Search results

Showing 1 – 50 of 77 results.

Curated

Addiction Health Evaluation and Disease (AHEAD) Management Study in Boston, Massachusetts, 2006-2010 (ICPSR 33581)

Released/updated on: 2017-03-31

Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts, Boston

Time period: 2006-09-01--2010-01-01

Substance dependence (SD) is a chronic disease that requires specialty drug and alcohol treatment, primary care (PC), and management of related problems. Although patients with SD may be linked with specialty care and PC, their health care often remains episodic and fragmented, rather than longitudinal, comprehensive, integrated, and coordinated. As a result, adults with SD often enter addiction treatment later and require acute medical care, rather than entering the system earlier when interventions of lower intensity but longer duration might prevent catastrophes. Chronic disease management (CDM) is a collaborative, longitudinal approach to treatment of certain chronic medical illnesses proven to be more effective than routine care. CDM addresses individual patient and health systems barriers to receipt of needed treatment. However, the effectiveness of CDM for SD has not been tested. The objective of this Addiction Health Evaluation and Disease management (AHEAD) study, was to test the effectiveness of CDM for SD in PC.

Subject identification and recruitment occurred primarily at a local detoxification center, as well as by self and physician referral from the Boston Medical Center primary and ambulatory care clinics, emergency department, urgent care center, inpatient settings, and the community. The study enrolled 320 adults with drug dependence and 320 adults with alcohol dependence who were not in SD treatment, and randomized them to a SD CDM program (the AHEAD Clinic) integrated into a real-world PC clinic or to referral to standard PC. All subjects were assessed regarding SD diagnosis, substance use and problems, readiness to change, health-related quality of life, and medical and drug treatment utilization. Subjects were evaluated 3, 6, and 12 months later, and health services utilization data were collected for 2 years from a statewide database. Additionally, in order to better understand and explain the implementation and fidelity of the AHEAD Clinic, the primary care providers (PCPs) of AHEAD Clinic patients were surveyed. Each PCP was presented with a letter from the Principal Investigator explaining the purpose of the survey, the reason why s/he was being asked to complete the survey, compensation for completing the survey, and details about confidentiality and anonymity. The survey itself consisted of questions asking providers about their satisfaction and their attitudes towards caring for patients with alcohol and drug problems, their knowledge of services that the AHEAD Clinic provides, and their experience working with the AHEAD Clinic.

Primary outcomes were illicit drug use, alcohol use, substance-related problems, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. The proposal's hypothesis was that compared with standard care, a health services delivery intervention (CDM for SD integrated in PC) would decrease alcohol and illicit drug use and related problems, and improve health care utilization patterns. Improved outcomes using the AHEAD approach would support the adoption of a health services delivery strategy, CDM, to better care for patients with SD.

Dataset 1: 844 variables; 563 cases
Dataset 2: 607 variables; 500 cases
Dataset 3: 607 variables; 487 cases
Dataset 4: 713 variables; 532 cases
Dataset 5: 80 variables; 549 cases
Dataset 6: 59 variables; 1,435 cases
Dataset 7: 25 variables; 87 cases
Dataset 8: 25 variables; 87 cases
Dataset 9: 41 variables; 73 cases
Dataset 10: 9 variables; 11,018 cases
Dataset 11: 5 variables; 511 cases

Curated

Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS), 1996-1999: [United States] (ICPSR 3088)

Released/updated on: 2009-04-01

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1996-01-01--1999-01-01

The Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS) was a national study of substance abuse treatment facilities and clients. The study was designed to develop estimates of the duration and costs of treatment and to describe the post-treatment status of substance abuse clients. ADSS continues and extends upon data collected in the Drug Services Research Survey, 1990: [United States] (ICPSR 3393) and the Services Research Outcome Study, 1995-1996: [United States] (ICPSR 2691) with a more complete sampling frame, an enhanced sampling design, and more detailed measures of treatment services provided, the costs of treatment, and clients in treatment. ADSS was implemented in three phases. In Phase I, a nationally representative sample of treatment facilities was surveyed to assess characteristics of treatment services and clients including treatment type, costs, program capacity, the number of clients served, waiting lists, and services provided to special populations. In Phase II, records were abstracted from a sample of clients in a subsample of Phase I facilities. This phase included four sub-components: (1) the Main Study, an analysis of abstracted records to assess the treatment process and characteristics of discharged clients, (2) the Incentive Study, which assessed the impact of varying financial payments on follow-up interview participation among non-methadone outpatient clients, (3) the In-Treatment Methadone Client study (ITMC), which assessed the treatment process of methadone maintenance, and (4) the comparison study of Early Dropout clients (EDO), which provided a proxy comparison group of records from substance abusers that went untreated. Phase III involved follow-up personal interviews with Phase II clients who could be located. This interview sought to determine post-treatment status in terms of substance use, economic condition, criminal justice involvement, and further substance abuse treatment episodes. Urine testing was conducted to validate self-reported drug use. Drugs included in the survey were alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, amphetamines, non-prescribed use of prescription medications, abuse of over-the-counter medications, and other drugs. ADSS also included a cost study, which involved obtaining additional financial information from the Phase II facilities. A computerized desktop audit was used in the cost study to conduct consistency and accuracy checks on selected questionnaire data from Phases I and II. Variables were subsequently updated to represent the most accurate data available. Additional analysis variables were then created using combinations of the revised Phase I and II data.

Curated

Alternative Sentencing Policies for Drug Offenders: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Kansas Senate Bill 123, 2001-2010 (ICPSR 30982)

Released/updated on: 2014-01-31

Geographic coverage: United States, Kansas

Time period: 2001-11-01--2010-08-31

The study examined the first five years of operation of Kansas senate bill 123 (November 2003-November 2008) examining individual-level and system-level outcomes over time and across community corrections districts and judicial actors. The study also assesses the impact of SB 123 on the work routines of criminal justice system actors, examining changes in sentencing and supervision practices and interactions across agencies following the implementation of SB 123.

Individual-level impacts of SB 123 on recidivism rates are assessed using sentencing and revocation data collected by the Kansas Sentencing Commission for drug possessors sentenced in Kansas between November 1, 2001 and October 31, 2008 (Dataset 1). Propensity score matching was used to compare the revocation and reconviction rates of drug possessors sentenced to SB 123 with the recidivism rates of similar individuals sentenced to regular probation (standard supervision by community corrections or court services) (Dataset 2). Supervision and program participation data provided by the Kansas Department of Corrections were used to assess the use of drug treatment services, education and employment services, and sanctions for individuals sentenced to SB 123 or standard community corrections (Dataset 3). These quantitative data were complemented by a set qualitative data derived from interviews with SB 123-eligible offenders (Dataset 4), community corrections managers, and courtroom actors (judges, prosecutors, public defenders) (Dataset 5).

Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 1998 (ICPSR 2826)

Released/updated on: 1999-11-10

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1998-01-01--1998-12-31

The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program measures levels of and trends in drug use among persons arrested and booked in the United States. The ADAM Program is a redesigned version of the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]), upgraded methodologically and expanded to include 35 cities. The data address the following topics: (1) types of drugs used by arrestees (based on self-reports and urinalysis), (2) self-reported dependency on drugs, (3) self-reported need for alcohol/drug treatment, (4) the relationship between drug use and certain types of offenses, and (5) the relationship between self-reported indicators of drug use and indicators of drug use based on urinalysis. Participation in the project is voluntary, and all information collected from the arrestees is anonymous and confidential. The data include the arrestee's age, race, gender, educational attainment, marital status, and the charge at the time of booking. The recently modified ADAM/DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 DUF data and all of the DUF 1996, DUF 1997, and ADAM 1998 data) also collected information about the arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs. For each drug type, arrestees were asked whether they had ever used the drug, the age at which they first used the drug, whether they had used the drug within the past three days, how many days they had used the drug within the past month, whether they had ever needed or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were dependent on the drug at the time of the interview. Data from the new interview instrument also included information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs and whether they were influenced by drugs when they allegedly committed the crimes for which they were arrested. The data also include information about whether the arrestee had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether he or she had prior arrests in the last 12 months. Data that continue to be collected with the new version of the ADAM/DUF interview provide information about arrestees' histories of drug/alcohol treatment, including whether they ever received drug/alcohol treatment and whether they needed drug/alcohol treatment. As part of the ADAM program, arrestees were asked to provide a urine specimen, which was screened for the presence of the following ten drug types: marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography).

Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 1999 (ICPSR 2994)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1999-01-01--1999-12-31

The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, the successor to the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]), measures levels of and trends in drug use among persons arrested and booked in 35 sites across the United States. The data address the following topics: (1) types of drugs used by arrestees (based on self-reports and urinalysis), (2) self-reported dependency on drugs, (3) self-reported need for alcohol/drug treatment, (4) the relationship between drug use and certain types of offenses, and (5) the relationship between self-reported indicators of drug use and indicators of drug use based on urinalysis. Participation in the project is voluntary, and all information collected from the arrestees is anonymous and confidential. The data include the arrestee's age, race, gender, educational attainment, marital status, and the charge at the time of booking. The modified ADAM/DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of the 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 data) also collected information about the arrestee's use of 15 drugs, including recent and past use (e.g., 3-day and 30-day drug use), age at first use, and whether the arrestee had ever been dependent on drugs. As part of the ADAM program, arrestees were asked to provide a urine specimen, which was screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography).

Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2000 (ICPSR 3270)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2000-01-01--2000-12-31

Beginning in 1996, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) initiated a major redesign of its multisite drug-monitoring program, the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) system (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]). The program was retitled Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) (see ARRESTEE DRUG ABUSE MONITORING (ADAM) PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES, 1998 [ICPSR 2628] and 1999 [ICPSR 2994]). ADAM extended DUF in the number of sites and improved the quality and generalizability of the data. The redesign was fully implemented in all sites beginning in the first quarter of 2000. The ADAM program implemented a new and expanded adult instrument in the first quarter of 2000, which was used for both the male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) data. The juvenile data for 2000 (Part 3) used the juvenile instrument from previous years. The ADAM program also moved to probability-based sampling for the adult male population during 2000. Therefore, the 2000 adult male sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. The shift to sampling of the adult male population in 2000 required that all 35 sites move to a common catchment area, the county. The core instrument for the adult cases was supplemented by a facesheet, which was used to collect demographic and charge information from official records. Core instruments were used to collect self-report information from the respondent. Both the adult and juvenile instruments were administered to persons arrested and booked on local or state charges relevant to the jurisdiction (i.e., not federal or out-of-county charges) within the past 48 hours. At the completion of the interview the arrestee was asked to voluntarily provide a urine specimen. An external lab used the Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Testing (EMIT) protocols to test for the presence of ten drugs or metabolites of the drug in the urine sample. All amphetamine positives were confirmed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) to determine whether methamphetamine was used. For the adult data, variables from the facesheet include arrest precinct, ZIP code of arrest location, ZIP code of respondent's address, respondent's gender and race, three most serious arrest charges, sample source (stock, flow, other), interview status (including reason the individual selected in the sample was not interviewed), language of instrument used, and the number of hours since arrest. Demographic information from the core instrument includes respondent's age, ethnicity, residency, education, employment, health insurance coverage, marital status, housing, and telephone access. Variables from the calendar provide information on inpatient and outpatient substance abuse treatment, inpatient mental health treatment, arrests and incarcerations, heavy alcohol use, use of marijuana, crack/rock cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other drug (ever and previous 12 months), age of first use of the above six drugs and heavy alcohol use, drug dependency in the previous 12 months, characteristics of drug transactions in past 30 days, use of marijuana, crack/rock cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine in past 30 days, 7 days, and 48 hours, heavy alcohol use in past 30 days, and secondary drug use of 15 other drugs in the past 48 hours. Urine test results are provided for 11 drugs -- marijuana, cocaine, opiates, phencyclidine (PCP), benzodiazepines (Valium), propoxyphene (Darvon), methadone, methaqualone, barbiturates, amphetamines, and methamphetamine. The adult data files include several derived variables. The male data also include four sampling weights, and stratum identifications and percents. For the juvenile data, demographic variables include age, race, sex, educational attainment, employment status, and living circumstances. Data also include each juvenile arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, powder cocaine, crack, heroin, PCP, amphetamines, barbiturates, quaaludes, methadone, crystal methamphetamine, Valium, LSD, and inhalants). For each drug type, arrestees reported whether they had ever used the drug, age of first use, whether they had used the drug in the past 30 days and past 72 hours, number of days they used the drug in past month, whether they tried to cut down or quit using the drug, if they were successful, whether they felt dependent on the drug, whether they were receiving treatment for the drug, whether they had received treatment for the drug in the past, and whether they thought they could use treatment for that drug. Additional variables include whether juvenile respondents had ever injected drugs, whether they were influenced by drugs when they allegedly committed the crime for which they were arrested, whether they had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents, and if so, whether in the past 12 months, and information on arrests and charges in the past 12 months. As with the adult data, urine test results are also provided. Finally, variables covering precinct (precinct of arrest) and law (penal law code associated with the crime for which the juvenile was arrested) are also provided for use by local law enforcement officials at each site.

