Search results

Showing 1 – 50 of 314 results.
Curated
Partially restricted

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
Partially restricted

Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers (STARRS) (ICPSR 35197)

Released/updated on: 2025-10-01
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2011-01-01--2024-01-01

*****************************************************************************************

April 29, 2025: STARRS - Longitudinal Study Wave 4 (LSW4) data released

*****************************************************************************************

The Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers (STARRS) is an extensive study of mental health risk and resilience among military personnel. Army STARRS consists of eight separate but integrated epidemiologic and neurobiologic studies. Survey data for three of the Army STARRS study components are available via Secure Dissemination or via the ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave: New Soldier Study (NSS); All Army Study (AAS) and Pre-Post Deployment Study (PPDS). Also available are data for the STARRS-Longitudinal Study (STARRS-LS), which are follow-up surveys conducted with Army STARRS participants from AAS, NSS and PPDS studies. Lastly, baseline administrative data from the Army/Department of Defense (DoD) and blood sample flags for Soldiers who had blood drawn as a part of their participation in NSS or PPDS are available.

The AAS component of Army STARRS assesses soldiers' psychological and physical health, events encountered during training, combat, and non-combat operations, and life and work experiences across all phases of Army service. The AAS data includes data on soldiers' psychological resilience, mental health, and risk for self-harm.

The NSS data are drawn from new soldiers who have just entered the Army. The data contain information on soldier health, personal characteristics, and prior experiences. Results from a series of neurocognitive tests are also included in the NSS data.

The PPDS data are drawn from active duty soldiers who were interviewed at four points in time: 3-4 months prior to deployment to Afghanistan; within 1-2 weeks after return from deployment; 1-3 months after return from deployment; and 9-12 months after return from deployment. The PPDS data contain information on soldiers' psychological resilience, mental health, deployment experiences, and risk for self-harm.

The STARRS-LS data are from multiple follow-up interviews with individuals who previously participated in the AAS, NSS and PPDS study components of Army STARRS. STARRS-LS data contain follow-up information on soldiers' and veterans' physical and mental health, resilience and risk for self-harm, military and employment status, deployment experience, and personal characteristics as they move through their Army careers and after they leave the Army.

Curated
Restricted

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
Restricted

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
Restricted

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
Restricted

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (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
Partially restricted

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring II in the United States, 2012 (Restricted Use) (ICPSR 34821)

Released/updated on: 2013-08-29
Geographic coverage: New York City, Sacramento, United States, Chicago, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Denver, California, Georgia, New York (state)
Time period: 2012-04-30--2012-07-29
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring II, 2012 is a collection of interview and bioassay data provided by over 3000 arrestees from five county sites within the United States. Under the sponsorship of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the ADAM II program monitors drug use and related behaviors (treatment experiences, housing stability, drug market activity, age at first use, employment, etc.) in a probability based sample of male adult arrestees within 48 hours of their arrest. The five ADAM II sites for 2012 were: Atlanta, GA (Fulton County and the City of Atlanta); Chicago, IL (Cook County); Denver, CO (Denver County); New York, NY (Borough of Manhattan); and Sacramento, CA (Sacramento County). The 2012 survey represents the sixth year of ADAM II and includes data from 1,938 interviews and 1,736 urine tests that were conducted at the five ADAM II sites over a 21-day period, between April 30 and July 29, 2012. The samples from these sites were weighted to represent over 14,000 arrests of adult males in the five counties. ADAM II data include official records, arrestee responses from a 20-minute face-to-face interview, and results from voluntary urine samples which tested for the presence of nine different drugs. Identifying information on the arrestees was not retained or shared with law enforcement. Demographic variables include age, gender, race, arrest date and time, county of arrest, number and type(s) of offense(s), education, work status, and language of interview.
Curated
Partially restricted

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring II in the United States, 2013 (Restricted Use) (ICPSR 35169)

Released/updated on: 2014-08-01
Geographic coverage: New York City, Sacramento, United States, Chicago, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Denver, California, Georgia, New York (state)
Time period: 2013-05-05--2013-07-28
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring II, 2013 is a collection of interview and bioassay data provided by over 3000 arrestees from five county sites within the United States. Under the sponsorship of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the ADAM II program monitors drug use and related behaviors (treatment experiences, housing stability, drug market activity, age at first use, employment, etc.) in a probability based sample of male adult arrestees within 48 hours of their arrest. The five ADAM II sites for 2013 were: Atlanta, GA (Fulton County and the City of Atlanta); Chicago, IL (Cook County); Denver, CO (Denver County); New York, NY (Borough of Manhattan); and Sacramento, CA (Sacramento County). The 2013 survey represents the seventh year of ADAM II and includes data from 1,900 interviews and 1,681 urine tests that were conducted at the five ADAM II sites over a 21-day period, between May 5, 2013 and July 28, 2013. ADAM II data include official records, arrestee responses from a 20-minute face-to-face interview, and results from voluntary urine samples which tested for the presence of nine different drugs. Identifying information on the arrestees was not retained or shared with law enforcement. Demographic variables include age, gender, race, citizenship, marital status, arrest date and time, county of arrest, number and type(s) of offense(s), education, work status, and language of interview.
Curated
Partially restricted

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2007 (ICPSR 25821)

Released/updated on: 2010-01-28
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
Time period: 2007-04-01--2007-09-01
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) II program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, the ONDCP and Abt Associates have initiated a new data collection that replicates the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. A total of 8,296 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2007. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated
Partially restricted

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2008 (ICPSR 27221)

Released/updated on: 2010-03-31
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc. have initiated a new data collection that replicates the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implements two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collects data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. Data collection has been conducted across two back-to-back quarters in each of 10 counties from a county-based representative sample of 250 male arrestees per quarter for a total of 500 arrestees annually per site or a total of 5,000 arrestees across sites annually. A total of 7,717 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2008. Collection occurs in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2007 and ending March 31, 2008. Additional data collection periods were optioned by ONDCP, and subsequent cycles of back-to-back data collection (not yet available) began April 1, 2008. Participation is voluntary and confidential, and the procedures include a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates.
Curated
Partially restricted

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

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

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

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

Boys Town Study of Youth Development, United States, mid-1970s (ICPSR 34595)

Released/updated on: 2025-12-03
Geographic coverage: Iowa, United States, Nebraska
The Boys Town Study of Youth Development surveyed 3,065 students in junior high and high schools in the Midwestern United States (predominantly in Nebraska and Iowa) in the mid-1970s. The study focused on adolescent substance use and deviant behavior, school aspirations, and parental and friendship relationships. Additional topics included opinions toward, influences for or against, and legal ramifications of substance use, drug/alcohol education programs and the availability and perceived difficulty in obtaining drugs and or alcohol. Respondents were asked whether they had used tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, stimulants, depressants, and stronger drugs such as narcotics and psychedelics, the frequency and quantity of use, effects they felt using a substance for the first time, and the usual effects they felt if used more than once. Those who had never used any substances were asked about their perceived effects of use. Delinquent behavior engaged in by the respondents such as truancy issues, running away from home, and theft, as well as behavior while under the influence of substances such as fighting, being stopped by the police, and being in an accident were also asked about. A cohort-based school design was used to tap different ages and developmental periods. Special attention was paid to the use of illicit substances and general deviance in the contexts of criminological theory (particularly social control and learning theory). Demographic information includes age, sex, religion, religiosity, grade point average, and grade level.
Curated
Partially restricted

