset 9 the community.
Curated
Partially restricted
Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000-2010 -- Concatenated Data [United States] (ICPSR 27542)
Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Partially restricted
Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000-2010 -- Concatenated State-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27546)
Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection includes data from the JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 2000-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27542) that were aggregated to the state level. The JRFC collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bed space in the facility to indicate whether the facility is experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the JRFC concatenated data file (ICPSR 27542) were aggregated to the state level and variables providing United States Census population data and upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction were added. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Partially 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
Partially 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
Partially 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
Partially 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
Partially 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
Partially 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
Partially restricted
Oregon Youth Study Couples Study, Time 1, 1991-1995 (ICPSR 38695)
Released/updated on: 2024-10-14
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 1991-01-01--1995-01-01
This study tested a comprehensive model for couples from at-risk backgrounds on the basis of a dynamic developmental systems approach and stress and support processes to examine the risk and protective impacts of romantic relationships on health in adulthood. It was posited that both general and specific developmental and relationship risks have significant implications for health outcomes in mid-adulthood. In addition, the course of intimate partner violence in early mid-adulthood was examined.
Curated
Partially restricted
Oregon Youth Study Couples Study, Time 2, 1994-1998 (ICPSR 38720)
Released/updated on: 2025-05-19
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 1994-01-01--1998-01-01
This study tested a comprehensive model for couples from at-risk backgrounds on the basis of a dynamic developmental systems approach and stress and support processes to examine the risk and protective impacts of romantic relationships on health in adulthood. It was posited that both general and specific developmental and relationship risks have significant implications for health outcomes in mid-adulthood. In addition, the course of intimate partner violence in early mid-adulthood was examined.
Curated
Partially restricted
Oregon Youth Study Couples Study, Time 3, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 38722)
Released/updated on: 2025-05-15
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 1997-01-01--2000-01-01
This study tested a comprehensive model for couples from at-risk backgrounds on the basis of a dynamic developmental systems approach and stress and support processes to examine the risk and protective impacts of romantic relationships on health in adulthood. It was posited that both general and specific developmental and relationship risks have significant implications for health outcomes in mid-adulthood. In addition, the course of intimate partner violence in early mid-adulthood was examined.
Curated
Partially restricted
Oregon Youth Study Couples Study, Time 4, 1999-2002 (ICPSR 38724)
Released/updated on: 2025-06-19
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 1999-01-01--2002-01-01
This study tested a comprehensive model for couples from at-risk backgrounds on the basis of a dynamic developmental systems approach and stress and support processes to examine the risk and protective impacts of romantic relationships on health in adulthood. It was posited that both general and specific developmental and relationship risks have significant implications for health outcomes in mid-adulthood. In addition, the course of intimate partner violence in early mid-adulthood was examined.
Curated
Partially restricted
Oregon Youth Study Couples Study, Time 5, 2001-2004 (ICPSR 38725)
Released/updated on: 2025-06-18
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 2001-01-01--2004-01-01
This study tested a comprehensive model for couples from at-risk backgrounds on the basis of a dynamic developmental systems approach and stress and support processes to examine the risk and protective impacts of romantic relationships on health in adulthood. It was posited that both general and specific developmental and relationship risks have significant implications for health outcomes in mid-adulthood.
Curated
Partially restricted
Oregon Youth Study Couples Study, Time 6, 2003-2006 (ICPSR 38726)
Released/updated on: 2025-06-24
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 2003-01-01--2006-01-01
This study is part of the Oregon Youth Study, which began in 1983 and has now become the Three Generational Study (3GS). The aim of the original study was to examine the etiology of antisocial behaviors in boys, with the longer-term goal of designing preventative interventions. The longitudinal study expanded and now includes this study, the Oregon Youth Study Couples Study. This study explores behaviors among the respondents and their romantic partners, covering topics such as social patterns, sexual behavior, drug and alcohol use, and mental health. The rationale for examining the data is that trends in romantic partnerships may play a significant role in physical health outcomes.
Curated
Partially restricted
Oregon Youth Study Couples Study, Time 7, 2005-2007 (ICPSR 38727)
Released/updated on: 2025-06-19
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 2005-01-01--2007-01-01
This study tested a comprehensive model for couples from at-risk backgrounds on the basis of a dynamic developmental systems approach and stress and support processes to examine the risk and protective impacts of romantic relationships on health in adulthood. It was posited that both general and specific developmental and relationship risks have significant implications for health outcomes in mid-adulthood. In addition, the course of intimate partner violence in early mid-adulthood was examined.
Curated
Partially restricted
Oregon Youth Study Couples Study, Time 8, 2010-2012 (ICPSR 38728)
Released/updated on: 2025-06-18
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 2010-01-01--2012-01-01
The original Oregon Youth Study began in 1983. The goal is to examine the etiology of antisocial behaviors in boys, with a view to designing preventive interventions within the context of the family and the school. This longitudinal study has expanded over the past few decades into an intergenerational study, retaining the original young men and including their partners and children.
This study evaluates a comprehensive model for couples from at-risk backgrounds on the basis of a dynamic developmental systems approach and stress and support processes to examine the risk and protective impacts of romantic relationships on health in adulthood. It was posited that both general and specific developmental and relationship risks have significant implications for health outcomes in mid-adulthood. In addition, the course of intimate partner violence in early mid-adulthood is examined.