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

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

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

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

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

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

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

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

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

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

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

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

Curated

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Project in Rural Nebraska, 1998 (ICPSR 28141)

Released/updated on: 2011-01-28

Geographic coverage: Omaha, United States, Nebraska

Time period: 1998-10-01--1998-11-01

A pilot outreach project of the National Intstitute of Justice's Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program, the rural Nebraska ADAM program examined the prevalence and type of arrestee drug use in four rural Nebraska counties and compared the results to those found in Omaha, Nebraska, an established ADAM site. The data were collected in Madison (n=78), Dawson (n=50), Hall (n=53), and Scotts Bluff (n=149) counties, and Omaha, Nebraska, (n=202) in October and November of 1998. The catchment area for Omaha was the central city. The ADAM interview provided demographic and descriptive data, including race, age, marital status, source of income, screens of substance abuse and dependency, treatment history, arrest and incarceration experiences, and participation in local drug markets. At the conclusion of the interview, respondents were asked to provide a urine specimen. The current study included a supplemental questionnaire about methamphetamine use. The methamphetamine addendum included variables on why the respondent began and continued the use of methamphetamines, how often and how much methamphetamine was used, if and why the respondent had ever sought and completed treatment, source of the methamphetamine, and if the respondent had ever made or sold methamphetamine.

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2011-02-24

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

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

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2011-11-04

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

Curated

Assessing the Texas Christian University Drug Screen Instrument with Texas Department of Criminal Justice Inmates, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3541)

Released/updated on: 2003-06-05

Geographic coverage: United States, Texas

Time period: 1999-01-01--2000-01-01

The overall purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties and credibility of the Texas Christian University (TCU) Drug Screen as an instrument to assess drug use severity for treatment referral decisions in correctional settings. TCU Drug Screen data were collected on 18,364 Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) inmates (15,816 males and 2,548 females) who completed the screen between January 1 and April 30, 1999. Of the 18,364 subjects, 13,902 were Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID) inmates and 4,462 were State Jail Division (TDCJ-SJD) inmates. The TCU Drug Screen was administered by TDCJ staff almost exclusively in a small group setting (12-25 inmates per group) as part of a larger battery of assessments during the intake process at a TDCJ facility. The level and intensity of treatment services needed was then determined and a referral decision was made. As part of this study, the relationship between TCU Drug Screen information and post-release reincarceration was examined. Although one original goal in the study was to assess the comparability, or concurrent validity, of the TCU Drug Screen with the lengthier, more comprehensive Addiction Severity Index (ASI), TDCJ changed the administration protocol for the ASI so that it was given only to a subsample of 3,245 inmates who failed to disclose drug use problems on the TCU Drug Screen. The data include inmate responses to all items of the TCU Drug Screen and the overall drug screen score. There is also demographic information as well as incarceration, release, and reincarceration data.

Curated

California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA), 1991-1993 (ICPSR 2295)

Released/updated on: 2008-10-07

Geographic coverage: United States, California

Time period: 1991-01-01--1993-01-01

The California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA) was designed to study the costs, benefits, and effectiveness of the state's alcohol and drug treatment infrastructure (recovery services) and specifically to assess (1) the effects of treatment on participant behavior, (2) the costs of treatment, and (3) the economic value of treatment to society. Data were collected on participants (clients) across four types of treatment programs, or modalities: residential, residential "social model," nonmethadone outpatient, and outpatient methadone (detoxification and maintenance). Data were collected in two phases. In Phase 1, treatment records were abstracted for clients who received treatment or were discharged between October 1, 1991, and September 30, 1992. In Phase 2, these clients were located and recruited for a follow-up interview. The CALDATA design and procedures included elements from several national treatment outcome studies including the Drug Services Research Survey (ICPSR 3393), Services Research Outcomes Study (ICPSR 2691), National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (ICPSR 2884), and Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (ICPSR 2258). The record abstract was designed to collect identifying and locating information for interview reference during the personal interviewing phase. The abstract also collected demographic, drug, or alcohol use, and treatment and service information. The follow-up questionnaire covered time periods before, during, and after treatment and focused on topics such as ethnic and educational background, drug and alcohol use, mental and physical health, HIV and AIDS status, drug testing, illegal activities and criminal status, living arrangements and family issues, employment and income, and treatment for drug, alcohol, and mental health problems. Drugs included alcohol, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cocaine powder, crack, downers, hallucinogens, heroin, illegal methadone, inhalants, LSD, marijuana/hashish/THC, methamphetamines and other stimulants, narcotics, over-the-counter drugs, PCP, ritalin or preludin, and sedatives/hypnotics. CALDATA was originally known as the California Outcomes Study (COS).

Curated

Characteristics of Arrestees at Risk for Co-Existing Substance Abuse and Mental Disorder in Cleveland, Ohio, 2003 (ICPSR 20352)

Released/updated on: 2009-02-25

Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio, Cleveland

Time period: 2003-04-01--2003-06-01

The current study was conducted as a supplemental study to the Cleveland/Cuyahoga County Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program in the second quarter of 2003 (April-June). A risk screening instrument was implemented to classify Cleveland/Cuyahoga County adult arrestees into four groups: arrestees at no risk for substance abuse or dependence or mental disorder; arrestees at risk for substance abuse or dependence with no risk for mental disorder; arrestees at risk for mental disorder with no risk for substance abuse or dependence; and arrestees at risk for both mental disorder and substance abuse or dependence. A total of 311 adult arrestees were interviewed and provided a urine sample submitted for testing. The dual risk screening instrument includes six mental disorder risk questions and six substance abuse risk questions. The mental disorder risk questions include questions on having feelings or emotions that make it difficult to complete normal day to day activities, feeling hopeless or depressed, having thoughts of hurting oneself or committing suicide, and hearing or seeing things that others cannot hear or see. The substance abuse risk questions include questions on problems caused by drinking or drug use, arrests due to alcohol or drug use, time spent on thinking about or trying to get alcohol or drugs, and feelings of guilt about drinking or drug use.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

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

Released/updated on: 2017-08-08

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

Time period: 1990-01-01--2013-01-01

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

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

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

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2012-08-22

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

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

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

Curated

Crime Days Precursors Study: Baltimore, 1952-1976 (ICPSR 8222)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

Geographic coverage: Baltimore, United States, Maryland

Time period: 1952-01-01--1976-01-01

This data collection focuses on 354 male narcotic addicts who were selected using a stratified random sample from a population of 6,149 known narcotic abusers arrested or identified by the Baltimore, Maryland, Police Department between 1952 and 1976. Variables include respondent's use of controlled drugs, including marijuana, hallucinogens, amphetamines, barbiturates, codeine, heroin, methadone, cocaine, tranquilizers, and other narcotics. Also of interest is the respondent's past criminal activity including arrests, length of incarceration, educational attainment, employment history, personal income, mobility, and drug treatment, if any.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies 2: Medication-Assisted Therapy, 2010-2013 [United States] (ICPSR 34988)

Released/updated on: 2016-02-02

Geographic coverage: Rhode Island, Puerto Rico, United States, Texas, Connecticut, Kentucky, California, Delaware, Maryland, Arizona, 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 Medication-Assisted Therapy (MAT) study focuses on implementing linkages to medication assisted treatment in correctional settings. During the study period community corrections staff engaged in training about addiction pharmacotherapies, while leadership in the corrections and treatment facilities engage in a joint strategic planning process to identify and resolve barriers to efficient flow of clients across the two systems.