California Families Project [Sacramento and Woodland, California] [Restricted-Use Files] (ICPSR 35476)

Released/updated on: 2017-03-08
Geographic coverage: Sacramento, United States, California
Time period: 2006-01-01--2007-01-01

The California Families Project (CFP) is an ongoing longitudinal study of Mexican origin families in Northern California. This study uses community, school, family, and individual characteristics to examine developmental pathways that increase risk for and resilience to drug use in Mexican-origin youth. This study also examines the impact that economic disadvantage and cultural traditions have in Mexican-origin youth. The CFP includes a community-based sample of 674 families and children of Mexican origin living in Northern California, and includes annual assessments of parents and children. Participants with Mexican surnames were drawn at random from school rosters of students during the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school year. Data collection included multi-method assessments of a broad range of psychological, familial, scholastic, cultural, and neighborhood factors. Initiation of the research at age 10 was designed to assess the focal children before the onset of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use, thus enabling the evaluation of how hypothesized risk and resilience mechanisms operate to exacerbate early onset during adolescence or help prevent its occurrence. This study includes a diversity of families that represent a wide range of incomes, education, family history, and family structures, including two-parent and single-parent families.

The accompanying data file consists of 674 family cases with each case representing a focal child and at least one parent (Two-parent: n=549, 82 percent; Single-parent: n=125, 18 percent). Of the 3,139 total variables, 839 pertain to the focal child, 1,376 correspond to the mother, and 908 items pertain to the father.

Please note: While the California Families Project is a longitudinal study, only the baseline data are currently available in this data collection.

Curated
Partially restricted

Center for Education and Drug Abuse Research (CEDAR): Etiological and Prospective Family Study in Southwestern Pennsylvania, Baseline and Follow-Up Data, 1990-2014 (ICPSR 33444)

Released/updated on: 2021-06-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania
Time period: 1990-01-01--2014-01-01
The Center for Education and Drug Abuse Research (CEDAR) conducted research on 775 families enrolled in the Center's prospective investigations into the etiology of substance use disorder (SUD). The pro-bands are men with lifetime presence/absence of SUD consequent to use of an illicit drug who have a 10-12 year old biological son or daughter. The biological children of SUD men are assigned to the high average risk (HAR) group whereas offspring of men without SUD, having neither axis 1 disorder ("normal") nor SUD psychiatric disorder, are assigned to the low average risk (LAR) group. A second control group (Psych control) was also collected, in whom the fathers had a lifetime DSM-III-R diagnosis of any psychiatric disorder not related to substance use. The sample sizes are as follows: HAR = 344, LAR = 350, and Psych = 81. The children had follow-up evaluations conducted at ages 12-14, 16, 19, and annually thereafter until age 30. CEDAR has already shown that they can predict in 10-12 year old youth cannabis use disorder by age 22 with approximately 70 percent accuracy, thereby substantiating the paradigm, subject recruitment strategy, and measurement protocols. Multidisciplinary research was conducted on family members (father, mother, children) with the objective of elucidating the genetic, bio-behavioral, and environmental factors on development of SUD consequent to use of illegal drugs. Research protocols are organized into three thematically connected research modules (Neurogenetics, Developmental Psychopathology, and Translation) linking etiology and prevention. The research components thus align with the NIH Roadmap model such that basic science informs clinical research leading to prevention guided by an understanding of etiology. In addition to module-level research, faculty also participate in three organizational aims: (1) Devise a practical scale to quantify the transmissible liability to SUD; (2) Empirically test a bio-psychological theory of SUD etiology focusing on off-time maturation leading to psychological dysregulation predisposing to SUD; and, (3) Delineate SUD liability variants within an ontogenetic framework.
Curated
Partially restricted

Chicago Male Drug Use and Health Survey (MSM Supplement), 2002-2003 (ICPSR 34303)

Released/updated on: 2012-08-01
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 2002-09-01--2003-01-01
In recent years, club drugs such as MDMA, Ketamine, GHB, and Rohypnol have emerged as major drugs of abuse. The national and local Chicago news media have publicized law enforcement actions and adverse health outcomes, including fatalities, related to the abuse of these substances. Media accounts and a limited body of research have identified use of these substances as prevalent in the gay male community. This prevalence coincides with recent increases in HIV seropositive incidence. There is a clear need for a more comprehensive understanding of the prevalence of club drug use in the general population, and particularly in the subgroup of sexually active gay men. Noting these research gaps and their considerable adverse public health implications, this supplemental study was designed to apply an expanded protocol developed from an earlier study conducted (Feasibility and Use of Biological Measurement in Drug Surveys; R01DA12425, SRL Study #860) to a sample of gay men in the city of Chicago (Michael Fendrich, Principal Investigator). This study evaluated whether findings regarding the feasibility and use of drug testing in drug surveys derived from general population samples are generalizable to a probability sample of 216 gay men in the city of Chicago. For this project, a supplemental module was added to the main study survey that asked detailed questions about involvement in the gay community, risky sexual activity and HIV seropositivity. The scope of biological measurement was also expanded to incorporate testing for Rohypnol and Ketamine in hair (MDMA was already being tested as part of the general sample hair screen). The dataset contains 676 variables.
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

Comprehensive Investigation of the Role of Individuals, the Immediate Social Environment, and Neighborhoods in Trajectories of Adolescent Antisocial Behavior in Chicago, Illinois, 1994-2002 (ICPSR 33921)

Released/updated on: 2012-12-19
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1994-01-01--2002-01-01
The overall goal of this study was to acquire a greater understanding of the development of adolescent antisocial behavior using data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN). Longitudinal cohort data from PHDCN were analyzed to assess patterns of substance use and delinquency across three waves for three age cohorts and 78 neighborhoods. This analysis of existing PHDCN data used multiple cohort and multilevel latent growth models as well as several ancillary approaches to answer questions pertinent to the development of adolescent antisocial behavior.
Curated
Restricted

