Search results

Showing 1 – 50 of 52 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

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--1993-01-01

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

Partially restricted

Simple Crosstabs

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS) 2: Organizational Process Improvement Intervention (OPII), 2010-2013 [United States] (ICPSR 35082)

Released/updated on: 2015-08-07

Geographic coverage: Rhode Island, United States, Illinois, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Virginia, New Jersey, Arizona, Washington, Pennsylvania

Time period: 2010-01-01--2013-01-01

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 Organizational Process Improvement Intervention (OPII) study (aka Assessment study) focused on implementing assessment and treatment planning processes. Screening and assessment were used to identify substance abuse-related problems and to develop programming to address the problems so identified.

The OPII study engaged corrections and treatment agencies to improve the quality of interagency communication through the effective use of assessment and case planning processes and treatment referrals. Both inter-agency and intra-agency change processes were targeted. A multi-phase implementation protocol was used, wherein agencies engaged in team development, needs assessment, planning, implementation, and sustainability in distinct steps. Early- and delayed-start sites allowed the research team to control for effects of environmental changes within states. The protocol targeted critical communications channels between otherwise often highly segregated correctional and treatment agencies.

Evaluation of the OPII used a multi-site cluster randomized design with multiple measures over the course of the intervention. Clusters consisted of a criminal justice agency and one or more community treatment providers that received referrals from that criminal justice agency. Each of the 9 centers had two clusters (one had three), and each cluster was randomized to an Early-Start or a Delayed-Start condition with multiple measures over the course of the intervention. After randomization, the Early-Start sites began the OPII, while the Delayed-Start sites conducted business as usual, without any additional intervention. After approximately 12 months, or when the Early-Start change team completed the Implementation phase, the Delayed-Start change team began to carry out the protocol.

Throughout the study period different subsets of individuals working at correctional facilities and treatment programs at the study sites were asked to complete surveys. During the Baseline period of the study survey data were collected from correctional staff, correctional directors, treatment staff, treatment directors, correctional executives and treatment executives. These data can be found in (DS1-DS12). The executive respondents provided information at the organizational level for the programs they oversaw (DS5, DS6). Next, Needs Assessments were completed by the change teams and their facilitators (DS13-DS14). The change teams and facilitators also responded to surveys on Process Improvement Planning (DS15-DS19). During the Implementation stage, surveys were administered to select substance abuse treatment programs, change team facilitators, change team members and the immediate supervisors of the change team members (DS20-DS27). Selected correctional and treatment staff members (in the Early-Start sites only) were asked to complete Follow-up surveys at the end of the OPII process (DS28-DS33). Staff members who completed surveys also provided demographic data (DS36-DS41). DS42 is a restricted use version of DS41. Change team members kept track of the time they spent on OPII activities (DS35). Change team success was evaluated by a subset of raters (DS34).

Surveys were administered at 21 study sites and there was a total of over 2,700 survey respondents.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): A Comparison of Two Reentry Strategies for Drug Abusing Juvenile Offenders, 2003-2009 [United States] (ICPSR 30143)

Released/updated on: 2015-08-03

Geographic coverage: United States, Florida, Delaware

Time period: 2003-01-01--2009-01-01

Despite progress in reducing crime, crime rates among juveniles, particularly non-white juveniles, remain high. A number of programs have been developed to address the process of reintegration into the community, known as aftercare, through resource efficiency, recidivism reduction, and public safety. This study attempts to evaluate the relative effectiveness of two strategies, extant aftercare services (AS) and Cognitive Restructuring (CR), in order to determine the differential effects on juveniles with varying problem profiles. 236 baseline interviews took place, after which 118 individuals were assigned to CR and 118 to AS. They were then interviewed at three months, two weeks prior to completion of the treatment, and nine months after the completion of the treatment. The two treatments were then compared for relative effectiveness and for relative quality of integration into the juvenile justice system. This data is public use. There are 62 variables and 65 cases in Recruitment(DS1). Intake (DS2) has 444 variables and 187 respondents. The Three Month Follow-Up (DS3) has 319 variables and 159 respondents. Finally, there are 319 variables and 137 respondents in the Nine Month Follow-Up (DS4).

