Search results

Showing 1 – 30 of 30 results.

Curated

Restricted

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

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio

This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27541) and the JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 2000-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27542) that were matched on the facility identifier to create one data file. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Each record in the concatenated matched data file provides information about the juvenile and also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held from both the CJRP and JRFC collections. Therefore, these data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date are included in this file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not be included in this concatenated matched file. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.

Curated

Restricted

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

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08

This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP) AND JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED MATCHED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27543) that were aggregated to the facility level. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the concatenated matched data file (ICPSR 27543) were aggregated to the facility level. Therefore, the CJRP/JRFC concatenated matched facility-level data provide information about the characteristics of the facility from both the CJRP and JRFC collections and the juvenile population held in that facility from the CJRP collection. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date are included in this file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not be included in this concatenated matched facility-level file. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.

Curated

Restricted

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

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08

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

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS) 2: HIV Services and Treatment Implementation in Corrections 2010-2013 [United States] (ICPSR 34983)

Released/updated on: 2015-07-20

Geographic coverage: Puerto Rico, United States

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.

CJ-DATS 2 HIV Services Treatment Implementation in Corrections focused on implementing interventions to address the HIV continuum of care in correctional settings. There are 5 datasets associated with this study.

-Dataset 1 (DS1) contains data aggregated at the correction facility level that examines delivery of HIV services in the experimental and control study groups (215 cases).

-Dataset 2 (DS2) and Dataset 3 (DS3) detail survey responses from correctional staff about how the HIV services were changed and/or implemented at their facilities (DS2 has 68 cases and DS3 has 85 cases).

-Dataset 4 (DS4) contains survey responses from inmates about their perceptions of the HIV services provided at facilities in which they are incarcerated (2,301 cases).

-Dataset 5 (DS5) contains data merged together by the principal investigator from several surveys given to treatment staff, treatment directors, correctional officers and correctional directors. This dataset includes demographic information, staff perceptions of their work environment, perceptions of HIV infected individuals, evaluations of HIV workshops and perceptions of the delivery of HIV services at their facility (385 cases).

These 5 datasets contain a total of 889 variables.

Curated

Restricted

Simple Crosstabs

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

Released/updated on: 2015-08-07

Geographic coverage: Rhode Island, United States, Illinois, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Virginia, New Jersey, Arizona, Washington, Pennsylvania

Time period: 2010-01-01--2013-01-01

The 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

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): HIV/HEPATITIS Prevention for Re-Entering Drug Offenders (ICPSR 29061)

Released/updated on: 2011-01-24

Geographic coverage: United States, Delaware

The development of the CJ-DATS Targeted Intervention program, targeting a policy change to incorporate public health concerns into the parole and release process, has prompted this study to analyze the effectiveness of the intervention and to determine how it might best be integrated into the current corrections administration. Primarily, the study seeks to consider the effectiveness of one-on-one peer intervention against group intervention moderated by a peer. The study is set up to interview former inmates as they re-enter society through parole or work release. The first phase of the study is to determine their history of drug use, before incarceration and during their time in a corrections facility. These respondents were chosen because of the particular danger faced by those re-entering to engage in "make up for lost time" behavior as access to illicit activity becomes more readily available. Additionally, this portion tests the respondents' knowledge of HIV/AIDS and their utilization of resources designed to improve their health. Following this survey, as well as a blood examination to determine whether they have the illnesses associated with the study, the subjects engaged in counseling based on the subgroup to which they had been randomly assigned. The control group received a standard one-hour, non-interactive CDC intervention, while the experimental group received the CJ-DATS Targeted Intervention. The intention was to determine if individual intervention is more effective, given the need for brief, effective interventions as a result of the large volume of the relevant population. Following the interventions, followup interviews were issued at 30 and 90 days. The intention was to determine not merely if there was an aggregate change in behavior as a result of the intervention, but furthermore, if the intervention led to a negative trend. Of particular concern to the outcome of the study and its analysis was the relative effectiveness of the peer interventions, as well as how officers and administration within the corrections and parole process might incorporate an attitude of public health into the process.