This study includes 28 datasets and over 1,400 variables. The first five datasets for this study contain data on the baseline characteristics of the treatment and corrections sites that participated in the study as well as the characteristics of the staff working at those facilities. Opinions about Medication Assisted Treatment surveys were administered to personnel at the participating corrections and treatment sites (D6). Data on Inter-organization Relations between Probation and Parole staff with Treatment Providers were also collected (DS7-DS18).

Information was extracted from the charts of clients about their alcohol and opioid dependence as well as the referrals and treatment the clients received (DS19). Probation and parole officers and treatment providers were surveyed about monthly counts of referrals (DS20-DS21).

During the study 10 staff members from the community corrections agency and local treatment providers where MAT services were available were nominated to participate in a Pharmacotherapy Exchange Council (PEC). PEC members were involved with strategic planning for implementing changes to improve the usage of Medication-Assisted Therapy. PEC members were surveyed several times throughout the study.

PEC members completed surveys on how well the sites were adhering to the Organizational Linkages Intervention (OLI) process (DS22). Community corrections staff, PEC members and Connections Coordinators in the experimental group were surveyed about their perceptions of organizational benefits and costs associated with the MATICCE intervention (DS23). The PEC rated the Connections Coordinators (DS24)and the Connections Coordinators rate the PEC (DS25). PEC researchers completed surveys on how much of the OLI was completed (DS26) as well as what the sustainability of the changes made through the MATTICE project (DS27). The final dataset provides a key for who took the KPI (Key Performance Indicators) training and who was a PEC member (DS28).

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 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): Inmate Pre-Release Assessment (IPASS), 2001 [United States] (ICPSR 29201)

Released/updated on: 2011-01-06

Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, New Mexico, California, Maryland

Time period: 2001-05-01--2001-07-01

The UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs (ISAP), in conjunction with Texas Christian University, the University of Kentucky, and Brown University, proposes to develop and test the Inmate Pre-Release Assessment (IPASS) as a method of (1) prioritizing aftercare treatment need among graduates of prison-based substance abuse treatment programs, and (2) specifying an appropriate level of care (residential, outpatient, or self-help groups). The IPASS was developed specifically as a post-release risk measure for prison-based substance abuse treatment graduates by taking into account the inmates' historical drug use and criminal activity, as well as his or her performance during the prison-based treatment program. IPASS forms were administered to inmates housed in 14 institutions in four states: California, Maryland, New Mexico, and Oregon. While the IPASS has demonstrated sound psychometric properties as a continuous measure of post-release risk and general treatment need for substance-abusing parolees (Farabee & Knight, 2001), its ability to predict relapse and recidivism risk has not been tested using a prospective design. Part 1 of this study is the main part which is based on the IPASS Intake Form (479) and is designed to provide a quick assessment of criminal risk based on pre-incarceration risk factors. The first part of this form focuses heavily on criminal history, with questions about arrest and incarceration history, revocation history, and age of first criminal activity. It also asks about education level achieved, marital status and happiness, and friends drug use. The next part on the IPASS Intake Form (479) is designed to provide a quick screen for pre-incarceration drug use severity. It is based on the first ten items of the TCU Drug Screen II with the items corresponding to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) classification criteria for Drug Dependence. And the last part of the IPASS Intake form begins by asking inmates if they want to enter a drug treatment program after leaving prison; and if so, which treatment modality is preferred. Inmates were asked to indicate how much they disagree or agree with nine items pertaining to their interactions with the treatment staff. These items include the treatment staff being easy to talk to, easy to understand, listening to you, organized and prepared, treating you with respect, helping you solve problems, supportive of your progress, helping you with your recovery, and happy with your progress. Part 2 of the study mainly focused on arrest information and the number of criminal activities. Part 3 of the study is based on the IPASS Continuing Care Referral Form (484) and begins by asking inmates if they want to enter a drug treatment program after leaving prison; and if so, which treatment modality is preferred. Part 4 of the study is based on the IPASS Continuing Care Admit/Discharge Form (481A) and provides information regarding the Admission and Discharge of the inmates. And finally, Part 5 of the study is completed by the inmates' primary counselor and begins by recording the number of "major" disciplinary acts an inmate committed prior to and during their time at the treatment program.

Curated

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

Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study--Adolescent (DATOS-A), 1993-1995: [United States] (ICPSR 3404)

