Search results

Showing 1 – 26 of 26 results.
Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2009-04-01
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1996-01-01--1999-12-31
The Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS) was a national study of substance abuse treatment facilities and clients. The study was designed to develop estimates of the duration and costs of treatment and to describe the post-treatment status of substance abuse clients. ADSS continues and extends upon data collected in the Drug Services Research Survey, 1990: [United States] (ICPSR 3393) and the Services Research Outcome Study, 1995-1996: [United States] (ICPSR 2691) with a more complete sampling frame, an enhanced sampling design, and more detailed measures of treatment services provided, the costs of treatment, and clients in treatment. ADSS was implemented in three phases. In Phase I, a nationally representative sample of treatment facilities was surveyed to assess characteristics of treatment services and clients including treatment type, costs, program capacity, the number of clients served, waiting lists, and services provided to special populations. In Phase II, records were abstracted from a sample of clients in a subsample of Phase I facilities. This phase included four sub-components: (1) the Main Study, an analysis of abstracted records to assess the treatment process and characteristics of discharged clients, (2) the Incentive Study, which assessed the impact of varying financial payments on follow-up interview participation among non-methadone outpatient clients, (3) the In-Treatment Methadone Client study (ITMC), which assessed the treatment process of methadone maintenance, and (4) the comparison study of Early Dropout clients (EDO), which provided a proxy comparison group of records from substance abusers that went untreated. Phase III involved follow-up personal interviews with Phase II clients who could be located. This interview sought to determine post-treatment status in terms of substance use, economic condition, criminal justice involvement, and further substance abuse treatment episodes. Urine testing was conducted to validate self-reported drug use. Drugs included in the survey were alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, amphetamines, non-prescribed use of prescription medications, abuse of over-the-counter medications, and other drugs. ADSS also included a cost study, which involved obtaining additional financial information from the Phase II facilities. A computerized desktop audit was used in the cost study to conduct consistency and accuracy checks on selected questionnaire data from Phases I and II. Variables were subsequently updated to represent the most accurate data available. Additional analysis variables were then created using combinations of the revised Phase I and II data.
Curated
Restricted

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

Released/updated on: 2014-01-31
Geographic coverage: United States, Kansas
Time period: 2001-11-01--2010-08-31

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

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

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2008-10-07
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 1991-01-01--1993-12-31
The California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA) was designed to study the costs, benefits, and effectiveness of the state's alcohol and drug treatment infrastructure (recovery services) and specifically to assess (1) the effects of treatment on participant behavior, (2) the costs of treatment, and (3) the economic value of treatment to society. Data were collected on participants (clients) across four types of treatment programs, or modalities: residential, residential "social model," nonmethadone outpatient, and outpatient methadone (detoxification and maintenance). Data were collected in two phases. In Phase 1, treatment records were abstracted for clients who received treatment or were discharged between October 1, 1991, and September 30, 1992. In Phase 2, these clients were located and recruited for a follow-up interview. The CALDATA design and procedures included elements from several national treatment outcome studies including the Drug Services Research Survey (ICPSR 3393), Services Research Outcomes Study (ICPSR 2691), National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (ICPSR 2884), and Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (ICPSR 2258). The record abstract was designed to collect identifying and locating information for interview reference during the personal interviewing phase. The abstract also collected demographic, drug, or alcohol use, and treatment and service information. The follow-up questionnaire covered time periods before, during, and after treatment and focused on topics such as ethnic and educational background, drug and alcohol use, mental and physical health, HIV and AIDS status, drug testing, illegal activities and criminal status, living arrangements and family issues, employment and income, and treatment for drug, alcohol, and mental health problems. Drugs included alcohol, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cocaine powder, crack, downers, hallucinogens, heroin, illegal methadone, inhalants, LSD, marijuana/hashish/THC, methamphetamines and other stimulants, narcotics, over-the-counter drugs, PCP, ritalin or preludin, and sedatives/hypnotics. CALDATA was originally known as the California Outcomes Study (COS).
Curated

