Search results

The Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) program of research was initiated in response to the 1977 report of the President's Commission on Mental Health. The purpose was to collect data on the prevalence and incidence of mental disorders and on the use of and need for services by the mentally ill. Independent research teams at five universities (Yale University, Johns Hopkins University, Washington University, Duke University, and University of California at Los Angeles), in collaboration with the National Institute for Mental Health, conducted the studies with a core of common questions and sample characteristics. The sites were areas that had previously been designated as Community Mental Health Center catchment areas: New Haven, Connecticut, Baltimore, Maryland, St. Louis, Missouri, Durham, North Carolina, and Los Angeles, California. Each site sampled over 3,000 community residents and 500 residents of institutions, yielding 20,861 respondents overall. The longitudinal ECA design incorporated two waves of personal interviews administered one year apart and a brief telephone interview in between (for the household sample). The diagnostic interview used in the ECA was the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS), Version III (with the exception of the Yale Wave I survey, which used Version II). Diagnoses were categorized according to the DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, 3rd Edition (DSM-III). Diagnoses derived from the DIS include manic episode, dysthymia, bipolar disorder, single episode major depression, recurrent major depression, atypical bipolar disorder, alcohol abuse or dependence, drug abuse or dependence, schizophrenia, schizophreniform, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, somatization, panic, antisocial personality, and anorexia nervosa. The DIS uses the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), which measures cognitive functioning, as an indirect measure of the DSM-III Organic Mental Disorders. In the ECA survey, this diagnosis is called cognitive impairment.

This collection features data from 17,327 participants across 2,005 variables. Data from the Los Angeles, California, Catchment (UCLA) are not included. Baseline data (Wave 1) and Wave 2 data were linked to the National Death Index through 2007, which includes primary and contributing causes of death, International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes, and nature of injury variables.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigators if further information is needed.

This study is a secondary analysis (syntax only, no data) of Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Subject Measures, 2000-2010 (ICPSR 29961) and Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Calendar Data, 2000-2010 [Restricted] (ICPSR 32282).

The purpose of this study was to further existing knowledge of juvenile justice intervention and how juvenile justice intervention is related to positive outcomes during the transition to adulthood. This study examines three main aims using data from the Pathways to Desistance study, which followed a sample of serious adolescent offenders for seven years to examine the desistance process. First, trajectories of secure institutional placement for serious offenders during the study period were identified. Second, trajectories of gainful activities for serious adolescent offenders during the study period were identified. Gainful activities were defined as working or attending school. Third, factors associated with turning points in the gainful activities trajectories were explored. In the course of estimating the gainful activities trajectories, there appeared to be a key moment, around year 3, where multiple trajectories with moderate levels of engagement in gainful activities diverged. Together, these three aims will inform how juvenile justice intervention is related to positive outcomes during the transition to adulthood and identify factors that may be related to positive outcomes and critical turning points in the trajectories of serious adolescent offenders.

Group differences were examined by testing bivariate differences in a broad range of variables: demographic variables (gender, age, and race/ethnicity); study site and year of interview; characteristics of prior service receipt at baseline (location and orientation); school, family and neighborhood characteristics; characteristics of the offense and offense history; individual factors (mental health and substance use symptoms); and risk scores.

The Biomarker study is Project 4 of the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) longitudinal study, a national survey of more than 7,000 Americans (aged 25 to 74) begun in 1994. The purpose of the larger study was to investigate the role of behavioral, psychological, and social factors in understanding age-related differences in physical and mental health. With support from the National Institute on Aging (NIA), a longitudinal follow-up of the original MIDUS samples [core sample (N = 3,487), metropolitan over-samples (N = 757), twins (N = 957 pairs), and siblings (N = 950)] was conducted in 2004-2006. Guiding hypotheses, at the most general level, were that behavioral and psychosocial factors are consequential for health (physical and mental). A description of the study and findings from it are available on the MIDUS website.

The Biomarker Project (Project 4) of MIDUS 2 contains data from 1,255 respondents. These respondents include two distinct subsamples, all of whom completed the Project 1 Survey: (1) longitudinal survey sample (n = 1,054) and (2) Milwaukee sample (n = 201). The Milwaukee group contained individuals who participated in the baseline MIDUS Milwaukee study, initiated in 2005. The purpose of the Biomarker Project (Project 4) was to add comprehensive biological assessments on a subsample of MIDUS respondents, thus facilitating analyses that integrate behavioral and psychosocial factors with biology. The broad aim is to identify biopsychosocial pathways that contribute to diverse health outcomes. A further theme is to investigate protective roles that behavioral and psychosocial factors have in delaying morbidity and mortality, or in fostering resilience and recovery from health challenges once they occur. The research was not disease-specific, given that psychosocial factors have relevance across multiple health endpoints.