Released/updated on: 2008-10-07

Geographic coverage: United States

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

Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study - Adolescent (DATOS-A) was a multisite, prospective, community-based, longitudinal study of adolescents entering treatment. It was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of adolescent drug treatment by investigating the characteristics of the adolescent population, the structure and process of drug abuse treatment in adolescent programs, and the relationship of these factors with outcomes. Three major types or modalities of programs included in the study were chemical dependency or short-term inpatient (STI), therapeutic community or residential (RES), and outpatient drug-free (ODF). The adolescent battery of instruments included intake, intreatment, and follow-up questionnaires based largely on the DATOS adult study DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT OUTCOME STUDY (DATOS), 1991-1994: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 2258) instrument format, with considerable tailoring to the adolescent population. Clients entering treatment completed two comprehensive intake interviews (Intake 1 and Intake 2), approximately one week apart. This information is provided in Parts 1 and 2 of the data collection. These interviews were designed to obtain baseline data on drug use and other behaviors, such as illegal involvement, as well as information on background and demographic characteristics, education and training, mental health status, employment, income and expenditures, drug and alcohol dependence, health, religiosity and self-concept, and motivation and readiness for treatment. The one-, three-, and six-month intreatment interviews (Parts 3, 4, and 7) included items on treatment access, intreatment experience, and psychological functioning, as well as questions replicated from some of the domains in the Intake 1 and 2 questionnaires. The 12-month post-treatment follow-up interview (Part 5) included questions replicated from the previous interviews, and also included post-treatment status. Part 6 includes variables for time in treatment and interview availability indicators. The Measures Data (Part 8) were generated by using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Rev. 3rd ed., DSM-III-R) (American Psychiatric Association, 1987). The variables in Part 8 give either the DSM-III-R level of dependence to a drug category or they describe whether the subject meets the DSM-III-R standard for a particular disorder. The 12-Month Follow-up Urine Result data (Part 9) provide the results from urine sample tests that were given to a sample of subjects at the time of the 12-Month Follow-up Interview. The urine test was used to ascertain the nature and extent of bias in the self-reports of the respondents. Urine specimens were tested for eight categories of drugs (amphetamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, cocaine metabolite, methaqualone, opiates, and phencyclidine). The drugs covered in the study were alcohol, tobacco, marijuana (hashish, THC), cocaine (including crack), heroin, narcotics or opiates such as morphine, codeine, Demerol, Dilaudid, and Talwin, illegal methadone, sedatives and tranquilizers such as barbiturates and depressants, amphetamines or other stimulants such as speed or diet pills, methamphetamines, LSD, PCP, and other hallucinogens or psychedelics, and inhalants such as glue, gasoline, paint thinner, and aerosol sprays. The study also included drug of choice, frequency, and route of administration.

Curated

Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS), 1991-1994: [United States] (ICPSR 2258)

Released/updated on: 2010-02-16

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1991-01-01--1999-01-01

Drug-Abuse Treatment Outcomes Study (DATOS) is a prospective study designed to determine the outcomes of adult drug abuse treatment delivered in typical, stable, community-based programs and to provide comprehensive information on continuing and new questions about the effectiveness of drug abuse treatment for adults currently available in a variety of publicly funded and private programs. The study examined the role of treatment outcomes and program type, client characteristics (including dependence, treatment history, and physical and mental health comorbidities), treatment received (e.g., length and intensity of services provided), therapeutic approaches, provision of aftercare, and research on the components of effective treatment, including factors that engage and retain clients in programs. Four types of programs were included: outpatient methadone (OPM), short-term inpatient (STI), long-term residential (LTR), and outpatient drug-free (ODF). Respondents were sampled from among adults admitted to drug abuse treatment programs in 11 representative U.S. cities during 1991-1993.

Clients entering treatment completed two comprehensive intake interviews (Intake 1 and Intake 2), approximately one week apart. This information is provided in Parts 1 and 2 of the data collection. These interviews were designed to obtain baseline data on drug use and other behaviors, as well as information on background and demographic characteristics, patterns of dependence, living situation and child custody status, education and training, income and expenditures, and HIV risk behaviors, along with assessments of dependence, mental health, physical health, and social functioning. Data on criminal justice status and criminal behavior are reported in Part 5, Illegal Activities Data, and are drawn from the Intake 1 interview. Data reflecting during-treatment progress, including service delivery and client satisfaction, were collected in the one-, three-, and six-month in-treatment interviews (Parts 3, 4, and 8). The 12-Month Post-Treatment Follow-Up Interview (Part 6) replicated many of the intake questions and focused on key behaviors in the year following treatment. Part 7 includes variables for time in treatment and interview availability indicators. The 12-Month Follow-Up Urine Result data (Part 9) provide the results from urine sample tests that were given to a sample of subjects at the time of the 12-Month Follow-Up Interview. Urine specimens were tested for eight categories of drugs (amphetamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, cocaine metabolite, methaqualone, opiates, and phencyclidine). The drugs covered in the study were alcohol, tobacco, marijuana (hashish, THC), hallucinogens or psychedelics such as LSD, mescaline, and PCP, cocaine (including crack), heroin, narcotics or opiates such as morphine, codeine, Demerol, Dilaudid, and Talwin, downers or depressants such as sedatives, barbiturates, and tranquilizers, amphetamines or other stimulants such as speed or diet pills, and other drugs. Part 10 contains data for 1393 clients who were interviewed 5 years post treatment. This part contains many of the same types of questions asked during previous interviews.

Curated

Drug Services Research Survey, 1990: [United States] (ICPSR 3393)

Released/updated on: 2008-10-08

Geographic coverage: United States

The Drug Services Research Survey (DSRS) was initiated to collect detailed information on the characteristics of drug treatment facilities and the clients discharged from those facilities in the United States. Data were collected between June and December of 1990 in two phases. In Phase I, facility-level information was gathered via telephone interviews with facility directors and drug treatment providers in a national sample of drug treatment facilities. The questionnaire included point prevalence estimates for March 30, 1990. Phase II involved site visits to a sample of Phase I facilities. This visit included an in-person interview with the facility director or administrator and the collection of client-level data from a sample of client records. Record abstractions were done for clients discharged from these facilities between September 1, 1989, and August 31, 1990. Follow-up of the clients to assess post-treatment status was conducted in the SERVICES RESEARCH OUTCOMES STUDY, 1995-1996: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 2691).

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

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

Released/updated on: 2022-11-03

Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States, Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Alabama

Time period: 2019-10-15--2021-05-31

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

Curated

Gender, Mental Illness, and Crime in the United States, 2004 (ICPSR 27521)

Released/updated on: 2011-02-10

Geographic coverage: United States

The purpose of the study was to examine the gendered effects of depression, drug use, and treatment on crime and the effects of interaction with the criminal justice system on subsequent depression and drug use. The data for the study are from the NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ON DRUG USE AND HEALTH (NSDUH), 2004 [ICPSR 4373]. In addition to the 2004 NSDUH data, the study utilized new variables that were derived from the original dataset by the principal investigator, namely recoded variables, interaction variables, and computed indices. Information was provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 years and older. Respondents also provided detailed information regarding criminal activity, depression, and other factors. A total of 55,602 respondents participated in the study. The dataset contains a total of 3,011 variables. The first 2,690 variables are drawn from the 2004 NSDUH dataset and the remaining 321 variables were created by the principal investigator. Variables created by the principal investigator are manipulations of the first 2,690 variables. Specifically, these variables include depression indices, drug dependence indicators, interactions with gender and other demographic variables, and dichotomous recoded variables relating to types of drug abuse and criminal behavior.

Curated

HIV Open Data Project: AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) Final Grantee Level Variables (Annual) (ICPSR 34894)

Released/updated on: 2013-10-03

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2012-01-01--2013-01-01

The AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) Data Report (ADR) includes two components: the Grantee Report and the Client Report. All ADAPs are required to submit both reports.

The Grantee Report is a collection of basic information about the grantee characteristics and policies. It includes a Programmatic Summary section and an Annual Submission section.