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

Released/updated on: 2012-08-22
Geographic coverage: New York City, Oregon, District of Columbia, San Diego, San Antonio, United States, Chicago, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), California, New York (state)
Time period: 1995-01-01--1996-01-01
This study was designed to address the practical and policy implications of various drug market participation patterns. In 1995, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) collaborated on a project called the Procurement Study. This study was executed as an addendum to NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]) with the goal of extending previous research in which heroin users were interviewed on various aspects of drug market activity. The present study sought to explore additional features of drug market participation and use, both within and across drug types and cities, and included two additional drugs -- powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Data were collected from recently arrested users of powder cocaine, crack cocaine, and heroin in six DUF cities (Chicago, New York, Portland, San Diego, San Antonio, and Washington, DC). Each of the three files in this collection, Crack Data (Part 1), Heroin Data (Part 2), and Powder Cocaine Data (Part 3), is comprised of data from a procurement interview, urine test variables, and a DUF interview. During the procurement interview, information was collected on purchase and use patterns for specific drugs. Variables from the procurement interview include the respondent's method of using the drug, the term used to refer to the drug, whether the respondent bought the drug in the neighborhood, the number of different dealers the respondent bought the drug from, how the respondent made the connection with the dealer (i.e., street, house, phone, beeper, business/store, or friends), their main drug source, whether the respondent went to someone else if the source was not available, how the respondent coped with not being able to find drugs to buy, whether the respondent got the drug for free, the means by which the respondent obtained money, the quantity and packaging of the drug, and the number of minutes spent searching for, traveling to, and waiting for their last purchase. Urine tests screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography). Data from the DUF interview provide detailed information about each arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs. For each drug type, arrestees were asked whether they had ever used the drug, the age at which they first used the drug, whether they had used the drug within the past three days, how many days they had used the drug within the past month, whether they had ever needed or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were dependent on the drug at the time of the interview. Data from the DUF interview instrument also included alcohol/drug treatment history, information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs, and whether they were influenced by drugs when the crime that they were charged with was committed. The data also include information about whether the arrestee had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether he or she had had prior arrests in the past 12 months. Demographic data include the age, race, sex, educational attainment, marital status, employment status, and living circumstances of each respondent.
Curated

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

Criminal Histories and Criminal Justice Processing of Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Sample Members in Washington, DC, 1989-1991 (ICPSR 6122)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1989-01-01--1991-01-01
These data provide information on the relationship between arrestee drug tests and future criminality once other risk factors, such as prior criminal history, are accounted for. Also explored is whether the association between drug test results and future offending varies depending upon the attributes of individual offenders. The dataset contains information drawn from the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) in Washington, DC, and the National Institute of Justice's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program. Data are available from each source for 1989 and 1990 with subsequent arrest data provided by PSA through August 1991. The 1989-1990 data supplied by PSA contain information on criminal history and drug test results taken at the time of arrest. Data provided from the DUF program include drug test results from a sample of persons arrested as well as information obtained from arrestee interviews on items such as family and work status. The combined data contain the arrestees' demographic characteristics, arrest and charge information, prior criminal history, and subsequent offending. Drugs tested for include cocaine, opiates, methadone, PCP, amphetamines, barbiturates, marijuana, methaqualone, Darvon, and Valium. In addition, self-reported information regarding an individual's use of and dependency on these drugs is supplied. Demographic information includes age, sex, income, and employment status. Due to changes in the DUF measurement instrument from 1989 to 1990, the variables contained in the two data files are not completely identical.
Curated

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): Inmate Pre-Release Assessment (IPASS), 2001 [United States] (ICPSR 29201)

Released/updated on: 2011-01-06
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, New Mexico, California, Maryland
Time period: 2001-05-01--2001-07-01
The UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs (ISAP), in conjunction with Texas Christian University, the University of Kentucky, and Brown University, proposes to develop and test the Inmate Pre-Release Assessment (IPASS) as a method of (1) prioritizing aftercare treatment need among graduates of prison-based substance abuse treatment programs, and (2) specifying an appropriate level of care (residential, outpatient, or self-help groups). The IPASS was developed specifically as a post-release risk measure for prison-based substance abuse treatment graduates by taking into account the inmates' historical drug use and criminal activity, as well as his or her performance during the prison-based treatment program. IPASS forms were administered to inmates housed in 14 institutions in four states: California, Maryland, New Mexico, and Oregon. While the IPASS has demonstrated sound psychometric properties as a continuous measure of post-release risk and general treatment need for substance-abusing parolees (Farabee & Knight, 2001), its ability to predict relapse and recidivism risk has not been tested using a prospective design. Part 1 of this study is the main part which is based on the IPASS Intake Form (479) and is designed to provide a quick assessment of criminal risk based on pre-incarceration risk factors. The first part of this form focuses heavily on criminal history, with questions about arrest and incarceration history, revocation history, and age of first criminal activity. It also asks about education level achieved, marital status and happiness, and friends drug use. The next part on the IPASS Intake Form (479) is designed to provide a quick screen for pre-incarceration drug use severity. It is based on the first ten items of the TCU Drug Screen II with the items corresponding to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) classification criteria for Drug Dependence. And the last part of the IPASS Intake form begins by asking inmates if they want to enter a drug treatment program after leaving prison; and if so, which treatment modality is preferred. Inmates were asked to indicate how much they disagree or agree with nine items pertaining to their interactions with the treatment staff. These items include the treatment staff being easy to talk to, easy to understand, listening to you, organized and prepared, treating you with respect, helping you solve problems, supportive of your progress, helping you with your recovery, and happy with your progress. Part 2 of the study mainly focused on arrest information and the number of criminal activities. Part 3 of the study is based on the IPASS Continuing Care Referral Form (484) and begins by asking inmates if they want to enter a drug treatment program after leaving prison; and if so, which treatment modality is preferred. Part 4 of the study is based on the IPASS Continuing Care Admit/Discharge Form (481A) and provides information regarding the Admission and Discharge of the inmates. And finally, Part 5 of the study is completed by the inmates' primary counselor and begins by recording the number of "major" disciplinary acts an inmate committed prior to and during their time at the treatment program.
Curated

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): National Criminal Justice Treatment Program (NCJTP) Survey in the United States, 2002-2008 (ICPSR 27382)

Released/updated on: 2010-08-09
Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, United States
Time period: 2002-01-01--2008-01-01
The National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices (NCJTP) Survey provides a comprehensive inquiry into the nature of programs and services provided to adult and juvenile offenders involved in the justice system in the United States. Participants included key criminal justice administrators, operations managers, and staff. This survey was conducted in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey involved a myriad of state, regional, and local organizations employing a mix of their own staff and contracted personnel, and services that might involve multiple levels of government. It was a self-administrated, paper-and-pencil questionnaire. The methodology included a multilevel approach that captured the perspective of executives, front-line administrators, and line staff about current practices in a range of institutional and community correctional settings for adults and juveniles. The goals for this survey were: to describe current drug treatment practices, policies, and delivery systems for offenders on probation or parole supervision, and in jails, prisons, and youth institutions; to examine agency structures, resources, and other organizational factors that may affect service delivery, including mission, leadership, climate, culture, and beliefs about rehabilitation versus punishment; and to assess coordination and integration across criminal justice agencies and between corrections and treatment systems. Items in the survey included: respondent characteristics, organizational characteristics, correctional programs characteristics (e.g., size, nature, etc.), substance abuse treatment programs characteristics, social networks/agencies collaboration, integration of services with other agencies, attitudes toward punishment and rehabilitation (personal values), organizational needs assessment, organizational culture and climate for treatment, cynicism toward change, organizational commitment to treatment, and perspectives on intradepartmental coordination.
Curated
Partially restricted

Denver Youth Survey Waves 1-5, (1988-1992) [Denver, Colorado] (ICPSR 36473)

Released/updated on: 2017-01-04
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver
Time period: 1988-01-01--1992-01-01

The Denver Youth Survey (DYS) is part of the larger "Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency" initiated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1986. The DYS is a longitudinal study of problem and successful behavior over the life course that focuses on delinquency, drug use, victimization, and mental health. The DYS is based on a probability sample of households in "high-risk" neighborhoods of Denver, Colorado. These neighborhoods were selected on the basis of their social ecology in terms of population and housing characteristics. Only socially disorganized neighborhoods with high official crime rates (top one-third) were included. The survey respondents include 1,528 children and youth who were 7, 9, 11, 13, or 15 years old in 1987, and one of their parents, who lived in one of the more than 20,000 randomly selected households.