Biomarker data collection was carried out at three General Clinical Research Centers (at UCLA, University of Wisconsin, and Georgetown University). The biomarkers reflect functioning of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, the autonomic nervous system, the immune system, cardiovascular system, musculoskeletal system, antioxidants, and metabolic processes. Our specimens (fasting blood draw, 12-hour urine, saliva) allow for assessment of multiple indicators within these major systems. The protocol also included assessments by clinicians or trained staff, including vital signs, morphology, functional capacities, bone densitometry, medication usage, and a physical exam. Project staff obtained indicators of heart-rate variability, beat to beat blood pressure, respiration, and salivary cortisol assessments during an experimental protocol that included both a cognitive and orthostatic challenge. Finally, to augment the self-reported data collected in Project 1, participants completed a medical history, self-administered questionnaire, and self-reported sleep assessments. For respondents at one site (UW-Madison), objective sleep assessments were also obtained with an Actiwatch(R) activity monitor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Calendar data files are comprised of 47 total parts spread across 13 distinct topical domains.

• Academic Achievement
• Antisocial Activity
• Community-Based Services
• Contact With the Justice System
• Court Monitoring
• Gainful Activity
• Head Injury
• Living Situation
• Making and Spending Money
• Medication
• Out of Community Placement
• Romance
• School

Each topical domain contains multiple reference periods for looking at the topic across the entire data collection period of the study.

Users who request these restricted data should first review the documentation available from NAHDAP (user guide and frequency codebooks) and from the Pathways Website (domain content codebooks). This review will help determine which specific datasets will be needed for your project. The "Research Description" in ICPSR's Data Access Request System (IDARS) must include a specific explanation of why you need each topic domain selected on the "Data Selection" page in IDARS. Most projects should only require one reference period per topic domain being requested. Data requests for all reference periods within a given domain will not be approved without a satisfactory explanation of why all of the reference periods are required for your project. Since the Calendar data collection is very extensive and Restricted Data Use Agreements are only for 2 years, data requests are not expected to need the entire Calendar data collection.

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

Respondents were enrolled and baseline interviews conducted from November 2000 to January 2003. Follow-up interviews were then scheduled with the respondents at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, 60, 72 and 84 months past their baseline interview.

The enrolled youth were at least 14 years old and under 18 years old at the time of their committing offense and were found guilty of a serious offense (predominantly felonies, with a few exceptions for some misdemeanor property offenses, sexual assault, or weapons offenses).

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700) from 2000 through 2010.

This study looks at interviews conducted with the collateral informants who participated in the study. The collateral informants were nominated by the main study participant and represented individuals who "knew the study participant well". At the interview baseline the collateral informant was usually a biological parent. During the three follow-up interviews the majority of collaterals were a friend. Collateral informants could also be a sibling, significant other, or relative. Collaterals were asked questions in regards to the main study participant's life, allowing for comparison between responses provided by two sources. A baseline interview was conducted with the collateral after the baseline interview took place with the main participant. Additional waves of follow-up with collaterals took place at 12, 24, and 36 months. A collateral report is not present for all of the main study participant interviews across waves (see response rate below).

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

This study looks at interviews conducted with the collateral informants who participated in the study. The collateral informants were nominated by the main study participant and represented individuals who "knew the study participant well". At the interview baseline the collateral informant was usually a biological parent. During the three follow-up interviews the majority of collaterals were a friend. Collateral informants could also be a sibling, significant other, or relative. Collaterals were asked questions in regards to the main study participant's life, allowing for comparison between responses provided by two sources. A baseline interview was conducted with the collateral after the baseline interview took place with the main participant. Additional waves of follow-up with collaterals took place at 12, 24, and 36 months. A collateral report is not present for all of the main study participant interviews across waves (see response rate below).

The current Collateral Measures study primarily consists of the calculated scores from constructs asked about during the interview, but the individual scale items were withheld at that time. These additional datasets contain those individual items plus the calculated scores. These variables are typically consistent across the waves that the scale was asked about during the course of the entire project. Most of the files contain variables from all four waves of data collection. The table in the front of the User Guide will list which waves are present in each data file.

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

The Release data portion of the Pathways study contains information from 1,130 interviews ("release interviews") reflecting the youths' perceptions regarding various aspects of the residential experience and institutional environment (e.g., accounts of program operations and services provided, ratings regarding the participant's feelings of his or her safety in the facility). The release interview was conducted within 30 days prior to or after release from a facility and in a separate session apart from the time point interview. This was done to minimize the burden on the research participant and to ensure adequate attention to institutional ratings. The restricted time period within which to conduct the release interview reduced the likelihood that intervening events and experiences would skew the participant's recall of the stay.