Curated

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): HIV/HEPATITIS Prevention for Re-Entering Drug Offenders (ICPSR 29061)

Released/updated on: 2011-01-24

Geographic coverage: United States, Delaware

The development of the CJ-DATS Targeted Intervention program, targeting a policy change to incorporate public health concerns into the parole and release process, has prompted this study to analyze the effectiveness of the intervention and to determine how it might best be integrated into the current corrections administration. Primarily, the study seeks to consider the effectiveness of one-on-one peer intervention against group intervention moderated by a peer. The study is set up to interview former inmates as they re-enter society through parole or work release. The first phase of the study is to determine their history of drug use, before incarceration and during their time in a corrections facility. These respondents were chosen because of the particular danger faced by those re-entering to engage in "make up for lost time" behavior as access to illicit activity becomes more readily available. Additionally, this portion tests the respondents' knowledge of HIV/AIDS and their utilization of resources designed to improve their health. Following this survey, as well as a blood examination to determine whether they have the illnesses associated with the study, the subjects engaged in counseling based on the subgroup to which they had been randomly assigned. The control group received a standard one-hour, non-interactive CDC intervention, while the experimental group received the CJ-DATS Targeted Intervention. The intention was to determine if individual intervention is more effective, given the need for brief, effective interventions as a result of the large volume of the relevant population. Following the interventions, followup interviews were issued at 30 and 90 days. The intention was to determine not merely if there was an aggregate change in behavior as a result of the intervention, but furthermore, if the intervention led to a negative trend. Of particular concern to the outcome of the study and its analysis was the relative effectiveness of the peer interventions, as well as how officers and administration within the corrections and parole process might incorporate an attitude of public health into the process.

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2011-01-06

Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, New Mexico, California, Maryland

Time period: 2001-05-01--2001-07-01

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

Curated

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices (NCJTP) Survey of Co-occurring Substance Use and Mental Disorder (COD) Treatment Services in Criminal Justice Settings, 2002-2008 (ICPSR 27962)

Released/updated on: 2011-08-10

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2002-01-01--2008-01-01

A growing number of individuals in the criminal justice system suffer from co-occurring disorders (COD), the condition of simultaneous substance and mental disorders. As of yet, the population comprised of these individuals has not been thoroughly studied, despite the fact that COD-afflicted individuals pose unique clinical and administrative problems. The National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices (NCJTP) Survey of Co-occurring Substance Use and Mental Disorder (COD) Treatment Facilities in Criminal Justice Settings attempts to address the lack of information regarding the facets of COD in the criminal justice system. Data collected through this survey was subjected to statistical methods in order to analyze the relationship between COD treatment and organizational aspects. Specifically, from each treatment program, the survey collected data on the number of program participants, proportion of participants with various mental disorders, specific disorder screening instruments used, etc. As for the administrative aspect, the survey determined the division of COD treatment (e.g. one clinician providing both substance abuse and mental disorder treatment versus separate clinicians providing treatment), administrators' opinions of the differences between COD and non-COD participants, and accreditations held by the treatment program.

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--2006-01-01

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:

Cross sectionally test and adapt the TCU CJ-CEST, BOP, and NDRI CAI assessments for use in multiple correctional settings;
To examine agency and program records of client progress relevant to treatment process; and to
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): Step 'N Out, 2002-2006 [United States] (ICPSR 30221)

Released/updated on: 2011-07-27

Geographic coverage: Oregon, Rhode Island, United States, Connecticut, Delaware, Virginia

Time period: 2002-01-01--2006-01-01

Step 'N Out is a research study designed to examine the potential of a new approach to address the re-entry needs of offenders who have substance abuse issues, one which integrates the systems of supervision and treatment. The study is a randomized clinical trial which enrolls subjects who are new to supervision. Those who are in the treatment arm of the study meet with their probation officer weekly for 12 weeks, with every other meeting including a treatment counselor. The PO and counselor have been trained to use motivational interviewing and collaborative behavioral techniques to explore the client's personal issues and triggers that may hamper his/her successful re-entry into the community. The probation officer and counselor work with the client to establish weekly recovery and social goals in the form of a written contract that enables the client to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions. In addition, the variables in this study generally cover topics on drug use and testing; demographics and criminal background; treatment programs and sessions; and finally, relationships between clients and their parole/probation officers.