The survey respondents include 807 boys and 721 girls and include White (10 percent), Latino (45 percent), and African American (33 percent) youth, as well as 12 percent from other racial/ethnic backgrounds. The child and youth respondents, along with one caretaker, were interviewed annually from 1988 until 1992, and annually from 1995 until 1999. The age range covered by the study is from age 7 through age 26.

The dataset contains 1,528 cases and 22,081 variables.

Curated
Partially restricted

Denver Youth Survey Waves 6-11 (1993-2003) [Denver, Colorado] (ICPSR 36474)

Released/updated on: 2016-12-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, Denver
Time period: 1993-01-01--2003-01-01

The Denver Youth Survey (DYS) is part of the larger "Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency" initiated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1986. It is a longitudinal study of problem and successful behavior over the life course that focuses on delinquency, drug use, victimization, and mental health. DYS variables also address family demographics, neighborhood characteristics, parenting, and involvement in social roles.

The DYS is based on a probability sample of households in "high-risk" neighborhoods of Denver, Colorado. These neighborhoods were selected on the basis of their social ecology in terms of population and housing characteristics. Only socially disorganized neighborhoods with high (top one-third) official crime rates were included. The survey respondents include 1,528 children and youth who were 7, 9, 11, 13, or 15 years old in 1987, and one of their parents, who lived in one of the more than 20,000 randomly selected households.

The survey respondents include 807 boys and 721 girls and include White (10%), Latino (45%), and African American (33%) youth, as well as 12% from other racial/ethnic backgrounds. The child and youth respondents, along with one caretaker, were interviewed annually from 1988 until 1992 (waves 1-5), annually from 1995 until 1999 (waves 6-10), and in 2003 (wave 11). The study covers an age range of 7 through 26.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Development and Malleability from Childhood to Adulthood in Baltimore, Maryland, 2001-2005 (ICPSR 34870)

Released/updated on: 2015-04-27
Geographic coverage: Baltimore, United States, Maryland
Time period: 2001-01-01--2005-01-01

In the fall of 1993, the entering 1st graders in nine Baltimore City, Maryland public elementary schools were recruited for participation in a randomized trial of two universal, preventive interventions. Both interventions targeted the early antecedent risk behaviors of poor academic achievement and aggressive/coercive behavior and their distal correlates: substance abuse/dependence, antisocial behavior, high risk sexual behavior, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and psychiatric symptoms and disorders. One intervention, the classroom-centered intervention (CC), sought to reduce the early risk behaviors of poor achievement and aggressive/coercive behaviors through the enhancement of classroom curricula and teacher instructional and behavior management practices. The second intervention, the family-school partnership intervention (FSP), sought to reduce these early risk behaviors by improving parent-teacher/school mental health professional collaboration and by enhancing parents' teaching and behavior management skills. The participating students and 1st grade teachers were randomly assigned to either the CC or FSP classroom-level conditions or to a control or standard setting classroom. The participating students' outcomes were assessed from the fall of 1st grade through 12th grade. Annual outcome assessments continued following high school through age ~ 26. Data from participating students' self-report of substance use and its putative mediators and moderators in 8th through 12th grade are available in this dataset.

The principal investigator withheld the intervention status variable that distinguishes the intervention groups from the control group. You may contact the Principal investigator to discuss obtaining the intervention variable.

This dataset contains variables on frequency of respondents' substance use during the respondents' lifetime as well as in the year, month, week prior to the survey. In addition, the dataset contains variables on alcohol consumption. The dataset also contains variables on the respondents' perceptions of the availability and harmfulness of substances. Respondents were also asked about perception of how many of his/her friends used drugs as well as their attitudes towards drug use, including personal disapproval of drug use, and perceived attitudes of parents and friends towards the respondents' drug use. Respondents were asked whether and how often they were offered substances to use and their intention to use substances if offered in the future. Substances asked about include tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, crack, heroin, ecstasy, and inhalants.

This dataset contains 1535 variables and 713 respondents. The only demographic variables in this dataset are race and gender.

Curated

Differences in the Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use Across Five Factors in Indianapolis, Fort Lauderdale, Phoenix, and Dallas, 1994 (ICPSR 2706)

Released/updated on: 2000-09-11
Geographic coverage: Indiana, United States, Texas, Fort Lauderdale, Phoenix, Florida, Dallas, Arizona, Indianapolis
This study investigated the accuracy of self-reported drug use in three ways. First, the researchers examined differences in the accuracy of self-reported drug use across five factors: gender, race, age, type of drug, and offense seriousness. Second, an attempt was made to determine the specific sources of inaccurate self-reports in terms of differences in underreporting and overreporting. Third, the researchers sought to explain differences in underreporting and overreporting in terms of true differences or differences in opportunity to underreport or overreport. This study used data collected in 1994 as part of the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program [DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 (ICPSR 9477)]. The DUF drug testing and measurement methodology allows the accuracy of self-reported drug use to be checked with a biological criterion, namely urine tests. The sample for this study consisted of 4,752 white and Black adults from Indianapolis, Ft. Lauderdale, Phoenix, and Dallas. The five exogenous measures included in this study were type of drug (marijuana vs. crack/cocaine), age (18 through 30 vs. 31 or over), offense seriousness (misdemeanor vs. felony), race (Black vs. white), and gender (male vs. female). The endogenous measures were accuracy (self-report and drug test both positive or both negative vs. otherwise), underreporting (self-report negative but drug test positive vs. otherwise), and overreporting (self-report positive but drug test negative vs. otherwise). Variables include result of marijuana urine test, result of cocaine/crack urine test, marijuana self-report, cocaine/crack self-report, age group, sex, race, offense category, and ethnic/gender group.
Curated
Restricted

Domestic Violence and Substance Abuse Among the Arrestee Population in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1999-2001 (ICPSR 3585)

Released/updated on: 2003-06-25
Geographic coverage: United States, New Mexico
Time period: 1999-01-01--2001-01-01
The focus of this study was to examine levels of aggressive behavior during incidents of domestic violence in relation to self-reported drug and alcohol use among an arrestee population from Bernalillo County in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The research questions motivating this project were: (1) Are acts of domestic violence committed while the offender is taking illicit psychoactive substances, as ascertained by self-reports? (2) For those individuals with domestic violence charges, do urinalyses conducted within 48 hours of an individual's arrest indicate the recent use of a psychoactive substance? (3) Which substances are most prevalently associated with incidents of domestic violence? (4) Is there a difference in levels of aggressive behavior that is dependent on the individual? (5) Does the severity of domestic violence increase with the presence of psychoactive substances? (6) What differences (if any) exists between batterers who take psychoactive substances and batterers who do not? The data for this research were collected in conjunction with the National Institute of Justice's Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) programs. The domestic violence survey addendum was administered to all arrestees from Bernalillo County in Albuquerque, New Mexico, who had completed the ADAM interview and provided a urine specimen and were willing to answer additional questions concerning domestic violence. Variables from the ADAM instruments were comprised of demographic data on each arrestee, calendar of admissions to drug treatment-related programs, data on dependence and abuse, drug market and use data, and urine test results. Variables from the domestic violence addendum include demographics on the intimate partner, whether specific physical events occurred, whether specific injuries had been sustained by both arrestee and partner, and the specific circumstances surrounding the physical abuse event.
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 Warning Network (DAWN), 1994: [United States] (ICPSR 2756)