Curated

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices (NCJTP) Survey of Co-occurring Substance Use and Mental Disorder (COD) Treatment Services in Criminal Justice Settings, 2002-2008 (ICPSR 27962)

Released/updated on: 2011-08-10

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2002-01-01--2008-01-01

A growing number of individuals in the criminal justice system suffer from co-occurring disorders (COD), the condition of simultaneous substance and mental disorders. As of yet, the population comprised of these individuals has not been thoroughly studied, despite the fact that COD-afflicted individuals pose unique clinical and administrative problems. The National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices (NCJTP) Survey of Co-occurring Substance Use and Mental Disorder (COD) Treatment Facilities in Criminal Justice Settings attempts to address the lack of information regarding the facets of COD in the criminal justice system. Data collected through this survey was subjected to statistical methods in order to analyze the relationship between COD treatment and organizational aspects. Specifically, from each treatment program, the survey collected data on the number of program participants, proportion of participants with various mental disorders, specific disorder screening instruments used, etc. As for the administrative aspect, the survey determined the division of COD treatment (e.g. one clinician providing both substance abuse and mental disorder treatment versus separate clinicians providing treatment), administrators' opinions of the differences between COD and non-COD participants, and accreditations held by the treatment program.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): Performance Indicators for Corrections (PIC), 2002-2006 [United States] (ICPSR 27942)

Released/updated on: 2013-05-08

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2002-01-01--2006-01-01

In 2002, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) funded the Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS) cooperative agreement. The Institute of Behavioral Research at Texas Christian University (TCU) was one of nine National Research Centers selected to study current drug treatment practices and outcomes in correctional settings and to examine strategies for improving treatment services for drug-involved offenders.

The specific aims of the PIC study were to:

Cross sectionally test and adapt the TCU CJ-CEST, BOP, and NDRI CAI assessments for use in multiple correctional settings;
To examine agency and program records of client progress relevant to treatment process; and to
Revise the assessments as necessary for use in longitudinal assessment protocols and CJ Management Information Systems (MIS).

During the first data collection period, Wave 1, a total of 3,266 inmates were surveyed from research centers based out of Texas Christian University, the University of Delaware, the University of Kentucky, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and the National Development and Research Institute (NDRI). After psychometrics were run and the forms revised slightly, a second administration took place but this time only at two centers (TCU and Delaware). During Wave 2 a total of 1,421 clients participated in the survey.

Curated

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): The Criminal Justice Co-Occurring Disorder Screening Instrument (CJ-CODSI), 2002-2008 [United States] (ICPSR 27963)

Released/updated on: 2011-07-19

Geographic coverage: Rhode Island, United States, Texas, Colorado, California

Time period: 2002-01-01--2008-01-01

Currently, there exists an inadequacy in mental and substance use disorder screening instruments. This inadequacy stems from two reasons. First, the instruments are untested for widespread use with criminal justice populations. Second, most test for only one disorder at a time. The Criminal Justice Co-Occurring Disorder Screening Instrument (CODSI) study addresses this issue, investigating new methods by which to quickly, accurately, and easily evaluate individuals in the criminal justice population for COD (Co-Occurring Disorders). After determining that the Texas Christian University Drug Screen (TCUDS) would be the appropriate substance abuse screening component for a COD screen, researchers tested three possible mental disorder screening components: the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GSS, version 1.0); the Mental Health Screening Form (MHSF); and the Modified MINI Screen (MMS). The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID), generally accepted as an accurate measure of mental disorder, was used as a reference by which to evaluate the three different screeners. Researchers also used items from the three different screeners to create two additional instruments: the CODSI-MD for any mental disorder and the CODSI-SMD for severe mental disorder. Actual testing was conducted at four different sites, taking a total of 280 new admissions to prison-based substance abuse treatment programs. Instruments were evaluated based on their sensitivity (ability to correctly identify those with COD), specificity (ability to correctly identify those without COD), and overall accuracy (percentage of correct identification across all people). Researchers also conducted a study using a sample comprised of a greater proportion of Latinos and African Americans, in order to evaluate the effect of race on the results of the instruments.