Cooperative Agreement for AIDS Community-Based Outreach/Intervention Research Program, 1992-1998: [United States] (ICPSR 3023)

Released/updated on: 2008-10-23
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1992-01-01--1998-12-31
The purpose of the Cooperative Agreement (CA) Research Program was to monitor risk factors, risk behaviors, and rates of HIV seroprevalence and seroincidence among out-of-treatment, multi-ethnic/racial injection drug users and crack cocaine users. The program evaluated the efficacy of experimental interventions designed to prevent, eliminate, or reduce HIV risk behaviors and developed new treatment interventions. All participants received the standard intervention, which consisted of street-based outreach and HIV prevention counseling. Those assigned to enhanced interventions received more counseling sessions, educational videos, social gatherings, and support group activities. The public-use data file contains 31,088 respondent records, collected from 21 CA program facilities in the United States and one facility each in Puerto Rico and Brazil. Hence, the process data file contains 23 records of facility information that can be linked to individual respondents. Respondent interviews include a baseline Risk Behavior Assessment (completed prior to first intervention) and a Follow-Up Assessment, conducted either three months or six months after the baseline survey. Respondent data were augmented with eligibility information, biological markers of drug use, HIV test results, and intervention assignment. At baseline and post-intervention, the surveys measured drug use and drug treatment, sexual activity and sex for money/drugs, arrests, work/income, HIV/STD/pregnancy status, perceptions of risk, and risk reduction behaviors. The process questionnaires were completed by staff or principal investigators at the 23 site locations. Process data describe the program structure and process, other intervention projects in the community, needle exchange programs and pharmacy syringe sales, and local HIV infection rates. Drugs reported on include alcohol, marijuana/hashish, crack/cocaine, heroin (including speedball), non-prescription methadone, other opiates, and amphetamines.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

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

Released/updated on: 2016-02-02
Geographic coverage: Rhode Island, Puerto Rico, United States, Texas, Connecticut, Kentucky, California, Delaware, Maryland, Arizona, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2010-01-01--2013-12-31

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

The Medication-Assisted Therapy (MAT) study focuses on implementing linkages to medication assisted treatment in correctional settings. During the study period community corrections staff engaged in training about addiction pharmacotherapies, while leadership in the corrections and treatment facilities engage in a joint strategic planning process to identify and resolve barriers to efficient flow of clients across the two systems.

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

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

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

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

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

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

Released/updated on: 2013-05-08
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2002-01-01--2006-12-31

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

The specific aims of the PIC study were to:

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

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

Curated

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): Targeted Intervention Components (TIC) for Correctional Re-Entry Programs, 2002-2008 [United States] (ICPSR 27961)

Released/updated on: 2010-09-29
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2002-01-01--2008-12-31, 2008-01-01--2008-12-31
Targeted Intervention Components (TIC) for Correctional Re-Entry Programs is three-year study with the established guidelines and resources for an evidence-based library of targeted treatment intervention components for outpatient (e.g., crimes of moderate severity) re-entry correctional programs. It involves no-fee, user-friendly, and manual-guided techniques that can be integrated with programmatic assessments of client needs and progress. The TIC study, under Texas Christian University's (TCU) leadership, involved developing and testing a series of brief (4-session), flexible, evidence-based treatment interventions targeting specific offender problems. These interventions employed a user-friendly modular format that does not require extensive staff training, and the modules themselves are intended to serve either as stand-alone interventions or as components of a comprehensive treatment program. The initial modules are currently being developed and tested in prison-based treatment settings. A series of field trials test and validate each of these specialized therapeutic modules for use with community-based correctional populations. The TCU developed a treatment model which provided conceptual and scientific foundations for the use of targeted interventions that addressed discretely client problems. Study questionnaires assessed client responses that were related to such topics as: treatment readiness and motivation, anger and hostility, criminal thinking, risky behaviors for HIV/AIDS/Hepatitis C, communication, and other social skill deficits. The TCU's Criminal Justice Client Evaluation of Self and Treatment (CJ-CEST) was implemented as the core "needs and engagement" assessment instrument.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): Transitional Care Management (TCM), Increasing Aftercare Participation for Parolees, 2004-2008 [United States] (ICPSR 31621)