Study participants could contribute more than one release interview, depending upon the number of institutional placements he/she had over the seven-year follow-up period. The current release data reflects ratings from 686 unique individuals. It should be recognized that not every institutional stay for every youth produced a release interview. On the basis of the number of reported institutional stays in the sample, it is estimated that a release interview was obtained for approximately 54 percent of the total number of residential stays experienced by study participants. Release interviews were missed if the research interviewer was not aware of the institutional stay (e.g. it occurred between time point interviews) or if the interviewer only became aware of the institutional stay at a point that was too late to schedule a release interview within the required window surrounding the release date.

The 686 individuals reflected in the release data represent 51 percent of the Pathway study participants (n=1,354) and 56 percent of Pathways participants who had a least one institutional stay (n=1,234; 120 Pathways youths had no institutional stays). On average, these 686 youths had 1.6 interviews. The number of interviews per unique person ranges from one to eight.

The current Release Measures study primarily consists of the calculated scores from constructs asked about during the interviews, but the individual scale items were withheld at that time. This study contains those individual items plus the calculated scores.

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

Respondents were enrolled and baseline interviews conducted from November 2000 to January 2003. Follow-up interviews were then scheduled with the respondents at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, 60, 72 and 84 months past their baseline interview.

The enrolled youth were at least 14 years old and under 18 years old at the time of their committing offense and were found guilty of a serious offense (predominantly felonies, with a few exceptions for some misdemeanor property offenses, sexual assault, or weapons offenses).

The baseline interview was conducted within 75 days of the youth's adjudication hearing. For youths in the adult system, the baseline interview was conducted within 90 days of either (a) the decertification hearing in Philadelphia, a hearing at which it is determined if the case will remain in adult court or if it will be sent back to juvenile court; or (b) the adult arraignment hearing in Phoenix, the point in the Arizona adult system at which charges have been formally presented.

The aims of the investigation were to identify initial patterns of how serious adolescent offenders stop antisocial activity, to describe the role of social context and developmental changes in promoting these positive changes, and to compare the effects of sanctions and interventions in promoting these changes. The larger goals of the Pathways to Desistance study were to improve decision-making by court and social service personnel and to clarify policy debates about alternatives for serious adolescent offenders. The study relied primarily on self-report information from study participants.

Each wave of data collection covered six domains: (1) background characteristics (e.g., demographics, academic achievement, psychiatric diagnoses, offense history, neurological functioning, psychopathy, personality), (2) indicators of individual functioning (e.g., work and school status and performance, substance abuse, mental disorder, antisocial behavior), (3) psychosocial development and attitudes (e.g., impulse control, susceptibility to peer influence, perceptions of opportunity, perceptions of procedural justice, moral disengagement), (4) family context (e.g., household composition, quality of family relationships), (5) personal relationships (e.g., quality of romantic relationships and friendships, peer delinquency, contacts with caring adults), and (6) community context (e.g., neighborhood conditions, personal capital, and community involvement). Information about the measures used to capture this information can be found on the Pathways to Desistance website.

The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).

Respondents were enrolled and baseline interviews conducted from November 2000 to January 2003. Follow-up interviews were then scheduled with the respondents at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, 60, 72 and 84 months past their baseline interview.

The enrolled youth were at least 14 years old and under 18 years old at the time of their committing offense and were found guilty of a serious offense (predominantly felonies, with a few exceptions for some misdemeanor property offenses, sexual assault, or weapons offenses).

Each wave of data collection covered six domains: (1) background characteristics (e.g., demographics, academic achievement, psychiatric diagnoses, offense history, neurological functioning, psychopathy, personality), (2) indicators of individual functioning (e.g., work and school status and performance, substance abuse, mental disorder, antisocial behavior), (3) psychosocial development and attitudes (e.g., impulse control, susceptibility to peer influence, perceptions of opportunity, perceptions of procedural justice, moral disengagement), (4) family context (e.g., household composition, quality of family relationships), (5) personal relationships (e.g., quality of romantic relationships and friendships, peer delinquency, contacts with caring adults), and (6) community context (e.g., neighborhood conditions, personal capital, and community involvement). Information about the measures used to capture this information can be found on the Pathways to Desistance website.

The current Subject Measures study primarily consists of the calculated scores from constructs asked about during the interview, but the individual scale items were withheld at that time. These variables are typically consistent across the waves that the scale was asked about during the course of the entire study. Most of the files contain variables from all 11 waves of data collection. The table in the front of the User Guide will list which waves are present in each data file.