Curated

Restricted

Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program at the Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility, 1997-1998 (ICPSR 2888)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: United States, New Mexico

Time period: 1997-07-31--1998-07-31

The goal for this study was to conduct a process evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program, called the Genesis program, at the Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility (SNMCD) by examining the program's structure and assessing its intermediate impact upon participating inmates. The study focuses on answering three research questions: (1) Who were the program participants? (2) What were the characteristics of the program? (3) Was the program reaching the most appropriate offenders, or were its participants primarily offenders who were not likely to become recidivists? The study contains information on every inmate who entered the Genesis program from July 31, 1997, to July 31, 1998. For evaluation purposes, the researchers designed their own data collection form which they used to collect relevant information from each participant's treatment program file. Each participant's file was maintained by Genesis program staff and was kept for the duration each inmate was in the program. From each program participant at intake, using the data collection instrument, the researchers collected demographic information, substance abuse history, and criminal history. The data are provided in two parts. Both parts are from the same data collection instrument. Part 1 covers Questions 1 through 15 of the data collection instrument, while Part 2 covers Questions 16 through 34 of the data collection instrument. Part 1 includes demographic variables about the inmate such as birth date, age, ethnicity, citizenship, years of education, prior employment status, longest employment, and average weekly income. It also includes incarceration information such as confinement date, length of current sentence, RSAT admission date, and expected parole date, and criminal history information such as age at first adult arrest, number of juvenile arrests, number of adult arrests, date of first adult arrest, date of last adult arrest, and number of years served in prison. There are also variables to address the inmate's drug use history as a juvenile and as an adult. Part 2 continues with the drug use history of the inmate as an adult with information about drugs used by IV injection, number of alcohol withdrawals, number of drug overdoses, number of detoxes, inpatient treatment received, outpatient treatment received, average amount of money spent on drugs, percentage of income spent on drugs, number of family members who use alcohol or drugs, and how they were related to the inmate. In addition, the file contains demographic information, such as current marital status and number of children, and the inmate's psychological history including depression, anxiety, anger, trouble understanding, concentrating, or remembering, attempted suicide, prescribed medication, and hospitalization. Criminal career variables include length of criminal career, all past charges, weapons used during any crime, number of times a weapon was used, and total number of convictions.

Curated

Restricted

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

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October.

Curated

Restricted

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

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08

This collection includes data from the JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 2000-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27542) that were aggregated to the state level. The JRFC collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bed space in the facility to indicate whether the facility is experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the JRFC concatenated data file (ICPSR 27542) were aggregated to the state level and variables providing United States Census population data and upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction were added. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.

Curated

Restricted

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

Restricted

Neuropsychological and Emotional Deficits as Predictors of Correctional Treatment Response in Maryland, 2003-2005 (ICPSR 20349)

Released/updated on: 2008-03-31

Geographic coverage: United States, Maryland

Time period: 2003-03-01--2005-12-01

The study was designed to elucidate underlying neuropsychological and emotional regulatory mechanisms in variable responses to a cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) program among prison inmates. This study tested the hypotheses that performance deficits in executive cognitive function (ECF) tasks and emotional responses will characterize aggressive and disruptive inmates and predict treatment response. All subjects were examined using noninvasive behavioral, psychological, ECF, and hormone tests. The data contain a total of 232 cases. Inmates volunteering to participate in the cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) program offered by the Maryland correctional system were recruited from three facilities using a pseudo-random selection procedure during intake into the program. Consenting inmates received an extensive baseline testing battery of several complementary dimensions of higher order neuropsychological functions as well as conditions that influence them: (1) three ECF tasks and one emotional perception task, (2) collection of salivary cortisol during an acute stress task and the Symptom Checklist 90 (SCL-90) taken beforehand, (3) a short general neuropsychological test, (4) three psychological questionnaires, (5) an historical inventory to assess prior drug use and child and family background, and (6) a treatment readiness, responsivity, and gain scale. An events inventory and a success inventory were also administered. Several additional tests were administered repeatedly throughout treatment. A record review was conducted after program completion to ascertain incidents of institutional misconduct as well as treatment performance outcomes. Variables include IQ, demographics, background information, prior drug use, early trauma, psychopathy, aggression, stressful events, success, reactions to provocation, treatment readiness, emotional perception/regulation, executive cognitive performance, cortisol measures, treatment gain, treatment responsivity, treatment completion, Maryland Offender Based State Correctional Information System (OBSCIS) data, institutional infractions, segregations, and several other computed variables.