Released/updated on: 2014-03-14
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, Connecticut, Kentucky, Los Angeles, Hartford, California, New York (state), Lexington
Time period: 2004-11-01--2008-05-31
In an effort to increase participation in community aftercare treatment for substance-abusing offenders who have paroled from prison, the Transitional Case Management (TCM) intervention tested a model of strengths-based case management consisting of (1) completion by the inmate of a strengths and goals assessment as part of discharge planning, (2) a telephone conference call that included the inmate and people central to the inmate's aftercare plan (including the parole officer), and (3) strengths case management for 12 weeks in the community to promote treatment participation and increase the client's access to needed services. (For a more detailed description, see Prendergast Law and Cartier, 2008). With four CJ-DATS Research Centers participating, the study randomized 812 prison treatment clients to the Transitional Case Management condition or to the Standard Referral condition. Detailed assessments occurred at baseline and at three and nine months following release to parole. Data from treatment and criminal justice records, including costs, were also collected. Treatment and criminal justice staff completed surveys on agency collaboration and cooperation. Respondents were asked questions regarding the barriers to treatment/recovery, education/job training, relationships, finance, living arrangement/housing, health and documentation. They were also asked question related to whether they needed or received certain services. Other variables included socio-demographic and family background, peer relation and criminal history, health and psychological status, drug and treatment history.
Curated
Restricted

Evaluation of CASAWORKS for Families -- Phase I, 1999-2001 [United States] (ICPSR 21681)

Released/updated on: 2009-12-16
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1999-01-01--2001-12-31

These data were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of CASAWORKS for Families (CWF), a multiservice intervention designed to move substance abusing women on welfare to sobriety and self-sufficiency by addressing their substance abuse, domestic violence, employment, and basic needs. Conducted at 11 sites across the country, the evaluation was designed as a repeated measures, pre-during-post field evaluation with no pre-specified control or comparison groups. The results of this evaluation were primarily intended to guide a proposed second-stage experimental study of the effectiveness of an enhanced and refined CWF model.

When the potential participant presented herself at the CWF site, a research technician administered a specially modified version of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), referred to as the Welfare to Work ASI (WTW-ASI). This version retained the ASI 5th edition as the core instrument but added questions in an addendum. The baseline WTW-ASI measured the severity of problems in nine areas: employment, medical status, alcohol use, drug use, legal status, family and social relationships, children and child care, basic needs, and psychiatric symptoms. In addition, the four-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), the Parenting Dimensions Inventory (PDI), and the Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale (PDS) were used to assess depression, parenting style, and posttraumatic stress disorder, respectively. The PDI, CES-D, and a follow-up version of WTW-ASI were also administered 6 and 12 months after intake.

Two instruments were used at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postbaseline to record the services provided by CWF: Welfare to Work version of the Treatment Services Review (TSR-WTW) and Case Management Review (CMR). The former mostly collected data on the number of treatment services received, such as doctor visits, therapy sessions, and days of inpatient treatment in the prior 30 days, while the latter collected data on the activities of the case management sessions and topics covered with the case managers. Activities recorded by the CMR included working on self-sufficiency plans, arrangement of follow-up services, skills development, crisis response, and advocating for the client. Topics covered included employment, substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, parenting and child care, basic needs, life skills, and social support.

In order to compare the characteristics of the CWF clients with the general population of women who received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the study also collected WTW-ASI data from women in the general TANF population in the CWF locales regardless of their substance-use status.