Released/updated on: 2014-08-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) survey is designed to capture data on emergency department (ED) episodes that are induced by or related to the use of an illicit, prescription, or over-the-counter drug. For purposes of this collection, a drug "episode" is an ED visit that was induced by or related to the use of an illegal drug or the nonmedical use of a legal drug for patients aged six years and older. A drug "mention" refers to a substance that was mentioned during a drug-related ED episode. Because up to four drugs can be reported for each drug abuse episode, there are more mentions than episodes in the data. Individual persons may also be included more than once in the data. Within each facility participating in DAWN, a designated reporter, usually a member of the emergency department or medical records staff, was responsible for identifying drug-related episodes and recording and submitting data on each case. An episode report was submitted for each patient visiting a DAWN emergency department whose presenting problem(s) was/were related to their own drug use. DAWN produces estimates of drug-related emergency department visits for 50 specific drugs, drug categories, or combinations of drugs, including the following: acetaminophen, alcohol in combination with other drugs, alprazolam, amitriptyline, amphetamines, aspirin, cocaine, codeine, diazepam, diphenhydramine, fluoxetine, heroin/morphine, inhalants/solvents/aerosols, LSD, lorazepam, marijuana/hashish, methadone, methamphetamine, and PCP/PCP in combination with other drugs. The use of alcohol alone is not reported. The route of administration and form of drug used (e.g., powder, tablet, liquid) are included for each drug. Data collected for DAWN also include drug use motive and total drug mentions in the episode, as well as race, age, patient disposition, reason for ED visit, and day of the week, quarter, and year of episode.
Curated

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), 1997: [United States] (ICPSR 2834)

Released/updated on: 2014-08-13
Geographic coverage: United States
The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) survey is designed to capture data on emergency department (ED) episodes that are induced by or related to the use of an illicit, prescription, or over-the-counter drug. For purposes of this collection, a drug "episode" is an ED visit that was induced by or related to the use of an illegal drug or the nonmedical use of a legal drug for patients aged six years and older. A drug "mention" refers to a substance that was mentioned during a drug-related ED episode. Because up to four drugs can be reported for each drug abuse episode, there are more mentions than episodes in the data. Individual persons may also be included more than once in the data. Within each facility participating in DAWN, a designated reporter, usually a member of the emergency department or medical records staff, was responsible for identifying drug-related episodes and recording and submitting data on each case. An episode report was submitted for each patient visiting a DAWN emergency department whose presenting problem(s) was/were related to their own drug use. DAWN produces estimates of drug-related emergency department visits for 50 specific drugs, drug categories, or combinations of drugs, including the following: acetaminophen, alcohol in combination with other drugs, alprazolam, amitriptyline, amphetamines, aspirin, cocaine, codeine, diazepam, diphenhydramine, fluoxetine, heroin/morphine, inhalants/solvents/aerosols, LSD, lorazepam, marijuana/hashish, methadone, methamphetamine, and PCP/PCP in combination with other drugs. The use of alcohol alone is not reported. The route of administration and form of drug used (e.g., powder, tablet, liquid) are included for each drug. Data collected for DAWN also include drug use motive and total drug mentions in the episode, as well as race, age, patient disposition, reason for ED visit, and day of the week, quarter, and year of episode.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), 2004 (ICPSR 33041)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) is a nationally representative public health surveillance system that has monitored drug related emergency department (ED) visits to hospitals since the early 1970s. First administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the responsibility for DAWN now rests with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ). Over the years, the exact survey methodology has been adjusted to improve the quality, reliability, and generalizability of the information produced by DAWN. The current approach was first fully implemented in the 2004 data collection year.

DAWN relies on a longitudinal probability sample of hospitals located throughout the United States. To be eligible for selection into the DAWN sample, a hospital must be a non-Federal, short-stay, general surgical and medical hospital located in the United States, with at least one 24-hour ED. DAWN cases are identified by the systematic review of ED medical records in participating hospitals. The unit of analysis is any ED visit involving recent drug use. DAWN captures both ED visits that are directly caused by drugs and those in which drugs are a contributing factor but not the direct cause of the ED visit. The reason a patient used a drug is not part of the criteria for considering a visit to be drug related. Therefore, all types of drug-related events are included: drug misuse or abuse, accidental drug ingestion, drug-related suicide attempts, malicious drug poisonings, and adverse reactions. DAWN does not report medications that are unrelated to the visit.

The DAWN public-use dataset provides information for all types of drugs, including illegal drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, anesthetic gases, substances that have psychoactive effects when inhaled, alcohol when used in combination with other drugs (all ages), and alcohol alone (only for patients aged 20 or younger). Public-use dataset variables describe and categorize up to 16 drugs contributing to the ED visit, including toxicology confirmation and route of administration. Administrative variables specify the type of case, case disposition, categorized episode time of day, and quarter of year. Metropolitan area is included for represented metropolitan areas. Created variables include the number of unique drugs reported and case-level indicators for alcohol, non-alcohol illicit substances, any pharmaceutical, non-medical use of pharmaceuticals, and all misuse and abuse of drugs. Demographic items include age category, sex, and race/ethnicity. Complex sample design and weighting variables are included to calculate various estimates of drug-related ED visits for the Nation as a whole, as well as for specific metropolitan areas, from the ED visits classified as DAWN cases in the selected hospitals.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), 2005 (ICPSR 33042)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) is a nationally representative public health surveillance system that has monitored drug related emergency department (ED) visits to hospitals since the early 1970s. First administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the responsibility for DAWN now rests with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ). Over the years, the exact survey methodology has been adjusted to improve the quality, reliability, and generalizability of the information produced by DAWN. The current approach was first fully implemented in the 2004 data collection year.

DAWN relies on a longitudinal probability sample of hospitals located throughout the United States. To be eligible for selection into the DAWN sample, a hospital must be a non-Federal, short-stay, general surgical and medical hospital located in the United States, with at least one 24-hour ED. DAWN cases are identified by the systematic review of ED medical records in participating hospitals. The unit of analysis is any ED visit involving recent drug use. DAWN captures both ED visits that are directly caused by drugs and those in which drugs are a contributing factor but not the direct cause of the ED visit. The reason a patient used a drug is not part of the criteria for considering a visit to be drug related. Therefore, all types of drug-related events are included: drug misuse or abuse, accidental drug ingestion, drug-related suicide attempts, malicious drug poisonings, and adverse reactions. DAWN does not report medications that are unrelated to the visit.