Curated
Partially restricted
Oregon Youth Study Couples Study, Time 9, 2011-2013 (ICPSR 38729)
Released/updated on: 2025-06-18
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 2011-01-01--2013-01-01
The original Oregon Youth Study began in 1983. The goal is to examine the etiology of antisocial behaviors in boys, with a view to designing preventive interventions within the context of the family and the school. This longitudinal study has expanded over the past few decades into an intergenerational study, retaining the original young men and including their partners and children.
This study evaluates a comprehensive model for couples from at-risk backgrounds on the basis of a dynamic developmental systems approach and stress and support processes to examine the risk and protective impacts of romantic relationships on health in adulthood. It was posited that both general and specific developmental and relationship risks have significant implications for health outcomes in mid-adulthood. In addition, the course of intimate partner violence in early mid-adulthood is examined.
Curated
Partially restricted
Oregon Youth Study Male Peer Interaction Task, Waves 15-16, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 38756)
Released/updated on: 2025-06-18
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 1997-01-01--2000-01-01
The original Oregon Youth Study (OYS) began in 1983. The goal was to examine the etiology of antisocial behaviors in boys, with a view to designing preventive interventions within the context of the family and the school. The longitudinal study has expanded over the past few decades into an intergenerational study, retaining the original young men and including their partners and children. Waves 15-16 target males aged 23-25 and their peers.
Curated
Partially restricted
Oregon Youth Study Male Peer Interaction Task, Waves 19-20, 2001-2004 (ICPSR 38757)
Released/updated on: 2025-05-20
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 2001-01-01--2004-01-01
This study is part of the Oregon Youth Study (OYS), which began in 1983 and has now become the Three Generational Study (3GS). The aim of the original study was to examine the etiology of antisocial behaviors in boys, with the longer-term goal of designing preventative interventions. The longitudinal study expanded to include data collection regarding the relationships between the original male respondents, their romantic partners, and their offspring. This particular study focuses on the relationships of OYS male respondents and their peers, as well as the respondents' interactions with friends as well as society at large. Data is collected across Waves 19 and 20, spanning from 2001 to 2004.
Curated
Partially restricted
Oregon Youth Study Three Generational Study, Multi-Wave, 1995-2022 (ICPSR 39046)
Released/updated on: 2025-05-20
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 1995-01-01--2022-01-01
This study is part of the Oregon Youth Study (OYS), which began in 1983 and has now become the Three Generational Study (3GS). The aim of the original study was to examine the etiology of antisocial behaviors in boys, with the longer-term goal of designing preventative interventions. The longitudinal study expanded to include data collection regarding the relationships between the original male respondents, their romantic partners, and their offspring. This particular study focuses on the biological mothers and fathers (original OYS respondents) of offspring in the Three Generational Study. Data is collected across multiple waves, spanning from 1995 to 2022. It provides supplemental information that supports the continuing aims of the various waves within the OYS and 3GS studies. It examines the familial and personal history of the adult respondents, examining intergenerational trends of social behavior, alcohol and substance use, criminal behavior, mental health, and medical history. In particular, it includes detailed information about the personal history of the biological mothers of 3GS offspring.
Curated
Partially restricted
Oregon Youth Study Three Generational Study, Time 1, 1995-2008 (ICPSR 38758)
Released/updated on: 2025-06-19
Geographic coverage: Oregon
Time period: 1995-01-01--2008-01-01
An intergenerational longitudinal study that followed the Oregon Youth Study (OYS) males, their partners, and their children. The study contains questions related to parenting, interpersonal behaviors, risk behaviors, and substance use.
Curated
Partially restricted
Oregon Youth Study Three Generational Study, Time 2, 1995-2018 (ICPSR 39054)
Released/updated on: 2025-06-24
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 1995-01-01--2018-01-01
This study is part of the Oregon Youth Study, which began in 1983 and has now become the Three Generational Study (3GS). The aim of the original study was to examine the etiology of antisocial behaviors in boys, with the longer-term goal of designing preventative interventions. The longitudinal study expanded to include data collection regarding the relationships between the original male respondents, their romantic partners, and their offspring. This study in particular focuses on the parental behavior of the original male respondents and their romantic partners towards the respondents' children in the target age range of 3 years. The rationale for examining the data is to track intergenerational trends in social behavior and health, with the aim to develop preventative interventions for future cohorts.
Curated
Partially restricted
Oregon Youth Study Three Generational Study, Time 3, 1997-2018 (ICPSR 39055)
Released/updated on: 2025-06-17
Geographic coverage: Oregon
An intergenerational longitudinal study that followed the Oregon Youth Study (OYS) males, their partners, and their children. The children in this wave (Time 3, Wave 4) were assessed at five years old. The study contains questions related to parenting, interpersonal behaviors, risk behaviors, and substance use.
Curated
Partially restricted
Oregon Youth Study Three Generational Study, Time 4, 2000-2018 (ICPSR 39053)
Released/updated on: 2025-06-17
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2018-01-01
The original Oregon Youth Study (OYS) began in 1983. The goal was to examine the etiology of antisocial behaviors in boys, with a view to designing preventive interventions within the context of the family and the school. This longitudinal study has expanded over the past few decades into an intergenerational study, retaining the original young men and including their partners and children.
The Oregon Youth Study-Three Generational Study (OYS-3GS) was initiated in 1995 and involves the children born to men who were recruited in 1984-85 (OYS), along with their parents.