Curated
Restricted

Evaluation of SAFEChildren, a Family-Focused Prevention Program in Chicago, Illinois, 2006-2010 (ICPSR 33101)

Released/updated on: 2015-05-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 2007-03-08--2008-06-04, 2006-09-01--2010-06-30
Schools and Families Educating Children (SAFEChildren) is a family-focused program designed to aid families residing in high risk communities with child development during the child's transition to school. The program has the goal of building protection and impeding risk trajectories for aggression, violence, and school failure. The program utilizes multiple family groups (four to six families) combined with reading tutoring for the child. The SAFE Effectiveness Trial (SAFE-E) involved community providers delivering the family group intervention and upper grade students delivering the tutoring program. The trial took place between 2006 and 2010, and involved two age cohorts of children. Collaborating with two community mental health agencies and six elementary schools serving high-poverty, high-crime neighborhoods in Chicago, Illinois, families were randomly assigned to intervention groups of four to six families during their child's first grade year. Children also received tutoring from tutors selected from the upper grades of the child's school. Assessments were collected prior to, during and after the intervention to assess developmental influences, fidelity, process, and implementation characteristics that might affect impact. The purpose of these assessments was to examine the relation of implementation qualities to variation in intervention effects. Quality of implementation was expected to affect short and long-term impact of the intervention, focusing on three primary areas: (1) fidelity of implementation of the program, (2) provider characteristics, such as tutors' reading levels, and attitudes and orientation of the family intervention providers, and (3) quality of support for implementation. The data are from fidelity and process measures developed for this study and measures completed by parents, teachers, and children over four waves of measurement spanning two years, beginning in the fall of each child's first grade year.
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--1997-12-31
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

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

Released/updated on: 2009-07-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1988-01-01--1988-12-31, 1990-01-01--1990-12-31, 1995-01-01--1995-12-31
The National Drug Abuse Treatment System Survey (NDATSS) is a longitudinal program of research into organizational structures, operating characteristics, and treatment modalities of outpatient drug treatment programs in the United States. This is done through interviews with program directors and clinical supervisors. In some publications, this research is referred to as the Outpatient Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (ODATS). Data being released include Wave II (1988), Wave III (1990), and Wave IV (1995).
Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs

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

Released/updated on: 2023-03-22
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2000-12-31, 2005-01-01--2005-12-31, 2011-01-01--2011-12-31, 2014-01-01--2014-12-31, 2017-01-01--2017-12-31

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

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

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

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

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

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2000-12-31

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

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

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

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

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2002-01-01--2002-12-31

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

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

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

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

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2003-01-01--2003-12-31

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

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

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

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

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2004-01-01--2004-12-31

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

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

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

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

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2005-01-01--2005-12-31

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

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

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

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

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2006-01-01--2006-12-31

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

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

Curated

References to Evidence-Based Program Registry Websites for Behavioral Health in U.S. State Government Statutes and Regulations, [United States], 2011-2020 (ICPSR 39058)

Released/updated on: 2024-07-08
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2011-01-01--2020-12-31
U.S. state governments have the responsibility to regulate and license behavioral health care interventions, such as for addiction and mental illness, with increasing emphasis on evidence-based programs (EBPs). A serious obstacle to this is lack of clarity or agreement about what constitutes "evidence-based." This study's purpose was to determine the extent to which and in what contexts web-based Evidence-Based Program Registries (EBPRs) are referenced in state government statutes and regulations ("mandates") concerning behavioral health care. The study employed the Westlaw Legal Research Database to search for 30 known EBPR websites relevant to behavioral health care within the statutes and regulations of all 50 states. Questions of interest included prevalence of EBPR references in statutes and regulations, purpose of references to EBPRs, context of references to EBPRs, and service areas represented by the mandate.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Schools and Families Educating (SAFE) Children Study [Chicago, IL]: 1997-2008 (ICPSR 34368)

Released/updated on: 2016-03-31
Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois
Time period: 1997-01-01--2008-12-31

The Schools and Families Education (SAFE) Children Study was a randomized control trial designed to test the efficacy of a family-based comprehensive preventive intervention, with children living in inner-city Chicago and entering the 1st grade, for effects on key risk markers for later drug and other substance use.

