Search results

Showing 1 – 9 of 9 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--1999-01-01

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

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2003-06-05

Geographic coverage: United States, Texas

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

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

Curated

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--2008-05-01

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

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

Released/updated on: 2008-10-07

Geographic coverage: United States

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

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

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2010-02-16

Geographic coverage: United States

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

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

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

Curated

Evaluation of the Texas Youth Commission's Chemical Dependency Treatment Program, 1998-1999 (ICPSR 3141)

Released/updated on: 2003-03-11

Geographic coverage: United States, Texas

Time period: 1998-01-01--1999-01-01

This study consists of data from both the process evaluation and the outcome evaluation of the Texas Youth Commission's (TYC) Chemical Dependency Treatment Program (CDTP). The research goal of the first part of the study was to provide a systematic and empirical process evaluation of appropriate program placement and whether and to what extent selected individual-level factors were related to key measures of program progress, as well as to variations in process outcomes across each of five treatment sites. The research goal of the second part of the study was to provide a systematic and empirical outcome evaluation of the impact of the TYC Chemical Dependency Treatment Program, including determination of the extent to which certain risk, need, amenability, program performance and delivery, and aftercare factors affected treatment impact. Data were obtained from the Texas Youth Commission, the state corrections agency responsible for serving violent and serious delinquent youth committed to the custody of the state. TYC collects a range of information on the risk, needs, and treatment amenability of its youths. Also, program performance is measured through the use of an exit assessment conducted by program staff, which essentially provides a report card summarizing each youth's involvement and progress in treatment. Data in this evaluation cover all juveniles who entered the CDTP from January through October 1998, and who were discharged by April 1, 1999. The treatment group consists of youths who invariably had a high need for chemical dependency treatment. The control group consists of youths who were eligible for treatment in the CDTP during this same time period but who did not receive it due to limited CDTP bed space. To obtain measures of drug use/abuse relapse, aftercare participation, and parole performance, a parolee data worksheet was created. TYC was able to provide information on who received chemical dependency treatment while on parole. Five core variables of the process evaluation data are program completion, program expulsion, days to completion, days to expulsion, and number of behavior infractions. The process evaluation includes the following variables from individual exit assessments: the youth's overall participation, whether the youth understood the curriculum, understood addiction, sought help, acknowledged addiction, and acknowledged impact, the youth's performance grade, whether the youth committed to be drug-free, family involvement, special circumstances, and performance index. Demographic variables are race, age, parents' marital status, and gender. Variables addressing risk factors include classifying offense, offender class, risk level, number of felony referrals, number of felony adjudications, number of previous TYC commitments, and number of parole revocations. Other variables in the process evaluation address the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI), the Diagnostic Statistical Manual IV (DSM-IV) chemical dependency treatment need, TYC treatment amenability score, and the Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES). Variables available in the outcome evaluation data address issues of rearrest, higher custody level, aftercare sessions, drug tests, and parole compliance.

Curated

Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program in Kyle, Texas, 1993-1995 (ICPSR 2765)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Texas