Curated

Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): The Criminal Justice Co-Occurring Disorder Screening Instrument (CJ-CODSI), 2002-2008 [United States] (ICPSR 27963)

Released/updated on: 2011-07-19

Geographic coverage: Rhode Island, United States, Texas, Colorado, California

Time period: 2002-01-01--2008-01-01

Currently, there exists an inadequacy in mental and substance use disorder screening instruments. This inadequacy stems from two reasons. First, the instruments are untested for widespread use with criminal justice populations. Second, most test for only one disorder at a time. The Criminal Justice Co-Occurring Disorder Screening Instrument (CODSI) study addresses this issue, investigating new methods by which to quickly, accurately, and easily evaluate individuals in the criminal justice population for COD (Co-Occurring Disorders). After determining that the Texas Christian University Drug Screen (TCUDS) would be the appropriate substance abuse screening component for a COD screen, researchers tested three possible mental disorder screening components: the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GSS, version 1.0); the Mental Health Screening Form (MHSF); and the Modified MINI Screen (MMS). The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID), generally accepted as an accurate measure of mental disorder, was used as a reference by which to evaluate the three different screeners. Researchers also used items from the three different screeners to create two additional instruments: the CODSI-MD for any mental disorder and the CODSI-SMD for severe mental disorder. Actual testing was conducted at four different sites, taking a total of 280 new admissions to prison-based substance abuse treatment programs. Instruments were evaluated based on their sensitivity (ability to correctly identify those with COD), specificity (ability to correctly identify those without COD), and overall accuracy (percentage of correct identification across all people). Researchers also conducted a study using a sample comprised of a greater proportion of Latinos and African Americans, in order to evaluate the effect of race on the results of the instruments.

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

Drug Services Research Survey, 1990: [United States] (ICPSR 3393)

Released/updated on: 2008-10-08

Geographic coverage: United States

The Drug Services Research Survey (DSRS) was initiated to collect detailed information on the characteristics of drug treatment facilities and the clients discharged from those facilities in the United States. Data were collected between June and December of 1990 in two phases. In Phase I, facility-level information was gathered via telephone interviews with facility directors and drug treatment providers in a national sample of drug treatment facilities. The questionnaire included point prevalence estimates for March 30, 1990. Phase II involved site visits to a sample of Phase I facilities. This visit included an in-person interview with the facility director or administrator and the collection of client-level data from a sample of client records. Record abstractions were done for clients discharged from these facilities between September 1, 1989, and August 31, 1990. Follow-up of the clients to assess post-treatment status was conducted in the SERVICES RESEARCH OUTCOMES STUDY, 1995-1996: [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 2691).

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: Bridgeport, Seattle, Savannah, United States, Texas, Tennessee, Connecticut, Memphis, Georgia, Austin, Washington

Time period: 1993-01-01--1997-01-01

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

Curated

Partially restricted

Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study, 1993 (ICPSR 6577)

Released/updated on: 2020-01-30

Geographic coverage: United States

This survey focused on alcohol use and alcohol problems among undergraduate college students. The survey collected information on students' use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs, views on campus alcohol policies and student alcohol use, reasons for drinking alcohol and reasons for not drinking or limiting drinking, and personal difficulties caused by drinking problems (e.g., missed classes, injury, and trouble with police). Additional topics covered by the survey include overall health status, daily activities, satisfaction with education being received, grade-point average, living arrangements, social life, sexual activity, use of condoms during sexual intercourse, date rape, drunk driving, and attendance in meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, Alanon, Adult Children of Alcoholics, and Narcotics Anonymous. Background variables include age, height, weight, sex, marital status, religion, mother's and father's education, mother's and father's drinking habits, race, and Hispanic origin.