The Client Report (or client-level data) is a collection of one record for each client enrolled in the ADAP. Each record includes the client's encrypted unique identifier, basic demographic data, and enrollment and certification information. A client's record may also include data about the ADAP-funded insurance and medication received, including the costs of these services, as well as HIV clinical information.

Curated

Restricted

Improving Health and Employment Outcomes Through Workplace Opioid Policies, United States, 2020 (ICPSR 38448)

Released/updated on: 2022-06-13

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2019-01-01--2020-01-01

The overall goal of this study was to develop and test the feasibility of implementing best evidence workplace policy guidelines to reduce opioid use and misuse among working age people, the population primarily affected by the opioid crisis. Researchers developed workplace opioid guidelines to reduce prescription opioid use, decrease opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD), and improve health-related employment outcomes. Researchers then tested the feasibility of implementing these guidelines among construction workers, an occupational group at uniquely high risk of opioid use and fatal overdose. Researchers conducted worker surveys and interviews with leaders of construction unions, employers and health funds. These data helped researchers better describe opioid use in the construction industry and informed an advisory panel of addiction and human resources specialists, construction employers, union officials, and labor-management health fund leaders.

Curated

Partially restricted

Simple Crosstabs

Mindful Body Awareness Training for Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD), Pacific Northwest, 2019-2024 (ICPSR 39235)

Released/updated on: 2025-06-19

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2019-08-01--2024-01-31

The national opioid epidemic requires development of real-world evidence-based treatments for opioid use disorder, including adjuncts to Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD). Interventions are needed that address the complex needs of patients with opioid use disorder, which include substantial mental health co-morbidity and high rates of chronic pain. This study tested a mind-body intervention, Mindful Awareness in Body-oriented Therapy (MABT), as an adjunct to MOUD across multiple community outpatient clinical settings. MABT, a mindfulness-based intervention, addresses aspects of awareness, interoception, and regulation that may be associated with pain, mental health distress, and behavioral control that increase risk of relapse and poor treatment outcomes.

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2012-12-13

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

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

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2009-06-03

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

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

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

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

National Comorbidity Survey: Reinterview (NCS-2), 2001-2002 (ICPSR 35067)

Released/updated on: 2015-03-31

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2001-01-01--2002-01-01

The NCS-2 was a re-interview of 5,001 individuals who participated in the Baseline (NCS-1). The study was conducted a decade after the initial baseline survey. The aim was to collect information about changes in mental disorders, substance use disorders, and the predictors and consequences of these changes over the ten years between the two surveys. The collection contains three major sections: the main survey, demographic data, and diagnostic data.

In the main survey, respondents were asked about general physical and mental health. Questions focused on a variety of health issues, including limitations caused by respondents' health issues, substance use, childhood health, life-threatening illnesses, chronic conditions, medications taken in the past 12 months, level of functioning and symptoms experienced in the past 30 days, and any services used by the respondents since the (NCS-1). Additional questions focused on mental disorders including depression, bipolar disorder, specific and social phobias, generalized anxiety, intermittent explosive disorder, suicidality, post-traumatic stress disorder, neurasthenia, pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, and separation anxiety. Respondents were also asked about their lives in general, with topics including employment, finances, marriage, children, their social lives, and stressful life events experienced in the past 12 months. Additionally, two personality assessments were included consisting of respondents' opinions on whether various true/false statements accurately described their personalities. Another focus of the main survey dealt with substance use and abuse, nonmedical use of prescription drugs, and polysubstance use. Interview questions in the NCS-2 Main Survey were customized to each respondent based on previous responses in the Baseline (NCS-1).

The middle section contains demographic and other background information including age, education, employment, household composition, household income, marital status, and region.

The last section of the collection focused on whether respondents met diagnostic criteria for psychological disorders asked about in the main survey.

Curated

National Comorbidity Survey: Reinterview (NCS-2), 2001-2002 [Restricted-Use] (ICPSR 30921)

Released/updated on: 2024-03-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2001-01-01--2002-01-01

The NCS-2 was a re-interview of 5,001 individuals who participated in the Baseline (NCS-1). The study was conducted a decade after the initial baseline survey. The aim was to collect information about changes in mental disorders, substance use disorders, and the predictors and consequences of these changes over the ten years between the two surveys. The collection contains four major sections: the main survey, demographic data, diagnostic data, and state, county, and tract FIPS data.

The second part contains demographic and other background information including age, education, employment, household composition, household income, marital status, and region.

The third part focuses on whether respondents met diagnostic criteria for psychological disorders asked about in the main survey.

The fourth part contains respondents' state, county, and tract FIPS data.

Curated

National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (ICPSR 31922)

Released/updated on: 2011-07-21

Geographic coverage: United States

The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) provides a means by which the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), treatment researchers, and community-based service providers cooperatively develop, validate, refine, and deliver new treatment options to patients in Community Treatment Programs (CTPs). The CTN Web site allows researchers to download de-identified data from completed CTN studies to conduct analyses that improve the quality of drug abuse treatment.

Curated

National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey, Waves II-IV (ICPSR 4146)

Released/updated on: 2009-07-30

Geographic coverage: United States

The National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey (NDATSS) is a longitudinal program of research into organizational structures, operating characteristics, and treatment modalities of outpatient drug treatment programs in the United States. This is done through interviews with program directors and clinical supervisors. In some publications, this research is referred to as the Outpatient Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (ODATS). Data being released include Wave II (1988), Wave III (1990), and Wave IV (1995).

Curated

Partially restricted

Simple Crosstabs

National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey, Waves V-IX, [United States], 2000-2017 (ICPSR 38420)

Released/updated on: 2023-03-22

Geographic coverage: United States

The National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey (NDATSS) is a longitudinal program of research into organizational structures, operating characteristics, and treatment practices of outpatient drug treatment programs in the United States. This is done through interviews with program directors and clinical supervisors. In some publications, this research is referred to as the Outpatient Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (ODATS). Data in this collection include Wave V, Wave VI, Wave VII, Wave VIII, and Wave IX.

NDATSS includes four prior waves of data collection from substance abuse treatment programs surveyed in 1984, 1988, 1990, and 1995. Waves II through IV can be found at ICPSR here.

Wave I is not planned for public release because it had a significantly different sample design than the other waves.