Curated

Restricted

Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program in Kyle, Texas, 1993-1995 (ICPSR 2765)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Texas

Time period: 1993-01-01--1995-01-01

This study was undertaken to evaluate the treatment process and outcomes associated with a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) In-Prison Therapeutic Community (ITC) component of the 1991 Texas Criminal Justice Chemical Dependency Treatment Initiative, as well as to assess the effectiveness of prison-based drug treatment. Specifically, this study evaluated the RSAT ITC treatment process and outcomes in Kyle, Texas, using the prison-based treatment assessment (PTA) data systems. The study design included process and outcome evaluations using a sample of graduates from the first ITC treatment facility (Kyle cohort) and a matched comparison group of prison inmates who were eligible, but not selected, for assignment to an ITC. Data collection occurred at three points in time -- at the end of treatment in the Kyle ITC, and at six months and one year following an offender's release from the ITC program. Variables in the 19 files for this study include: Part 1 (Educational Demographic Data, Kyle Cohort): Highest grade level achieved by respondent, Texas Department of Criminal Justice education achievement and IQ scores, and the number of days at the Kyle ITC program. Parts 2-4 (Treatment Background Data, Kyle Cohort, Aftercare Treatment Data, Kyle Cohort, Treatment Condition Data, Kyle Cohort): Treatment condition, discharge codes, and whether there were three months of residential aftercare. Part 5 (Session One Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Gender, ethnicity, age, marital status, whether the respondent was given medication, followed directions, made friends, or got into trouble while in elementary school, whether he held a job prior to prison, if either of his parents spent time with, yelled at, or sexually abused him, whether he used drugs, if so, specific drugs used (e.g., alcohol, inhalants, marijuana, or crack), and whether he did jail time. Part 6 (Session Two Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Whether drugs kept the respondent from working, caused emotional problems, or caused medical problems, if people were important to the respondent, if he had trouble staying focused, felt sad or depressed, satisfied with life, lonely, nervous, or got mad easily, whether he felt the staff was caring and helpful, whether he showed concern for the group and accepted confrontation by the group, whether the respondent felt the counselor was easy to talk to, respected him, or taught him problem-solving, and whether the respondent viewed himself as thinking clearly, clearly expressing thoughts, and was interested in treatment. Part 7 (Session Three Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): How the respondent saw himself as a child, whether he was easily distracted, anxious, nervous, inattentive, short-tempered, stubborn, depressed, rebellious, irritable, moody, angry, or impulsive, whether the respondent had trouble with school, was considered normal by friends, ever lost a job or friends due to drinking or drug abuse, or was ever arrested or hospitalized for drug or alcohol abuse, and in the last week whether the respondent's mood was one of sadness, satisfaction, disappointment, irritation, or suicide. Parts 8 and 9 (Six-Month Follow-Up Interview Data, Kyle Cohort, and One-Year Follow-Up Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Organization of meetings and activities in the program, rules and regulations, work assignments, privileges, individual counseling, the care and helpfulness of the treatment staff and custody staff, the respondent's behavior, mood, living situation, drug use, and arrests within the last six months, whether the counselor was easy to talk to, helped in motivating or building confidence, or assisted in making a treatment plan, whether the respondent felt a sense of family or closeness, if his family got along, enjoyed being together, got drunk together, used drugs together, or had arguments or fights, if the respondent had a job in the last six months to a year and if he enjoyed working, whether he was on time for his job, whether he had new friends or associated with old friends, and which specific drugs he had used in the last six months (e.g., hallucinogens, heroin, methadone, or other opiates). Part 10 (Treatment Background Data, Comparison Group): Treatment condition of the comparison group. Part 11 (Educational Demographic Data, Comparison Group): Whether respondents completed a GED and their highest grade completed. Parts 12 and 13 (Six-Month Follow-Up Interview Data, Comparison Group, and One-Year Follow-Up Interview Data, Comparison Group): How important church was to the respondent, whether the respondent had any educational or vocational training, if he had friends that had used drugs, got drunk, dealt drugs, or had been arrested, if within the last six months to a year the respondent had been arrested for drug use, drug sales, forgery, fencing, gambling, burglary, robbery, sexual offense, arson, or vandalism, whether drugs or alcohol affected the respondent's health, relations, attitude, attention, or ability to work, whether the respondent experienced symptoms of withdrawal, the number of drug treatment programs and AA or CA meetings the respondent attended, whether the respondent received help from parents, siblings, or other relatives, if treatment was considered helpful, and risky behavior engaged in (e.g., sharing needles, using dirty needles, and unprotected sex). Parts 14 and 16 (Probation Officer Data, Six-Month Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group, and Probation Officer Data, One-Year Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Date of departure from prison, supervision level, number of treatment team meetings, whether there was evidence of job hunting, problems with transportation, child care, or finding work, number of drug tests in the last six months, times tested positive for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, opiates, crack, or other drugs, and number of arrests, charges, convictions, and technicals. Parts 15 and 17 (Hair Specimen Data, Six-Month Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group, and Hair Specimen Data, One-Year Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Hair collection and its source at the six-month follow-up (Part 15) and one-year follow-up (Part 17) and whether parolee was positive or negative for cocaine or opiates. Part 18 (Texas Department of Public Safety Data, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Dates of first, second, and third offenses, if parolee was arrested, and first, second, and third offenses from the National Crime Information Center. Part 19 (Texas Department of Criminal Justice Data, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Treatment condition, date of release, race, and a Texas Department of Criminal Justice Salient Factor Risk Score.