Curated

Partially restricted

Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study, 1997 (ICPSR 3163)

Released/updated on: 2020-01-30

Geographic coverage: United States

This study resurveyed colleges that participated in the HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH COLLEGE ALCOHOL STUDY, 1993 (ICPSR 6577). As in the 1993 survey, this survey focused on alcohol use and alcohol problems among undergraduate college students. The survey collected information on students' use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs, views on campus alcohol policies and student alcohol use, reasons for drinking alcohol and reasons for not drinking or limiting drinking, and personal difficulties caused by drinking problems (e.g., missed classes, injury, and trouble with police). Additional topics covered by the survey include overall health status, daily activities, satisfaction with education being received, grade-point average, living arrangements, social life, sexual activity, use of condoms during sexual intercourse, date rape, drunk driving, and attendance in meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, Alanon, Adult Children of Alcoholics, and Narcotics Anonymous. Background variables include age, sex, marital status, religion, mother's and father's drinking habits, race, and Hispanic origin.

Curated

Partially restricted

Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study, 1999 (ICPSR 3818)

Released/updated on: 2020-01-30

Geographic coverage: United States

This survey interviewed students at colleges that participated in the first two rounds of the HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH COLLEGE ALCOHOL STUDY, which were conducted in 1993 and 1997 (ICPSR 6577 and 3163). As in the previous surveys, the 1999 survey focused on alcohol use and alcohol problems among undergraduate college students. The survey collected information on students' use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs, views on campus alcohol policies and student alcohol use, reasons for drinking alcohol and reasons for not drinking or limiting drinking, and personal difficulties caused by drinking problems (e.g., missed classes, trouble with police, and health problems). Additional topics covered by the survey include overall health status, daily activities, satisfaction with education being received, grade-point average, living arrangements, social life, sexual activity (heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual), use of condoms during sexual intercourse, date rape, drunk driving, and attendance in meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous. Background variables include age, height, weight, sex, marital status, religion, mother's and father's education, mother's and father's drinking habits, race, and Hispanic origin.

Curated

Partially restricted

Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study, 2001 (ICPSR 4291)

Released/updated on: 2008-02-05

Geographic coverage: United States

The Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study (CAS), a multi-round survey that interviewed students in four-year colleges, examined key issues in alcohol abuse and other high risk behaviors among college students, including the relationship of state alcohol control measures and college policies to alcohol use and the role of fraternities and sororities, easy access to alcohol, and low alcohol prices. As in the previous rounds of CAS, which were conducted in 1993 (ICPSR 6577), 1997 (ICPSR 3163), and 1999 (ICPSR 3818), this round collected information on students' use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs, views on campus alcohol policies and student alcohol use, reasons for drinking alcohol and reasons for not drinking or limiting drinking, and personal difficulties caused by drinking problems (e.g., missed classes and trouble with police). Additional topics covered by the survey include overall health status, daily activities, satisfaction with education being received, grade-point average, living arrangements, social life, sexual activity (heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual), use of condoms during sexual intercourse, rape, and drunk driving. Background variables include age, height, weight, sex, marital status, religion, mother's and father's education, mother's and father's drinking habits, race, and Hispanic origin.

Curated

National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (ICPSR 31922)

Released/updated on: 2011-07-21

Geographic coverage: United States

The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) provides a means by which the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), treatment researchers, and community-based service providers cooperatively develop, validate, refine, and deliver new treatment options to patients in Community Treatment Programs (CTPs). The CTN Web site allows researchers to download de-identified data from completed CTN studies to conduct analyses that improve the quality of drug abuse treatment.

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2009-07-30

Geographic coverage: United States

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

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

Partially restricted

National Evaluation of the Fighting Back Program: General Population Surveys, 1995-1999 (ICPSR 3801)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1995-01-01--1999-01-01

This study was designed as part of a multi-method assessment of Fighting Back, a community-based drug abuse prevention program funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Fighting Back was implemented in 14 medium-sized, primarily urban communities in 12 states. To assess whether the Fighting Back program led to changes in alcohol and other drug (AOD) patterns and attitudes, the evaluation conducted general population surveys of residents aged 16-44 in 12 Fighting Back program communities and 29 comparison communities. Conducted in three waves -- 1995, 1997, and 1999 -- these surveys constitute the Community Survey (Part 1). To provide comparative national trend data, the National Survey (Part 2) was administered, concurrently with the second and third waves, to a national sample of the non-rural general population aged 16-44 using the same survey instrument as the Community Survey. The strategy for question design was to replicate previously validated questions from national surveys of substance use and dependency, including the National Household Survey of Drug Abuse, the National Comorbidity Study, and the Monitoring the Future study of American youth. Respondents reported their AOD use, their friends' AOD use, their attitudes about AOD use, how their friends felt about AOD use, and their perceptions of drug sales, crime, and other aspects of their neighborhood. In addition, the surveys collected information on volunteerism, crime victimization, health and mental health, knowledge and utilization of AOD treatment services, attendance in drug education courses or lectures in school, and opinions on marijuana legalization. Background variables include sex, race, Hispanic origin, household composition, marital/cohabitation status, education status and achievement, employment status, occupation, religious preference, religiosity, and income.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