The DAWN public-use dataset provides information for all types of drugs, including illegal drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, anesthetic gases, substances that have psychoactive effects when inhaled, alcohol when used in combination with other drugs (all ages), and alcohol alone (only for patients aged 20 or younger). Public-use dataset variables describe and categorize up to 16 drugs contributing to the ED visit, including toxicology confirmation and route of administration. Administrative variables specify the type of case, case disposition, categorized episode time of day, and quarter of year. Metropolitan area is included for represented metropolitan areas. Created variables include the number of unique drugs reported and case-level indicators for alcohol, non-alcohol illicit substances, any pharmaceutical, non-medical use of pharmaceuticals, and all misuse and abuse of drugs. Demographic items include age category, sex, and race/ethnicity. Complex sample design and weighting variables are included to calculate various estimates of drug-related ED visits for the Nation as a whole, as well as for specific metropolitan areas, from the ED visits classified as DAWN cases in the selected hospitals.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), 2006 (ICPSR 33221)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) is a nationally representative public health surveillance system that has monitored drug related emergency department (ED) visits to hospitals since the early 1970s. First administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the responsibility for DAWN now rests with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ). Over the years, the exact survey methodology has been adjusted to improve the quality, reliability, and generalizability of the information produced by DAWN. The current approach was first fully implemented in the 2004 data collection year.

DAWN relies on a longitudinal probability sample of hospitals located throughout the United States. To be eligible for selection into the DAWN sample, a hospital must be a non-Federal, short-stay, general surgical and medical hospital located in the United States, with at least one 24-hour ED. DAWN cases are identified by the systematic review of ED medical records in participating hospitals. The unit of analysis is any ED visit involving recent drug use. DAWN captures both ED visits that are directly caused by drugs and those in which drugs are a contributing factor but not the direct cause of the ED visit. The reason a patient used a drug is not part of the criteria for considering a visit to be drug related. Therefore, all types of drug-related events are included: drug misuse or abuse, accidental drug ingestion, drug-related suicide attempts, malicious drug poisonings, and adverse reactions. DAWN does not report medications that are unrelated to the visit.

The DAWN public-use dataset provides information for all types of drugs, including illegal drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, anesthetic gases, substances that have psychoactive effects when inhaled, alcohol when used in combination with other drugs (all ages), and alcohol alone (only for patients aged 20 or younger). Public-use dataset variables describe and categorize up to 16 drugs contributing to the ED visit, including toxicology confirmation and route of administration. Administrative variables specify the type of case, case disposition, categorized episode time of day, and quarter of year. Metropolitan area is included for represented metropolitan areas. Created variables include the number of unique drugs reported and case-level indicators for alcohol, non-alcohol illicit substances, any pharmaceutical, non-medical use of pharmaceuticals, and all misuse and abuse of drugs. Demographic items include age category, sex, and race/ethnicity. Complex sample design and weighting variables are included to calculate various estimates of drug-related ED visits for the Nation as a whole, as well as for specific metropolitan areas, from the ED visits classified as DAWN cases in the selected hospitals.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), 2007 (ICPSR 32861)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) is a nationally representative public health surveillance system that has monitored drug related emergency department (ED) visits to hospitals since the early 1970s. First administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the responsibility for DAWN now rests with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ). Over the years, the exact survey methodology has been adjusted to improve the quality, reliability, and generalizability of the information produced by DAWN. The current approach was first fully implemented in the 2004 data collection year.

DAWN relies on a longitudinal probability sample of hospitals located throughout the United States. To be eligible for selection into the DAWN sample, a hospital must be a non-federal, short-stay, general surgical and medical hospital located in the United States, with at least one 24-hour ED. DAWN cases are identified by the systematic review of ED medical records in participating hospitals. The unit of analysis is any ED visit involving recent drug use. DAWN captures both ED visits that are directly caused by drugs and those in which drugs are a contributing factor but not the direct cause of the ED visit. The reason a patient used a drug is not part of the criteria for considering a visit to be drug related. Therefore, all types of drug-related events are included: drug misuse or abuse, accidental drug ingestion, drug-related suicide attempts, malicious drug poisonings, and adverse reactions. DAWN does not report medications that are unrelated to the visit.

The DAWN public-use dataset provides information for all types of drugs, including illegal drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, anesthetic gases, substances that have psychoactive effects when inhaled, alcohol when used in combination with other drugs (all ages), and alcohol alone (only for patients aged 20 or younger). Public-use dataset variables describe and categorize up to 16 drugs contributing to the ED visit, including toxicology confirmation and route of administration. Administrative variables specify the type of case, case disposition, categorized episode time of day, and quarter of year. Metropolitan area is included for represented metropolitan areas. Created variables include the number of unique drugs reported and case-level indicators for alcohol, non-alcohol illicit substances, any pharmaceutical, non-medical use of pharmaceuticals, and all misuse and abuse of drugs. Demographic items include age category, sex, and race/ethnicity. Complex sample design and weighting variables are included to calculate various estimates of drug-related ED visits for the Nation as a whole, as well as for specific metropolitan areas, from the ED visits classified as DAWN cases in the selected hospitals.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), 2008 (ICPSR 31264)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) is a nationally representative public health surveillance system that has monitored drug related emergency department (ED) visits to hospitals since the early 1970s. First administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the responsibility for DAWN now rests with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ). Over the years, the exact survey methodology has been adjusted to improve the quality, reliability, and generalizability of the information produced by DAWN. The current approach was first fully implemented in the 2004 data collection year.

DAWN relies on a longitudinal probability sample of hospitals located throughout the United States. To be eligible for selection into the DAWN sample, a hospital must be a non-Federal, short-stay, general surgical and medical hospital located in the United States, with at least one 24-hour ED. DAWN cases are identified by the systematic review of ED medical records in participating hospitals. The unit of analysis is any ED visit involving recent drug use. DAWN captures both ED visits that are directly caused by drugs and those in which drugs are a contributing factor but not the direct cause of the ED visit. The reason a patient used a drug is not part of the criteria for considering a visit to be drug related. Therefore, all types of drug-related events are included: drug misuse or abuse, accidental drug ingestion, drug-related suicide attempts, malicious drug poisonings, and adverse reactions. DAWN does not report medications that are unrelated to the visit.

The DAWN public-use dataset provides information for all types of drugs, including illegal drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, anesthetic gases, substances that have psychoactive effects when inhaled, alcohol when used in combination with other drugs (all ages), and alcohol alone (only for patients aged 20 or younger). Public-use dataset variables describe and categorize up to 16 drugs contributing to the ED visit, including toxicology confirmation and route of administration. Administrative variables specify the type of case, case disposition, categorized episode time of day, and quarter of year. Metropolitan area is included for represented metropolitan areas. Created variables include the number of unique drugs reported and case-level indicators for alcohol, non-alcohol illicit substances, any pharmaceutical, non-medical use of pharmaceuticals, and all misuse and abuse of drugs. Demographic items include age category, sex, and race/ethnicity. Complex sample design and weighting variables are included to calculate various estimates of drug-related ED visits for the Nation as a whole, as well as for specific metropolitan areas, from the ED visits classified as DAWN cases in the selected hospitals.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), 2009 (ICPSR 31921)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) is a nationally representative public health surveillance system that has monitored drug related emergency department (ED) visits to hospitals since the early 1970s. First administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the responsibility for DAWN now rests with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ). Over the years, the exact survey methodology has been adjusted to improve the quality, reliability, and generalizability of the information produced by DAWN. The current approach was first fully implemented in the 2004 data collection year.

