Search results

Showing 1 – 29 of 29 results.
Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Detroit, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Laredo, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Colorado, Honolulu, Missouri, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, Kansas City (Missouri), New York (state), Birmingham, Michigan, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Philadelphia
Time period: 2001-01-01--2001-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2001 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 33 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2001 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.
Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Washington, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Laredo, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia
Time period: 2002-01-01--2002-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2002 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 36 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2002 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.
Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Boston, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Tampa, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, District of Columbia, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, Miami, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Houston
Time period: 2003-01-01--2003-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2003 up to four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 39 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. The ADAM program in 2003 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult male and female files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) for males, weights.
Curated

Assessing Washington State's Models to Increase Use of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder: Hub and Spoke and Low-Barrier Opioid Treatment Networks, 2015-2022 (ICPSR 39817)

Released/updated on: 2026-04-13
Geographic coverage: United States, Washington
Time period: 2015-07-01--2022-12-31

MOUD remains an underutilized evidence-based practice with potential to reduce opioid use disorder (OUD) and save lives. Washington State expanded its Hub & Spoke (H&S) model for OUD medication treatment (MOUD: buprenorphine, methadone, naltrexone) by funding additional networks and developing a low-barrier, Opioid Treatment Network (OTN) model. The Washington H&S model was designed as a flexible approach incorporating primary care and substance use treatment programs, referral organizations, nurse care managers and care navigators. The OTN model offers MOUD induction in non-traditional settings (e.g., emergency departments, jails) with connections to community partners who will offer MOUD maintenance.

This study examined the implementation and effectiveness of the H&S and OTN models for increasing MOUD treatment and improving outcomes for people with OUD. Washington's H&S and OTN interventions were funded through federal STR/SOR opioid response grants, and the expanded H&S networks were funded through the state. The study, Hub and Spoke Opioid Treatment Networks: 2nd Generation Approaches to Improve Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorders (R01DA0561067), and its supplement (R01DA0561067S1) was part of NIH's HEAL initiative, and built on an earlier study (R33DA045851). All three studies were supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Expanding Access to Low-Barrier Opioid Use Disorder Treatment in Non-Traditional Settings: Washington's Opioid Treatment Network

  • Increasing utilization of medications that treat opioid use disorders (MOUD) remains an essential strategy to curb the opioid crisis nationwide, especially among rural areas where access can present challenges. Washington State expanded access to MOUD through its opioid treatment networks (OTN), which provide low-barrier access to MOUD in non-traditional settings with an emphasis on buprenorphine and rural locations. The study examined changes in buprenorphine utilization between Medicaid beneficiaries who initiated treatment at OTNs compared to individuals outside OTN facilities and by rural-urban residence.

Differential Changes in Use of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder by Race-Ethnicity: Effects of a Hub-and-Spoke Model

  • This study assessed whether delivery of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment through a hub and spoke (HS) model is associated with better adherence to psychotropic medication treatment, compared to usual treatment. Washington State's HS model required each network to include at least one mental health program, so it was hypothesized that it would improve psychotropic medication adherence for people with both a mental health disorder (MHD) and an OUD.

Treatment for Comorbid Mental Health Disorders Among Patients Treated for Opioid Disorder: The Role of a Hub and Spoke Intervention

  • The research team examined, separately for different racial-ethnic groups, whether use of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) increased more among people treated in a hub-and-spoke care model than among people treated in a non-hub-and-spoke model.
Curated

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched Data [United States] (ICPSR 27543)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27541) and the JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 2000-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27542) that were matched on the facility identifier to create one data file. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Each record in the concatenated matched data file provides information about the juvenile and also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held from both the CJRP and JRFC collections. Therefore, these data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date are included in this file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not be included in this concatenated matched file. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched Facility-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27544)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curated