National Mental Health Services Survey (N-MHSS), 2010 (ICPSR 34945)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23

Geographic coverage: United States

The National Mental Health Services Survey (N-MHSS) is an annual survey designed to collect statistical information on the numbers and characteristics of all known mental health treatment facilities within the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories. In every other year, beginning in 2014, the survey also collects statistical information on the numbers and demographic characteristics of persons served in these treatment facilities as of a specified survey reference date.

The N-MHSS is the only source of national and State-level data on the mental health service delivery system reported by both publicly-operated and privately-operated specialty mental health treatment facilities, including: public psychiatric hospitals; private psychiatric hospitals, non-federal general hospitals with separate psychiatric units; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers; residential treatment centers for children; residential treatment centers for adults; outpatient or day treatment or partial hospitalization mental health facilities; and multi-setting (non-hospital) mental health facilities.

The N-MHSS complements the information collected through SAMHSA's survey of substance abuse treatment facilities, the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS). Treatment facility Information from the N-MHSS is used to populate the mental health component of SAMHSA's online Behavioral Health Treatment Services Locator.

Curated

National Survey of Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Health Problems [Healthcare for Communities], 1997-1998 (ICPSR 3025)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1997-01-01--1998-01-01

This survey is a component of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Health Tracking Initiative, a program designed to monitor changes within the health care system and their effects on people. Focusing on care and treatment for alcohol, drug, and mental health conditions, the survey reinterviewed respondents to the 1996-1997 CTS Household Survey (COMMUNITY TRACKING STUDY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY, 1996-1997, AND FOLLOWBACK SURVEY, 1997-1998: [UNITED STATES] [ICPSR 2524]). Topics covered by the questionnaire include (1) demographics, (2) health and daily activities, (3) mental health, (4) alcohol and illicit drug use, (5) use of medications, (6) health insurance coverage including coverage for mental health, (7) access, utilization, and quality of behavioral health care, (8) work, income, and wealth, and (9) life difficulties. Five imputed versions of the data are included in the collection for analysis with multiple imputation techniques.

Curated

National Survey of Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Health Problems [Healthcare for Communities], 2000-2001 (ICPSR 4165)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2000-01-01--2001-01-01

This survey (HCC2) is a component of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Health Tracking Initiative, an initiative designed to track changes in the the American health care system and their effects. HCC2 reinterviewed respondents to the first National Survey of Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Health Problems (HCC1) and a cross-section of adult respondents from the second Community Tracking Study (CTS) Household Survey (CTS2). Previously, HCC1 reinterviewed a cross-section of adult respondents from the first CTS Household Survey (CTS1). HCC1 is available as the NATIONAL SURVEY OF ALCOHOL, DRUG, AND MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS [HEALTHCARE FOR COMMUNITIES], 1997-1998 (ICPSR 3025), CTS1 as the COMMUNITY TRACKING STUDY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY, 1996-1997, AND FOLLOWBACK SURVEY, 1997-1998 (ICPSR 2524), and CTS2 as the COMMUNITY TRACKING STUDY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY, 1998-1999, AND FOLLOWBACK SURVEY, 1998-2000 (ICPSR 3199). Central to the design of the CTS Household Surveys, from which all HCC1 and HCC2 respondents originated, is its community focus. Sixty sites (51 metropolitan and 9 nonmetropolitan areas) were randomly selected to form the core of the CTS surveys and to be representative of the nation as a whole. The CTS Household Surveys were administered to households in the 60 CTS sites (known as the site sample) and to a supplemental national sample of households. Both HCC1 and HCC2 focused on the care and treatment for alcohol, drug, and mental health conditions. Like HCC1, the HCC2 questionnaire collected information on (1) demographics, (2) health and daily activities, (3) mental health, (4) alcohol and illicit drug use, (5) use of medications, (6) general health insurance and insurance coverage for mental health, substance abuse, and prescription medications, (7) access, utilization, and quality of behavioral health care, (8) labor market status, income, and wealth, and (9) life difficulties. Three sets of a data files are supplied with this collection: a set containing the interviews completed with the follow-up sample of persons who responded to HCC1, a set containing the interviews completed with the cross-sectional sample of subjects who responded to CTS2, and a set named the "complete sample" which contains all of the completed interviews. Five imputed versions of the data are included with each set for analysis with multiple imputation techniques.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (NTIES), 1992-1997 (ICPSR 2884)