Curated

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 2000 (ICPSR 3262)

Released/updated on: 2013-06-25

Geographic coverage: United States

The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) series measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions include age at first use as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, cocaine (and crack), hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of prescription drugs, including pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives. The survey covers substance abuse treatment history and perceived need for treatment, and includes questions from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders that allow diagnostic criteria to be applied. Respondents are also asked about personal and family income sources and amounts, health care access and coverage, illegal activities and arrest record, problems resulting from the use of drugs, and needle-sharing. Questions introduced in previous NHSDA administrations were retained in the 2000 survey, including questions asked only of respondents aged 12 to 17. These "youth experiences" items covered a variety of topics, such as neighborhood environment, illegal activities, gang involvement, drug use by friends, social support, extracurricular activities, exposure to substance abuse prevention and education programs, and perceived adult attitudes toward drug use and activities such as school work. Also retained were questions on mental health and access to care, perceived risk of using drugs, perceived availability of drugs, driving behavior and personal behavior, and cigar smoking. Questions on the tobacco brand used most often were introduced with the 1999 survey and retained in the 2000 survey. Demographic data include gender, race, age, ethnicity, marital status, educational level, job status, veteran status, and current household composition.

Curated

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 2001 (ICPSR 3580)

Released/updated on: 2013-06-25

Geographic coverage: United States

The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) series measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions include age at first use as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, cocaine (and crack), hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of prescription drugs, including pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives. The survey covers substance abuse treatment history and perceived need for treatment, and includes questions from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders that allow diagnostic criteria to be applied. Respondents are also asked about personal and family income sources and amounts, health care access and coverage, illegal activities and arrest record, problems resulting from the use of drugs, and needle-sharing. Questions introduced in previous NHSDA administrations were retained in the 2001 survey, including questions asked only of respondents aged 12 to 17. These "youth experiences" items covered a variety of topics, such as neighborhood environment, illegal activities, gang involvement, drug use by friends, social support, extracurricular activities, exposure to substance abuse prevention and education programs, and perceived adult attitudes toward drug use and activities such as school work. Also retained were questions on mental health and access to care, perceived risk of using drugs, perceived availability of drugs, driving behavior and personal behavior, and cigar smoking. Questions on the tobacco brand used most often were introduced with the 1999 survey and have been retained through the 2001 survey. Demographic data include gender, race, age, ethnicity, marital status, educational level, job status, veteran status, and current household composition. In addition, in 2001 questions on purchase of marijuana were added.

Curated

National Pregnancy and Health Survey: Drug Use Among Women Delivering Live Births, 1992 (ICPSR 2835)

Released/updated on: 2008-07-31

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1992-01-01--1993-01-01

The primary objective of the National Pregnancy and Health Survey (NPHS) was to produce national annual estimates of the percentages and numbers of mothers of live newborns in the United States who used selected licit and illicit drugs in the 12 months prior to delivery. A further objective was to describe patterns of prenatal substance use among demographic subgroups of women. Information on demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, obstetric history, and drug treatment of women who delivered infants at sampled hospitals was obtained through an interviewer-administered questionnaire, while data on substance use before and during pregnancy were collected through a questionnaire completed by the respondent and concealed from the interviewer. Respondents were asked about use of the following substances: alcohol, amphetamines, analgesics, cocaine, crack cocaine, barbiturates, hallucinogens, hashish, heroin, marijuana, methadone, methamphetamine, sedatives, stimulants, tobacco, and tranquilizers. Additionally, information was collected on the respondent's pregnancy, prenatal care, delivery, previous pregnancies, and background. Additional data were obtained from the mothers' and infants' medical records. Urine specimens collected routinely by the hospital on obstetric admissions were tested for selected drugs. Finally, in a subsample of six hospitals, hair specimens were requested from respondents to evaluate the potential of hair as a source of toxicological data in future studies.

Curated

National Survey of Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Health Problems [Healthcare for Communities], 1997-1998 (ICPSR 3025)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1997-01-01--1998-01-01

This survey is a component of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Health Tracking Initiative, a program designed to monitor changes within the health care system and their effects on people. Focusing on care and treatment for alcohol, drug, and mental health conditions, the survey reinterviewed respondents to the 1996-1997 CTS Household Survey (COMMUNITY TRACKING STUDY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY, 1996-1997, AND FOLLOWBACK SURVEY, 1997-1998: [UNITED STATES] [ICPSR 2524]). Topics covered by the questionnaire include (1) demographics, (2) health and daily activities, (3) mental health, (4) alcohol and illicit drug use, (5) use of medications, (6) health insurance coverage including coverage for mental health, (7) access, utilization, and quality of behavioral health care, (8) work, income, and wealth, and (9) life difficulties. Five imputed versions of the data are included in the collection for analysis with multiple imputation techniques.

Curated

National Survey of Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Health Problems [Healthcare for Communities], 2000-2001 (ICPSR 4165)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2000-01-01--2001-01-01

This survey (HCC2) is a component of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Health Tracking Initiative, an initiative designed to track changes in the the American health care system and their effects. HCC2 reinterviewed respondents to the first National Survey of Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Health Problems (HCC1) and a cross-section of adult respondents from the second Community Tracking Study (CTS) Household Survey (CTS2). Previously, HCC1 reinterviewed a cross-section of adult respondents from the first CTS Household Survey (CTS1). HCC1 is available as the NATIONAL SURVEY OF ALCOHOL, DRUG, AND MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS [HEALTHCARE FOR COMMUNITIES], 1997-1998 (ICPSR 3025), CTS1 as the COMMUNITY TRACKING STUDY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY, 1996-1997, AND FOLLOWBACK SURVEY, 1997-1998 (ICPSR 2524), and CTS2 as the COMMUNITY TRACKING STUDY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY, 1998-1999, AND FOLLOWBACK SURVEY, 1998-2000 (ICPSR 3199). Central to the design of the CTS Household Surveys, from which all HCC1 and HCC2 respondents originated, is its community focus. Sixty sites (51 metropolitan and 9 nonmetropolitan areas) were randomly selected to form the core of the CTS surveys and to be representative of the nation as a whole. The CTS Household Surveys were administered to households in the 60 CTS sites (known as the site sample) and to a supplemental national sample of households. Both HCC1 and HCC2 focused on the care and treatment for alcohol, drug, and mental health conditions. Like HCC1, the HCC2 questionnaire collected information on (1) demographics, (2) health and daily activities, (3) mental health, (4) alcohol and illicit drug use, (5) use of medications, (6) general health insurance and insurance coverage for mental health, substance abuse, and prescription medications, (7) access, utilization, and quality of behavioral health care, (8) labor market status, income, and wealth, and (9) life difficulties. Three sets of a data files are supplied with this collection: a set containing the interviews completed with the follow-up sample of persons who responded to HCC1, a set containing the interviews completed with the cross-sectional sample of subjects who responded to CTS2, and a set named the "complete sample" which contains all of the completed interviews. Five imputed versions of the data are included with each set for analysis with multiple imputation techniques.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS), 2000 (ICPSR 3436)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23

Geographic coverage: United States

The National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS) is designed to collect information from all facilities in the United States, both public and private, that provide substance abuse treatment. N-SSATS provides the mechanism for quantifying the dynamic character and composition of the United States substance abuse treatment delivery system. The objectives of N-SSATS are to collect multipurpose data that can be used to assist the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and state and local governments in assessing the nature and extent of services provided and in forecasting treatment resource requirements, update SAMHSA's Inventory of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (I-SATS), analyze general treatment services trends, and generate the National Directory of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Programs and its online equivalent, the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility Locator.

