Search results

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.

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

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

This collection contains data from the Multi-site Family Study on Incarceration, Parenting and Partnering [MSF-IP]. The MSF-IP is an evaluation of a grant program funded by the Office of Family Assistance (OFA) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to promote or sustain healthy relationships and to strengthen families in which a father was incarcerated or otherwise involved with the criminal justice system (e.g., recently released or on parole or probation). From 2006-2011, grantees were required to serve justice-involved fathers and their committed partners with services to promote healthy marriage; they were also permitted to provide activities to support parenting and foster economic stability.

The MFS-IP evaluation was funded to document program implementation and the impact of programming on outcomes such as relationship quality and stability, parenting and co-parenting, family financial well-being, and recidivism. This collection includes data from the impact study, conducted across five grantees: the Indiana Department of Correction, the RIDGE Project (Ohio), the New Jersey Department of Corrections, the Osborne Association (New York), and the Minnesota Council on Crime and Justice. The collection includes de-identified interview data for 1,991 men and 1,482 intimate and co-parenting partners.

The interviews took place from December 2008 through August 2014. Couples were first interviewed during the male partner's incarceration (with the timing of baseline interviews not related to the man's admission or release date in most sites) and then interviewed again nine and 18 months after baseline. In the two largest sites (Indiana and Ohio), an additional 34-month follow-up interview was conducted. The interviews were similar in content at each interview wave and for the male and female interviews, but differed based on male partner's trajectory of incarceration and release over the follow-up period.

Topics within this collection include demographics, personal characteristics and attitudes, criminal history and behavior, incarceration experiences (including family contact during incarceration), program and service receipt, expectations for release, family structure and functioning, intimate relationship quality, parenting and co-parenting quality, child well-being, employment, housing, substance use, and experiences with reentry.