Released/updated on: 2009-02-18

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1992-01-01--1997-01-01

The National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (NTIES) is a congressionally-mandated five-year study of the impact of drug and alcohol treatment on thousands of clients in hundreds of treatment units that received public support from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT). NTIES inquired about the allocation of grant money to treatment programs, to investigate what improvements were made with these monies and how many and what type of clients were affected by the grant awards. The NTIES project collected longitudinal data on a purposive sample of clients in treatment programs receiving CSAT demonstration grant funding. Client-level data were obtained at treatment intake, at treatment exit, and 12 months after treatment exit. Service delivery unit (SDU) administrative and clinician (SDU staff) data were obtained at two time points, one year apart. Data were collected across several important outcome areas, including drug and alcohol use, physical and mental health, criminal activity, social functioning, and employment. For a random sample of approximately half of those interviewed, urine specimens were collected at follow-up to corroborate clients' self-reports of substance abuse, in addition to arrest records to validate self-reports. Substances covered in the study included alcohol, analgesics, antianxiety medications, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, antimanics, barbiturates, cocaine (powder and crack), depressants, hallucinogens/psychedelics, heroin and other opiates, illegal methadone, inhalants, marijuana/hashish, methadone, methamphetamine/amphetamine and other stimulants, narcotics, and sedatives.

Curated

Neuropsychological and Emotional Deficits as Predictors of Correctional Treatment Response in Maryland, 2003-2005 (ICPSR 20349)

Released/updated on: 2008-03-31

Geographic coverage: United States, Maryland

Time period: 2003-03-01--2005-12-01

The study was designed to elucidate underlying neuropsychological and emotional regulatory mechanisms in variable responses to a cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) program among prison inmates. This study tested the hypotheses that performance deficits in executive cognitive function (ECF) tasks and emotional responses will characterize aggressive and disruptive inmates and predict treatment response. All subjects were examined using noninvasive behavioral, psychological, ECF, and hormone tests. The data contain a total of 232 cases. Inmates volunteering to participate in the cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) program offered by the Maryland correctional system were recruited from three facilities using a pseudo-random selection procedure during intake into the program. Consenting inmates received an extensive baseline testing battery of several complementary dimensions of higher order neuropsychological functions as well as conditions that influence them: (1) three ECF tasks and one emotional perception task, (2) collection of salivary cortisol during an acute stress task and the Symptom Checklist 90 (SCL-90) taken beforehand, (3) a short general neuropsychological test, (4) three psychological questionnaires, (5) an historical inventory to assess prior drug use and child and family background, and (6) a treatment readiness, responsivity, and gain scale. An events inventory and a success inventory were also administered. Several additional tests were administered repeatedly throughout treatment. A record review was conducted after program completion to ascertain incidents of institutional misconduct as well as treatment performance outcomes. Variables include IQ, demographics, background information, prior drug use, early trauma, psychopathy, aggression, stressful events, success, reactions to provocation, treatment readiness, emotional perception/regulation, executive cognitive performance, cortisol measures, treatment gain, treatment responsivity, treatment completion, Maryland Offender Based State Correctional Information System (OBSCIS) data, institutional infractions, segregations, and several other computed variables.