DAWN relies on a longitudinal probability sample of hospitals located throughout the United States. To be eligible for selection into the DAWN sample, a hospital must be a non-Federal, short-stay, general surgical and medical hospital located in the United States, with at least one 24-hour ED. DAWN cases are identified by the systematic review of ED medical records in participating hospitals. The unit of analysis is any ED visit involving recent drug use. DAWN captures both ED visits that are directly caused by drugs and those in which drugs are a contributing factor but not the direct cause of the ED visit. The reason a patient used a drug is not part of the criteria for considering a visit to be drug-related. Therefore, all types of drug-related events are included: drug misuse or abuse, accidental drug ingestion, drug-related suicide attempts, malicious drug poisonings, and adverse reactions. DAWN does not report medications that are unrelated to the visit.

The DAWN public-use dataset provides information for all types of drugs, including illegal drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, anesthetic gases, substances that have psychoactive effects when inhaled, alcohol when used in combination with other drugs (all ages), and alcohol alone (only for patients aged 20 or younger). Public-use dataset variables describe and categorize up to 22 drugs contributing to the ED visit, including toxicology confirmation and route of administration. Administrative variables specify the type of case, case disposition, categorized episode time of day, and quarter of year. Metropolitan area is included for represented metropolitan areas. Created variables include the number of unique drugs reported and case-level indicators for alcohol, non-alcohol illicit substances, any pharmaceutical, non-medical use of pharmaceuticals, and all misuse and abuse of drugs. Demographic items include age category, sex, and race/ethnicity. Complex sample design and weighting variables are included to calculate various estimates of drug-related ED visits for the Nation as a whole, as well as for specific metropolitan areas, from the ED visits classified as DAWN cases in the selected hospitals.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), 2010 (ICPSR 34083)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) is a nationally representative public health surveillance system that has monitored drug related emergency department (ED) visits to hospitals since the early 1970s. First administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the responsibility for DAWN now rests with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ). Over the years, the exact survey methodology has been adjusted to improve the quality, reliability, and generalizability of the information produced by DAWN. The current approach was first fully implemented in the 2004 data collection year.

DAWN relies on a longitudinal probability sample of hospitals located throughout the United States. To be eligible for selection into the DAWN sample, a hospital must be a non-Federal, short-stay, general surgical and medical hospital located in the United States, with at least one 24-hour ED. DAWN cases are identified by the systematic review of ED medical records in participating hospitals. The unit of analysis is any ED visit involving recent drug use. DAWN captures both ED visits that are directly caused by drugs and those in which drugs are a contributing factor but not the direct cause of the ED visit. The reason a patient used a drug is not part of the criteria for considering a visit to be drug-related. Therefore, all types of drug-related events are included: drug misuse or abuse, accidental drug ingestion, drug-related suicide attempts, malicious drug poisonings, and adverse reactions. DAWN does not report medications that are unrelated to the visit.

The DAWN public-use dataset provides information for all types of drugs, including illegal drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, anesthetic gases, substances that have psychoactive effects when inhaled, alcohol when used in combination with other drugs (all ages), and alcohol alone (only for patients aged 20 or younger). Public-use dataset variables describe and categorize up to 22 drugs contributing to the ED visit, including toxicology confirmation and route of administration. Administrative variables specify the type of case, case disposition, categorized episode time of day, and quarter of year. Metropolitan area is included for represented metropolitan areas. Created variables include the number of unique drugs reported and case-level indicators for alcohol, non-alcohol illicit substances, any pharmaceutical, non-medical use of pharmaceuticals, and all misuse and abuse of drugs. Demographic items include age category, sex, and race/ethnicity. Complex sample design and weighting variables are included to calculate various estimates of drug-related ED visits for the Nation as a whole, as well as for specific metropolitan areas, from the ED visits classified as DAWN cases in the selected hospitals.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), 2011 (ICPSR 34565)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) is a nationally representative public health surveillance system that has monitored drug related emergency department (ED) visits to hospitals since the early 1970s. First administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the responsibility for DAWN now rests with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ). Over the years, the exact survey methodology has been adjusted to improve the quality, reliability, and generalizability of the information produced by DAWN. The current approach was first fully implemented in the 2004 data collection year.

DAWN relies on a longitudinal probability sample of hospitals located throughout the United States. To be eligible for selection into the DAWN sample, a hospital must be a non-Federal, short-stay, general surgical and medical hospital located in the United States, with at least one 24-hour ED. DAWN cases are identified by the systematic review of ED medical records in participating hospitals. The unit of analysis is any ED visit involving recent drug use. DAWN captures both ED visits that are directly caused by drugs and those in which drugs are a contributing factor but not the direct cause of the ED visit. The reason a patient used a drug is not part of the criteria for considering a visit to be drug-related. Therefore, all types of drug-related events are included: drug misuse or abuse, accidental drug ingestion, drug-related suicide attempts, malicious drug poisonings, and adverse reactions. DAWN does not report medications that are unrelated to the visit.

The DAWN public-use dataset provides information for all types of drugs, including illegal drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, dietary supplements, anesthetic gases, substances that have psychoactive effects when inhaled, alcohol when used in combination with other drugs (all ages), and alcohol alone (only for patients aged 20 or younger). Public-use dataset variables describe and categorize up to 22 drugs contributing to the ED visit, including toxicology confirmation and route of administration. Administrative variables specify the type of case, case disposition, categorized episode time of day, and quarter of year. Metropolitan area is included for represented metropolitan areas. Created variables include the number of unique drugs reported and case-level indicators for alcohol, non-alcohol illicit substances, any pharmaceutical, non-medical use of pharmaceuticals, and all misuse and abuse of drugs. Demographic items include age category, sex, and race/ethnicity. Complex sample design and weighting variables are included to calculate various estimates of drug-related ED visits for the Nation as a whole, as well as for specific metropolitan areas, from the ED visits classified as DAWN cases in the selected hospitals.

Curated
Partially restricted

Drug Use and Cultural Factors Among Hispanic Adolescents and Emerging Adults, Los Angeles, 2006-2016 (ICPSR 36765)

Released/updated on: 2018-10-03
Geographic coverage: United States, Los Angeles, California
Time period: 2006-01-01--2016-01-01

The Drug Use and Cultural Factors Among Hispanic Adolescents and Emerging Adults - Los Angeles, 2006-2016 collection examines the cultural risk and protective factors for substance use among Hispanic adolescents and emerging adults in Southern California. Adolescents were recruited in 9th grade and completed annual surveys about their substance use, acculturation, ethnic identity, cultural stressors, peer and family relationships, and cultural values. They were re-contacted to complete surveys in their early 20s; this survey also included measures of sexual behavior and interpersonal violence.

Demographic variables present in this collection include age, gender, grade in school, ethnicity, country of origin, education level, language spoken, socioeconomic status, marital status, sexual orientation, ZIP code, and place of residence.