Evaluation of the Children at Risk Program in Austin, Texas, Bridgeport, Connecticut, Memphis, Tennessee, Savannah, Georgia, and Seattle, Washington, 1993-1997 (ICPSR 2686)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Bridgeport, Seattle, Savannah, United States, Texas, Tennessee, Connecticut, Memphis, Georgia, Austin, Washington
Time period: 1993-01-01--1997-01-01
The Children at Risk (CAR) Program was a comprehensive, neighborhood-based strategy for preventing drug use, delinquency, and other problem behaviors among high-risk youth living in severely distressed neighborhoods. The goal of this research project was to evaluate the long-term impact of the CAR program using experimental and quasi-experimental group comparisons. Experimental comparisons of the treatment and control groups selected within target neighborhoods examined the impact of CAR services on individual youths and their families. These services included intensive case management, family services, mentoring, and incentives. Quasi-experimental comparisons were needed in each city because control group youths in the CAR sites were exposed to the effects of neighborhood interventions, such as enhanced community policing and enforcement activities and some expanded court services, and may have taken part in some of the recreational activities after school. CAR programs in five cities -- Austin, TX, Bridgeport, CT, Memphis, TN, Seattle, WA, and Savannah, GA -- took part in this evaluation. In the CAR target areas, juveniles were identified by case managers who contacted schools and the courts to identify youths known to be at risk. Random assignment to the treatment or control group was made at the level of the family so that siblings would be assigned to the same group. A quasi-experimental group of juveniles who met the CAR eligibility risk requirements, but lived in other severely distressed neighborhoods, was selected during the second year of the evaluation in cities that continued intake of new CAR participants into the second year. In these comparison neighborhoods, youths eligible for the quasi-experimental sample were identified either by CAR staff, cooperating agencies, or the staff of the middle schools they attended. Baseline interviews with youths and caretakers were conducted between January 1993 and May 1994, during the month following recruitment. The end-of-program interviews were conducted approximately two years later, between December 1994 and May 1996. The follow-up interviews with youths were conducted one year after the program period ended, between December 1995 and May 1997. Once each year, records were collected from the police, courts, and schools. Part 1 provides demographic data on each youth, including age at intake, gender, ethnicity, relationship of caretaker to youth, and youth's risk factors for poor school performance, poor school behavior, family problems, or personal problems. Additional variables provide information on household size, including number and type of children in the household, and number and type of adults in the household. Part 2 provides data from all three youth interviews (baseline, end-of-program, and follow-up). Questions were asked about the youth's attitudes toward school and amount of homework, participation in various activities (school activities, team sports, clubs or groups, other organized activities, religious services, odd jobs or household chores), curfews and bedtimes, who assisted the youth with various tasks, attitudes about the future, seriousness of various problems the youth might have had over the past year and who he or she turned to for help, number of times the youth's household had moved, how long the youth had lived with the caretaker, various criminal activities in the neighborhood and the youth's concerns about victimization, opinions on various statements about the police, occasions of skipping school and why, if the youth thought he or she would be promoted to the next grade, would graduate from high school, or would go to college, knowledge of children engaging in various problem activities and if the youth was pressured to join them, and experiences with and attitudes toward consumption of cigarettes, alcohol, and various drugs. Three sections of the questionnaire were completed by the youths. Section A asked questions about the youth's attitudes toward various statements about self, life, the home environment, rules, and norms. Section B asked questions about the number of times that various crimes had been committed against the youth, his or her sexual activity, number of times the youth ran away from home, number of times he or she had committed various criminal acts, and what weapons he or she had carried. Items in Section C covered the youth's alcohol and drug use, and participation in drug sales. Part 3 provides data from both caretaker interviews (baseline and end-of-program). Questions elicited the caretaker's assessments of the presence of various positive and negative neighborhood characteristics, safety of the child in the neighborhood, attitudes toward and interactions with the police, if the caretaker had been arrested, had been on probation, or in jail, whether various crimes had been committed against the caretaker or others in the household in the past year, activities that the youth currently participated in, curfews set by the caretaker, if the caretaker had visited the school for various reasons, school performance or problems by the youth and the youth's siblings, amount of the caretaker's involvement with activities, clubs, and groups, the caretaker's financial, medical, and personal problems and assistance received in the past year, if he or she was not able to obtain help, why not, and information on the caretaker's education, employment, income level, income sources, and where he or she sought medical treatment for themselves or for the youth. Two sections of the data collection instruments were completed by the caretaker. Section A dealt with the youth's personal problems or problems with others, and the youth's friends. Additional questions focused on the family's interactions, rules, and norms. Section B items asked about the caretaker's alcohol and drug use, and any alcohol and drug use or criminal justice involvement by others in the household older than the youth. Part 4 consists of data from schools, police, and courts. School data include the youth's grades, grade-point average (GPA), absentee rate, reasons for absences, and whether the youth was promoted each school year. Data from police records include police contacts, detentions, violent offenses, drug-related offenses, and arrests prior to recruitment in the CAR program and in Years 1-4 after recruitment, court contacts and charges prior to recruitment and in Years 1-4 after recruitment, and how the charges were disposed.
Curated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curated
Restricted