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

Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Service Use, Wave 2, 1997-2000 (ICPSR 13656)

Released/updated on: 2006-05-17

Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois

Time period: 1997-01-01--2000-01-01

The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) was a large-scale, interdisciplinary study of how families, schools, and neighborhoods affect child and adolescent development. One component of the PHDCN was the Longitudinal Cohort Study, which was a series of coordinated longitudinal studies that followed over 6,000 randomly selected children, adolescents, and young adults, and their primary caregivers over time to examine the changing circumstances of their lives, as well as the personal characteristics, that might lead them toward or away from a variety of antisocial behaviors. Numerous measures were administered to respondents to gauge various aspects of human development, including individual differences, as well as family, peer, and school influences. One such measure was the Service Use protocol. This was adapted from the Service Utilization module of the Use, Need, Outcomes, and Costs in Children and Adolescent Population study and obtained information about services the subject had received for emotional, behavioral, drug, or alcohol problems. It was administered to subjects' primary caregivers in Cohorts 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 and to subjects, themselves, in Cohort 18.

Curated

Services Research Outcomes Study, 1995-1996: [United States] (ICPSR 2691)

Released/updated on: 2008-10-29

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1995-01-01--1996-01-01

The Services Research Outcomes Study (SROS) sought to answer questions about drug treatment efficacy and to describe client characteristics. The study was designed to provide (1) a 1990 cohort of clients to use as baseline for possible changes in treatment outcomes following increased funding to the national treatment system in the 1990s, (2) a before-to-after comparison to measure outcomes of treatment provided in 1990, (3) a follow-up of drug treatment clients five years after treatment to assess the level of sustained improvements in abstinence, and (4) a first look at multiple treatment episodes before and after treatment in a 1990 population.

Part 1 is the Facility Director Interviews and covered topics such as facility staff and organization, revenue and charges, staff hours and compensation, costs, and program characteristics.

Part 2 is the Client Records Abstractions Data, which examined the client records of 2,222 individuals discharged during 1989-1990. Information was abstracted on demographic characteristics of clients, criminal justice involvement, medical conditions, drug history including intravenous drug use, urine test results, drug treatment history, treatment services, and discharge and billing information.

Part 3 consists of the Client Follow-Up Interviews, and was conducted during 1995 and 1996. This part covered the clients' entire life span, with special attention to their behavior and circumstances during the five years before entry to the index (SROS) treatment in 1989-1990 and after leaving that treatment until the time of the interview. Additional questions were asked on patterns of alcohol and drug consumption, criminal activity, employment, health, social support, and other behavior relevant to treatment goals. Drugs included cocaine, crack, heroin, nontreatment methadone, other opiates/synthetics, barbiturates, benzodiazapine, other sedatives/hypnotics, methamphetamines, other amphetamines, marijuana/hash/THC, PCP/LSD, other hallucinogens, inhalants, over-the-counter medications, and alcohol.

Curated

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--2007-09-01, 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--2007-12-01, 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--2007-12-01, 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--2007-12-01, 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

Partially restricted

Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1997 (ICPSR 2598)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States

Conducted by the Bureau of the Census, this survey provides nationally representative data on state prison inmates and sentenced federal inmates held in federally owned and operated facilities. Through personal interviews from June-October 1997, inmates in both state and federal prisons provided information about their current offense and sentence, criminal history, family background and personal characteristics, prior drug and alcohol use and treatment programs, gun possession and use, gang membership, and prison activities, programs, and services. Prior surveys of state prison inmates, called SURVEY OF INMATES OF STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, were conducted in 1974, 1979, 1986, and 1991 (see ICPSR 7811, 7856, 8711, and 6086). Sentenced federal prison inmates were first interviewed in 1991 (see SURVEY OF INMATES OF FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, 1991 [ICPSR 6037]). The federal data are combined with the state data in this collection. Part 1, Numeric Data, consists of numerically-coded responses, while Part 2, Alphanumeric Data, contains free-field responses to "Specify, Other" questions in ASCII text form.

Curated

Partially restricted

Simple Crosstabs

Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, [United States], 2004 (ICPSR 4572)

Released/updated on: 2019-12-12

Geographic coverage: United States

This survey provides nationally representative data on inmates held in state prisons and federally-owned and operated prisons. Through personal interviews conducted from October 2003 through May 2004, inmates in both state and federal prisons provided information about their current offense and sentence, criminal history, family background and personal characteristics, prior drug and alcohol use and treatment programs, gun possession and use, and prison activities, programs, and services. Prior surveys of State prison inmates were conducted in 1974, 1979, 1986, 1991, and 1997. Sentenced federal prison inmates were interviewed in the 1991 and 1997 surveys.