Curated
Restricted

Drug Use Forecasting in 24 Cities in the United States, 1987-1997 (ICPSR 9477)

Released/updated on: 1998-07-15
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1987-06-01--1997-12-01
The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program measures levels of and trends in drug use among persons arrested and booked in 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 recently modified DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of the 1996 and 1997 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) of each of these drugs, age at first use, and whether the arrestee had ever been dependent on drugs. In the original DUF interview instrument (used for the 1987 to 1994 data and part of the 1995 data), the information collected was the same as above except that the use of 22 drugs was queried, and the age at which the arrestee first became dependent on the drug was included. Arrestees also were questioned in the original instrument about their history of intravenous drug use, whether the consideration of AIDS influenced whether they shared needles, history of drug and alcohol treatment, their past and current drug treatment needs, and how many persons they had sex with during the past 12 months. Finally, 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). The Gun Addendum Data (Parts 27, 35, and 37) contain variables on topics such as arrestees' encounters with guns, whether they agreed or disagreed with statements about guns, gun possession, how they obtained handgun(s), whether they were armed with a gun at their arrest or during crimes, and if they had ever used a gun against another person. The Heroin Addendum Data, 1995 (Part 29) contains information that was formerly covered in the main annual file in 1992-1994, but in 1995 was revised and prepared as a separate dataset.
Curated
Partially restricted

Dynamics of Retail Methamphetamine Markets in New York City, 2007-2009 (ICPSR 29821)

Released/updated on: 2014-01-06
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 2007-01-01--2009-12-31
The study was conducted to provide information about markets for, distribution of, and use of methamphetamine in New York City, both inside and outside of the MSM (men who have sex with men)/gay community. The study used Respondent Driven Sampling to recruit 132 methamphetamine market participants. Each respondent participated in a one to two hour structured interview combining both qualitative and quantitative responses. Each respondent was invited to recruit three additional eligible participants. Data collected included demographics, social network data, the respondent's market participation in obtaining and providing methamphetamine, consumption of methamphetamine, and experience with the criminal justice system and crime associated with participation in methamphetamine markets.
Curated
Partially restricted

Effectiveness of Peer Navigation to Link Released HIV-Positive Jail Inmates to HIV Care (LINK LA), Los Angeles, California, 2012-2016 (ICPSR 39789)

Released/updated on: 2026-06-02
Geographic coverage: United States, Los Angeles, California
Time period: 2012-01-01--2016-01-01

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

This study was a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) of a peer-based health system navigation intervention among individuals assigned to the intervention group compared with those assigned to the control group (usual care transitional management services). Baseline interviews were conducted during incarceration while the follow-up interviews were conducted at months 2, 6 and 12 following release from jail to the community. For participants who were re-incarcerated during, interviews were conducted in the jail setting to ensure high study retention. The goal was to improve engagement and retention in HIV care.

Curated

Estimating the Elasticities of Demand for Cocaine and Heroin with Data from 21 Cities from the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program, 1987-1991 (ICPSR 6567)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1987-01-01--1991-01-01
The objective of this research was to estimate the elasticity of the demand for cocaine and heroin with respect to the price. Price elasticity is the percentage of change in the dependent quantity corresponding to a one-percent change in price. The project involved the development of an econometric model to determine price elasticity, given that national- and city-level data on the consumption of cocaine and heroin are insufficient or nonexistent. The researchers circumvented this lack of data by partitioning the desired elasticity into the product of two elasticities, involving a measurable intermediate quantity whose relationship to the quantity of consumption could be modeled and estimated by measurable techniques. The intermediate quantity used for this project was the fraction of arrestees testing positive for cocaine or heroin as measured by the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) System. From the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA's) System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) data, expected purity was computed by regressing on log quantity and dummy variables for location and quarter. Price series were produced by finding the median standardized price per expected pure gram for each location and quarter. Variables for Part 1, National Data, include year, quarter, standardized prices for a gram of cocaine and a gram of heroin, and expected purity of cocaine and heroin. The Cities Data, Part 2, cover city, year, quarter, number of observations used to compute the median price of cocaine and heroin, standardized prices, and expected purity.
Curated

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

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

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

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, New Mexico
Time period: 1997-07-31--1998-07-31
The goal for this study was to conduct a process evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program, called the Genesis program, at the Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility (SNMCD) by examining the program's structure and assessing its intermediate impact upon participating inmates. The study focuses on answering three research questions: (1) Who were the program participants? (2) What were the characteristics of the program? (3) Was the program reaching the most appropriate offenders, or were its participants primarily offenders who were not likely to become recidivists? The study contains information on every inmate who entered the Genesis program from July 31, 1997, to July 31, 1998. For evaluation purposes, the researchers designed their own data collection form which they used to collect relevant information from each participant's treatment program file. Each participant's file was maintained by Genesis program staff and was kept for the duration each inmate was in the program. From each program participant at intake, using the data collection instrument, the researchers collected demographic information, substance abuse history, and criminal history. The data are provided in two parts. Both parts are from the same data collection instrument. Part 1 covers Questions 1 through 15 of the data collection instrument, while Part 2 covers Questions 16 through 34 of the data collection instrument. Part 1 includes demographic variables about the inmate such as birth date, age, ethnicity, citizenship, years of education, prior employment status, longest employment, and average weekly income. It also includes incarceration information such as confinement date, length of current sentence, RSAT admission date, and expected parole date, and criminal history information such as age at first adult arrest, number of juvenile arrests, number of adult arrests, date of first adult arrest, date of last adult arrest, and number of years served in prison. There are also variables to address the inmate's drug use history as a juvenile and as an adult. Part 2 continues with the drug use history of the inmate as an adult with information about drugs used by IV injection, number of alcohol withdrawals, number of drug overdoses, number of detoxes, inpatient treatment received, outpatient treatment received, average amount of money spent on drugs, percentage of income spent on drugs, number of family members who use alcohol or drugs, and how they were related to the inmate. In addition, the file contains demographic information, such as current marital status and number of children, and the inmate's psychological history including depression, anxiety, anger, trouble understanding, concentrating, or remembering, attempted suicide, prescribed medication, and hospitalization. Criminal career variables include length of criminal career, all past charges, weapons used during any crime, number of times a weapon was used, and total number of convictions.
Curated
Partially restricted

Experience of Violence in the Lives of Homeless Persons: The Florida Four City Study, 2003-2004 (ICPSR 20363)

Released/updated on: 2010-11-22
Geographic coverage: United States, Orlando, Florida, Tampa, Jacksonville, Miami
Time period: 2003-01-01--2004-01-01
The primary goal of this study was to develop an understanding of the role of violence in the lives of homeless women and men. The objectives were to determine how many women and men have experienced some form of violence in their lives either as children or adults, the factors associated with experiences of violence, the consequences of violence, and the types of interactions with the justice system. The survey sample was comprised of about 200 face-to-face interviews with homeless women in each of four Florida cities (Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, and Tampa). In all, 737 women were interviewed. In addition, 91 face-to-face interviews with homeless men were also conducted only in Orlando. For Part 1 (Female Interviews), the data include information related to the respondent's living conditions in the past month, as well as experiences with homelessness, childhood violence, adult violence, forced sexual situations, and stalking. Additional variables include basic demographic information, a self-report of criminal history, information related to how the respondent spent her days and evenings, and the physical environment surrounding the respondent during the day and evening. For Part 2 (Male Interviews), the data include much of the same information as was collected in Part 1. Information from Part 1 not included in Part 2 primarily includes questions pertaining to experience with forced sexual situations, and questions related to pregnancy and children.
Back to top