Data are collected on topics including facility operation, services offered (assessment, substance abuse therapy and counseling, testing, transitional, and ancillary), primary focus (substance abuse, mental health, both, general health, other), hotline operation, Opioid Treatment Programs and medication dispensed, languages in which treatment is provided, type of treatment provided, number of clients (total and under age 18), number of beds, types of payment accepted, sliding fee scale, special programs offered, facility accreditation and licensure/certification, and managed care agreements.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS), 2002 (ICPSR 3819)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23

Geographic coverage: United States

Data are collected on topics including facility operation, services offered (assessment, substance abuse therapy and counseling, pharmacotherapies, testing, transitional, ancillary), primary focus (substance abuse, mental health, both, general health, other), hotline operation, Opioid Treatment Programs and medication dispensed, languages in which treatment is provided, type of treatment provided, number of clients (total and under age 18), number of beds, types of payment accepted, sliding fee scale, special programs offered, facility accreditation and licensure/certification, and managed care agreements.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS), 2003 (ICPSR 4099)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23

Geographic coverage: United States

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS), 2004 (ICPSR 4256)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23

Geographic coverage: United States

Data are collected on topics including facility operation, services offered (assessment, substance abuse therapy and counseling, pharmacotherapies, testing, transitional, ancillary), primary focus (substance abuse, mental health, both, general health, other), hotline operation, Opioid Treatment Programs and medication dispensed/prescribed, languages in which treatment is provided, type of treatment provided, number of clients (total and under age 18), number of beds, types of payment accepted, sliding fee scale, special programs offered, facility accreditation and licensure/certification, and managed care agreements.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS), 2005 (ICPSR 4469)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23

Geographic coverage: United States

Data are collected on topics including facility operation, services offered (assessment, substance abuse therapy and counseling, pharmacotherapies, testing, transitional, ancillary), primary focus (substance abuse, mental health, both, general health, other), hotline operation, Opioid Treatment Programs and medication dispensed/prescribed, languages in which treatment is provided, type of treatment provided, number of clients (total and under age 18), number of beds, types of payment accepted, sliding fee scale, special programs offered, facility accreditation and licensure/certification, and managed care agreements.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS), 2006 (ICPSR 20004)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23

Geographic coverage: United States

The National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS) is designed to collect information from all facilities in the United States, both public and private, that provide substance abuse treatment. N-SSATS provides the mechanism for quantifying the dynamic character and composition of the United States substance abuse treatment delivery system. The objectives of N-SSATS are to collect multipurpose data that can be used to assist the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and state and local governments in assessing the nature and extent of services provided and in forecasting treatment resource requirements, to update SAMHSA's Inventory of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (I-SATS), to analyze general treatment services trends, and to generate the National Directory of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Programs and its online equivalent, the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility Locator.

Data are collected on topics including facility operation, services offered (assessment and pre-treatment, substance abuse therapy and counseling, pharmacotherapies, testing, transitional, ancillary), primary focus (substance abuse, mental health, both, general health, and other), hotline operation, Opioid Treatment Programs and medication dispensed/prescribed, languages in which treatment is provided, type of treatment provided, number of clients (total and under age 18), number of beds, types of payment accepted, sliding fee scale, special programs offered, facility accreditation and licensure/certification, and managed care agreements.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002 (ICPSR 3903)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23

Geographic coverage: United States

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) series (formerly titled National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions include age at first use as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, cocaine (and crack), hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of prescription drugs, including pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives. The survey covers substance abuse treatment history and perceived need for treatment, and includes questions from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders that allow diagnostic criteria to be applied. The survey includes questions concerning treatment for both substance abuse and mental health related disorders. Respondents are also asked about personal and family income sources and amounts, health care access and coverage, illegal activities and arrest record, problems resulting from the use of drugs, and needle-sharing. Questions introduced in previous administrations were retained in the 2002 survey, including questions asked only of respondents aged 12 to 17. These "youth experiences" items covered a variety of topics, such as neighborhood environment, illegal activities, gang involvement, drug use by friends, social support, extracurricular activities, exposure to substance abuse prevention and education programs, and perceived adult attitudes toward drug use and activities such as school work. Several measures focused on prevention related themes in this section. Also retained were questions on mental health and access to care, perceived risk of using drugs, perceived availability of drugs, driving and personal behavior, and cigar smoking. Questions on the tobacco brand used most often were introduced with the 1999 survey and have been retained through the 2002 survey. Demographic data include gender, race, age, ethnicity, marital status, educational level, job status, veteran status, and current household composition.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2003 (ICPSR 4138)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23

Geographic coverage: United States

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) series (formerly titled National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions included age at first use as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, cocaine (and crack), hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of prescription drugs, including pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives. The survey covered substance abuse treatment history and perceived need for treatment, and included questions from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders that allow diagnostic criteria to be applied. The survey included questions concerning treatment for both substance abuse and mental health related disorders. Respondents were also asked about personal and family income sources and amounts, health care access and coverage, illegal activities and arrest record, problems resulting from the use of drugs, and needle-sharing. Questions introduced in previous administrations were retained in the 2003 survey, including questions asked only of respondents aged 12 to 17. These "youth experiences" items covered a variety of topics, such as neighborhood environment, illegal activities, gang involvement, drug use by friends, social support, extracurricular activities, exposure to substance abuse prevention and education programs, and perceived adult attitudes toward drug use and activities such as school work. Several measures focused on prevention related themes in this section. Also retained were questions on mental health and access to care, perceived risk of using drugs, perceived availability of drugs, driving and personal behavior, and cigar smoking. Questions on the tobacco brand used most often were introduced with the 1999 survey and retained through the 2003 survey. Background information includes gender, race, age, ethnicity, marital status, educational level, job status, veteran status, and current household composition. A number of additional questions were added in 2003, including questions on prior marijuana and cigarette use, additional questions on drug treatment, adult mental health services, and social environment.