A total of 11 waves of data were collected over the course of three phases and approximately 13 years. In the spring of 1997, there were 424 kindergarten students and primary caregivers recruited to participate in this study. Wave 1 began while the children were in 1st grade. These data contain survey responses for students, their primary caregivers, and their teachers across 27 datasets.

Phase I of the study was to assess the intervention provided in the 1st grade. Half of the families were randomly selected to receive the intervention. The other half were assigned to the control group. Phase II of the study was set-up to give half of the intervention group a booster, a second intervention training. Lastly, there was a Phase III which sought to assess the long-term affects of the initial and booster interventions.

The first dataset (DS1) provides an overview of the study which includes variables for the study design and survey administration. This first file contains 38 variables.

Survey responses were obtained from students nine times beginning in 1st grade and ending in 12th grade. Children were not surveyed in waves 3 and 7. The student survey response data are in DS2 through DS10. The datasets for waves 1, 2, 4, and 5 contain only 50 variables. Waves 6, 8, and 9 contain 424 variables. Waves 10 and 11 contain 1,394 variables. Each of the three phases contain almost identical variables within their respective waves.

The children's primary caregivers were also surveyed nine times over the survey period. Primary caregivers were not surveyed in waves 3 and 7. These data are contained in DS11 through DS19. The primary caregiver files vary in the number and content of variables. On average each wave contains about 1,060 variables with a low of 470 on up to a high of 1,435.

Teachers were surveyed during each of the first eight waves of the study. The teacher data are in DS20 through DS27. Waves 1 and 2 contain just over 120 variables. Waves 3, 4, and 5 contain 145 variables. And waves 6, 7, and 8 contain 173 variables. Each of the three phases contain almost identical variables within their respective waves.

Curated
Restricted

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

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

Treatment Episode Data Set -- Admissions (TEDS-A) -- Concatenated, 1992 to 2012 (ICPSR 25221)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1992-01-01--2012-12-31

The Treatment Episode Data Set -- Admissions (TEDS-A) is a national census data system of annual admissions to substance abuse treatment facilities. TEDS-A provides annual data on the number and characteristics of persons admitted to public and private substance abuse treatment programs that receive public funding. The unit of analysis is a treatment admission. TEDS consists of data reported to state substance abuse agencies by the treatment programs, which in turn report it to SAMHSA.

A sister data system, called the Treatment Episode Data Set -- Discharges (TEDS-D), collects data on discharges from substance abuse treatment facilities. The first year of TEDS-A data is 1992, while the first year of TEDS-D is 2006.

TEDS variables that are required to be reported are called the "Minimum Data Set (MDS)", while those that are optional are called the "Supplemental Data Set (SuDS)".

Variables in the MDS include: information on service setting, number of prior treatments, primary source of referral, gender, race, ethnicity, education, employment status, substance(s) abused, route of administration, frequency of use, age at first use, and whether methadone was prescribed in treatment. Supplemental variables include: diagnosis codes, presence of psychiatric problems, living arrangements, source of income, health insurance, expected source of payment, pregnancy and veteran status, marital status, detailed not in labor force codes, detailed criminal justice referral codes, days waiting to enter treatment, and the number of arrests in the 30 days prior to admissions (starting in 2008) .

Substances abused include alcohol, cocaine and crack, marijuana and hashish, heroin, nonprescription methadone, other opiates and synthetics, PCP, other hallucinogens, methamphetamine, other amphetamines, other stimulants, benzodiazepines, other non-benzodiazepine tranquilizers, barbiturates, other non-barbiturate sedatives or hypnotics, inhalants, over-the-counter medications, and other substances.

Created variables include total number of substances reported, intravenous drug use (IDU), and flags for any mention of specific substances.