Curated

Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, 1996: [United States] (ICPSR 6858)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States

This collection provides nationally representative data on persons held prior to trial and on convicted offenders serving sentences in local jails or awaiting transfer to state prisons. Data cover demographic characteristics of jail inmates (sex, race, ethnicity, Hispanic origin, employment), current offenses and sentences, detention status, trial, bail, characteristics of victims, criminal histories, incident characteristics, socioeconomic circumstances, jail conditions and activities, and prior drug and alcohol use and treatment. Part 1, Numeric Data, contains numeric data for all questions in the survey, while Part 2, Alphanumeric Data, consists of nonnumeric answers to the "Other, Specify" selection available for some of the questions.

Curated

Restricted

Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, 2002 [United States] (ICPSR 4359)

Released/updated on: 2012-08-22

Geographic coverage: United States

This collection provides nationally representative data on persons held prior to trial and on convicted offenders serving sentences in local jails or awaiting transfer to state prisons. Data cover individual characteristics of jail inmates, current offenses, sentences and time served, criminal histories, jail activities, conditions and programs, prior drug and alcohol use and treatment, and health care services provided while in jail. Part 1, Numeric Data, contains numeric data for all questions in the survey, while Part 2, Alphanumeric Data, consists of non-numeric answers to the "Other, Specify" selection available for some of the questions.

Curated

Restricted

Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1997 (ICPSR 2598)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

Geographic coverage: United States

The survey and census were part of a series of data collection efforts undertaken to assist policymakers in assessing and remedying deficiencies in the nation's correctional institutions. The survey was designed to provide information on social and economic characteristics of inmates, criminal and correctional background, court experience, and prison routine. The census gathered a wide range of information on all federal correctional facilities operating in 1974. The focus of the survey file is on the inmate, while the focus of the census file is on the facility.

Curated

Restricted

Simple Crosstabs

Survey of Prison Inmates, United States, 2016 (ICPSR 37692)

Released/updated on: 2024-03-28

Geographic coverage: United States

To fulfill part of its mission, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) conducted the Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI), a national, wide-ranging survey of prisoners age 18 or older who were incarcerated in state or federal correctional facilities within the United States. SPI provides national statistics on prisoner characteristics across a variety of domains, such as current offense and sentence, incident characteristics, firearm possession and sources, criminal history, demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, family background, drug and alcohol use and treatment, mental and physical health and treatment, and facility programs and rules violations. SPI can also be used to track changes in these characteristics over time, describe special populations of prisoners, and identify policy-relevant changes in the state and federal prison populations. Formerly the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities (SISFCF), this survey was renamed SPI with the 2016 iteration.