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

This study was undertaken to evaluate the treatment process and outcomes associated with a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) In-Prison Therapeutic Community (ITC) component of the 1991 Texas Criminal Justice Chemical Dependency Treatment Initiative, as well as to assess the effectiveness of prison-based drug treatment. Specifically, this study evaluated the RSAT ITC treatment process and outcomes in Kyle, Texas, using the prison-based treatment assessment (PTA) data systems. The study design included process and outcome evaluations using a sample of graduates from the first ITC treatment facility (Kyle cohort) and a matched comparison group of prison inmates who were eligible, but not selected, for assignment to an ITC. Data collection occurred at three points in time -- at the end of treatment in the Kyle ITC, and at six months and one year following an offender's release from the ITC program. Variables in the 19 files for this study include: Part 1 (Educational Demographic Data, Kyle Cohort): Highest grade level achieved by respondent, Texas Department of Criminal Justice education achievement and IQ scores, and the number of days at the Kyle ITC program. Parts 2-4 (Treatment Background Data, Kyle Cohort, Aftercare Treatment Data, Kyle Cohort, Treatment Condition Data, Kyle Cohort): Treatment condition, discharge codes, and whether there were three months of residential aftercare. Part 5 (Session One Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Gender, ethnicity, age, marital status, whether the respondent was given medication, followed directions, made friends, or got into trouble while in elementary school, whether he held a job prior to prison, if either of his parents spent time with, yelled at, or sexually abused him, whether he used drugs, if so, specific drugs used (e.g., alcohol, inhalants, marijuana, or crack), and whether he did jail time. Part 6 (Session Two Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Whether drugs kept the respondent from working, caused emotional problems, or caused medical problems, if people were important to the respondent, if he had trouble staying focused, felt sad or depressed, satisfied with life, lonely, nervous, or got mad easily, whether he felt the staff was caring and helpful, whether he showed concern for the group and accepted confrontation by the group, whether the respondent felt the counselor was easy to talk to, respected him, or taught him problem-solving, and whether the respondent viewed himself as thinking clearly, clearly expressing thoughts, and was interested in treatment. Part 7 (Session Three Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): How the respondent saw himself as a child, whether he was easily distracted, anxious, nervous, inattentive, short-tempered, stubborn, depressed, rebellious, irritable, moody, angry, or impulsive, whether the respondent had trouble with school, was considered normal by friends, ever lost a job or friends due to drinking or drug abuse, or was ever arrested or hospitalized for drug or alcohol abuse, and in the last week whether the respondent's mood was one of sadness, satisfaction, disappointment, irritation, or suicide. Parts 8 and 9 (Six-Month Follow-Up Interview Data, Kyle Cohort, and One-Year Follow-Up Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Organization of meetings and activities in the program, rules and regulations, work assignments, privileges, individual counseling, the care and helpfulness of the treatment staff and custody staff, the respondent's behavior, mood, living situation, drug use, and arrests within the last six months, whether the counselor was easy to talk to, helped in motivating or building confidence, or assisted in making a treatment plan, whether the respondent felt a sense of family or closeness, if his family got along, enjoyed being together, got drunk together, used drugs together, or had arguments or fights, if the respondent had a job in the last six months to a year and if he enjoyed working, whether he was on time for his job, whether he had new friends or associated with old friends, and which specific drugs he had used in the last six months (e.g., hallucinogens, heroin, methadone, or other opiates). Part 10 (Treatment Background Data, Comparison Group): Treatment condition of the comparison group. Part 11 (Educational Demographic Data, Comparison Group): Whether respondents completed a GED and their highest grade completed. Parts 12 and 13 (Six-Month Follow-Up Interview Data, Comparison Group, and One-Year Follow-Up Interview Data, Comparison Group): How important church was to the respondent, whether the respondent had any educational or vocational training, if he had friends that had used drugs, got drunk, dealt drugs, or had been arrested, if within the last six months to a year the respondent had been arrested for drug use, drug sales, forgery, fencing, gambling, burglary, robbery, sexual offense, arson, or vandalism, whether drugs or alcohol affected the respondent's health, relations, attitude, attention, or ability to work, whether the respondent experienced symptoms of withdrawal, the number of drug treatment programs and AA or CA meetings the respondent attended, whether the respondent received help from parents, siblings, or other relatives, if treatment was considered helpful, and risky behavior engaged in (e.g., sharing needles, using dirty needles, and unprotected sex). Parts 14 and 16 (Probation Officer Data, Six-Month Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group, and Probation Officer Data, One-Year Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Date of departure from prison, supervision level, number of treatment team meetings, whether there was evidence of job hunting, problems with transportation, child care, or finding work, number of drug tests in the last six months, times tested positive for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, opiates, crack, or other drugs, and number of arrests, charges, convictions, and technicals. Parts 15 and 17 (Hair Specimen Data, Six-Month Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group, and Hair Specimen Data, One-Year Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Hair collection and its source at the six-month follow-up (Part 15) and one-year follow-up (Part 17) and whether parolee was positive or negative for cocaine or opiates. Part 18 (Texas Department of Public Safety Data, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Dates of first, second, and third offenses, if parolee was arrested, and first, second, and third offenses from the National Crime Information Center. Part 19 (Texas Department of Criminal Justice Data, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Treatment condition, date of release, race, and a Texas Department of Criminal Justice Salient Factor Risk Score.

Curated

Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Release Measures, 2000-2010 [Restricted] (ICPSR 34488)

Released/updated on: 2014-01-09

Geographic coverage: United States, Arizona, Pennsylvania

Time period: 2000-01-01--2010-01-01

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.

Curated

Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Release Measures - Scales, 2000-2010 [Restricted] (ICPSR 36868)

Released/updated on: 2017-12-11

Geographic coverage: United States, Phoenix, Arizona, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Time period: 2000-01-01--2010-01-01

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.