Curated

Treatment Episode Data Set -- Discharges (TEDS-D) -- Concatenated, 2006 to 2011 (ICPSR 30122)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2006-01-01--2011-12-31

The Treatment Episode Data Set -- Discharges (TEDS-D) is a national census data system of annual discharges from substance abuse treatment facilities. TEDS-D provides annual data on the number and characteristics of persons discharged from public and private substance abuse treatment programs that receive public funding. Data collected both at admission and at discharge is included. The unit of analysis is a treatment discharge. TEDS-D consists of data reported to state substance abuse agencies by the treatment programs, which in turn report it to SAMHSA.

A sister data system, called the Treatment Episode Data Set -- Admissions (TEDS-A), collects data on admissions to substance abuse treatment facilities. The first year of TEDS-A data is 1992, while the first year of TEDS-D is 2006.

TEDS-D variables that are required to be reported are called the "Minimum Data Set (MDS)", while those that are optional are called the "Supplemental Data Set (SuDS)".

Variables unique to TEDS-D, and not part of TEDS-A, are the length of stay, reason for leaving treatment, and service setting at time of discharge. TEDS-D also provides many of the same variables that exist in TEDS-A. This includes information on service setting, number of prior treatments, primary source of referral, gender, race, ethnicity, education, employment status, substance(s) abused, route of administration, frequency of use, age at first use, and whether methadone was prescribed in treatment. Supplemental variables include: diagnosis codes, presence of psychiatric problems, living arrangements, source of income, health insurance, expected source of payment, pregnancy and veteran status, marital status, detailed not in labor force codes, detailed criminal justice referral codes, days waiting to enter treatment, and the number of arrests in the 30 days prior to admissions (starting in 2008).

Substances abused include alcohol, cocaine and crack, marijuana and hashish, heroin, nonprescription methadone, other opiates and synthetics, PCP, other hallucinogens, methamphetamine, other amphetamines, other stimulants, benzodiazepines, other non-benzodiazepine tranquilizers, barbiturates, other non-barbiturate sedatives or hypnotics, inhalants, over-the-counter medications, and other substances.

Created variables include total number of substances reported, intravenous drug use (IDU), and flags for any mention of specific substances.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Uniform Facility Data Set, 1997: [United States] (ICPSR 2995)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1997-01-01--1997-12-31

The Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS), formerly the National Drug and Alcohol Treatment Unit Survey or NDATUS, was designed to measure the scope and use of drug abuse treatment services in the United States. The survey collects information from each privately- and publicly-funded facility in the country that provides substance abuse treatment as well as from state-identified facilities that provide other substance abuse services. Data are collected on a number of topics including facility operation, services provided (assessment, therapy, testing, health, continuing care, programs for special groups, transitional services, community outreach, ancillary), type of treatment, facility capacity, numbers of clients, and various client characteristics. The main objective of the UFDS is to produce data that can be used to assess the nature and extent of substance abuse treatment services, to assist in the forecast of treatment resource requirements, to analyze treatment service trends, to conduct national, regional, and state-level comparative analyses of treatment services and utilization, and to generate the National Directory of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Programs and its on-line equivalent, the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility Locator. Additionally, the UFDS provides information that can be used to design sampling frames for other surveys of substance abuse treatment facilities.

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

Uniform Facility Data Set, 1998: [United States] (ICPSR 3050)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1998-01-01--1998-12-31

The Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) was designed to measure the scope and use of drug abuse treatment services in the United States. The survey collects information from each privately- and publicly-funded facility in the country that provides substance abuse treatment as well as from state-identified facilities that provide other substance abuse services. Data are collected on a number of topics including facility operation, services provided (assessment, therapy, testing, health, continuing care, special programs, transitional services, community outreach, ancillary), type of treatment, numbers of clients, and various client characteristics. The main objective of the UFDS is to produce data that can be used to assess the nature and extent of substance abuse treatment services, to assist in the forecast of treatment resource requirements, to analyze treatment service trends, to conduct national, regional, and state-level comparative analyses of treatment services and utilization, and to generate the National Directory of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Programs and its on-line equivalent, the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility Locator.

Back to top