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

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

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

Research Goals

The specific research aims were as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data File Organization

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

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

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

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

Training Workshop

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

Curated
Restricted

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

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

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

Research Goals

The specific research aims were as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data File Organization

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

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

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

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

Training Workshop

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

Curated
Restricted

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

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

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

Research Goals

The specific research aims were as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data File Organization

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

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

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

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

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

Training Workshop

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

Curated
Restricted

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

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

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

Research Goals

The specific research aims were as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data File Organization

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

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

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

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

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

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

Training Workshop

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

Curated
Restricted

Patient Navigator Plus Remote Mobile Health Adherence Support with Incentives to Improve Linkage and Retention Among Hospitalized Patients with Opioid and Methamphetamine Use Who Initiate Buprenorphine (Aim 2), Washington, 2019-2021 (ICPSR 39818)

Released/updated on: 2026-04-16
Geographic coverage: United States, Washington
Time period: 2019-05-01--2021-12-01
This data is part of a retrospective, observational study of patients hospitalized in Washington State and initiated on buprenorphine or Methadone from 05-2019 to 12-2021. Researchers aimed to examine 1) healthcare utilization outcomes (ED visits and hospital readmission) at 30-, 90- and 180-days post-discharge and 2) the associations between baseline MA use and healthcare utilization.
Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Raising Healthy Children, Seattle Metropolitan Area, 2004-2011 (ICPSR 37584)

Released/updated on: 2020-03-31
Geographic coverage: Seattle, United States, Washington
Time period: 2004-01-01--2011-01-01
Raising Healthy Children, initially funded in 1993, is an etiologic study of the development of substance use, with a randomized test of a social development intervention to prevent drug misuse and promote positive youth development nested within it. The study originally included 1,040 individuals who were recruited from 10 schools in a suburban school district in the Northwest United States in 1993, when they were in first or second grade. This dataset is an extension of the original study and includes data collected when participants were ages 18, 21, and 24/25. These data focused on age 18 environmental risk and protective factors for substance misuse and addiction from family, school, peer, community, and individual domains, as well as tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use frequency at ages 18, 21, and 24. Of the 1,040 participants in the study, 494 consented to have their data archived. Demographic information collected includes race, sex, household income, and parent education level.
Curated

Seattle Social Development Project, Waves 8-10, 1993-1999 (ICPSR 39043)

Released/updated on: 2024-04-09
Geographic coverage: Seattle, United States, Washington
Time period: 1993-01-01--1999-12-31
The Social Development Project (SSDP) is a prospective longitudinal study that has been in the field for over thirty years. Beginning in 1985, SSDP has followed a cohort of 808 individuals from childhood through adulthood. Within the cohort is nested a subset, who, in first grade, received an intervention that aimed to use the principals of the Social Development Model to develop pro-social behavior. Intervention effects into the thirties confirm that the original intervention has had positive effects on development and long-term health outcomes. The archived data are from waves 8, 9, and 10 of data collection, and were collected in years 1993, 1996, and 1999 respectively. In these years the cohort had an average age of 18, 21, and 24. Items included are measures of substance misuse, dependence, and addiction. Data for waves 9 and 10 are outcome and addiction variables only.
Curated
Restricted

Seek/Test/Treat: HIV, Buprenorphine, and Criminal Justice, Washington, DC, 2011-2014 (ICPSR 39796)

Released/updated on: 2026-04-23
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States, Washington
Time period: 2011-01-01--2014-01-01

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

These data focuses on individuals that live in Washington D.C. and have at any time been arrested, tested positive for HIV, or have a history with drug use.

Curated

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

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