Curated

Survey of Inmates of Federal Correctional Facilities, 1991 (ICPSR 6037)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: United States

This survey provides nationally representative data on persons held in federal prisons. The survey was designed to supply information on individual characteristics of prison inmates, such as their current offenses and sentences, criminal histories, prior drug and alcohol use and treatment, gun possession and use, gang membership, and family background. Data on characteristics of victims and on prison activities, programs, and services are provided as well.

Curated

Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities, 1979 (ICPSR 7856)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

The purpose of this survey was to obtain information on the characteristics of persons confined to prison and the circumstances and conditions of their confinement. The survey focuses on topics and issues that are of current and continuing concern to the correctional community and researchers. Information in the survey includes prison conditions such as staffing, space, and overcrowding, inmate rights and privileges, and rules and regulations concerning prison operation and inmate behavior. Additional data are provided on the presence of educational and vocational programs, drug and alcohol programs, medical treatment, and health care.

Curated

Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities, 1986: [United States] (ICPSR 8711)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

This data collection provides information about topics and issues of concern in research and policy within the field of corrections. Chief among these are the characteristics of persons confined to state prisons, their current and past offenses, and the circumstances or conditions of their confinement. Also included is extensive information on inmates' drug and alcohol use, program participation, and the victims of the inmates' most recent offenses. This information, which is not available on a national basis from any other source, is intended to assist the criminal justice community and other researchers in analysis and evaluation of correctional issues.

Curated

Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities, 1991: [United States] (ICPSR 6068)

Released/updated on: 1993-10-11

Geographic coverage: United States

This survey provides nationally representative data on persons held in state prisons and is similar to surveys conducted in 1974 (ICPSR 7811), 1979 (ICPSR 7856), and 1986 (ICPSR 8711). The survey was designed to provide information on individual characteristics of prison inmates, their current offenses and sentences, characteristics of victims, criminal histories, prior drug and alcohol use and treatment, gun possession and use, gang membership, family background, and prison activities, programs, and services.

Curated

Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities and Census of State Adult Correctional Facilities, 1974 (ICPSR 7811)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

Geographic coverage: United States

The survey and census were part of a series of data collection efforts undertaken to assist policymakers in assessing and remedying deficiencies in the nation's correctional institutions. The survey was designed to provide information on social and economic characteristics of inmates, criminal and correctional background, court experience, and prison routine. The census gathered a wide range of information on all federal correctional facilities operating in 1974. The focus of the survey file is on the inmate, while the focus of the census file is on the facility.

Curated

Partially restricted

Simple Crosstabs

Testing an Occupational Stress Intervention for Harm Reduction Workers in Substance Misuse Settings, Texas, 2024-2025 (ICPSR 39277)

Released/updated on: 2026-05-18

Geographic coverage: United States, Texas

Time period: 2024-02-06--2024-03-04, 2024-08-21--2024-08-23, 2024-10-01--2025-02-21

This multi-method study seeks to understand both the factors that contribute to harm reduction workers' occupational stress and those that mitigate it by pursuing the following aims:

Aim 1:

Understanding occupational stressors and resilience strategies among this population by using semi-structured qualitative focus groups with leaders and workers in harm reduction organizations within Texas.

Aim 2:

Stress First Aid (SFA) consultants utilized the feedback from the Aim 1 Qualitative Focus Groups to adapt the SFA content for harm reduction. The second aim of the study was to hold a 3-day in person train-the-trainer training on the SFA adapted materials for leaders and workers in harm reduction in Texas. The training was facilitated by SFA consultants. The goal of this initial SFA train-the-trainer session was to test the feasibility and acceptability of adapted SFA/HRW materials and develop cadre of team support champions.

Aim 3:

A 4-month Field testing of the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the adapted SFA for leaders and workers in harm reduction. The Field Test included a 2-hour in-person training to introduce SFA concepts and how to use SFA on a day-to-day basis in participant's work life and with coworkers, facilitated by participants in Aim 2 who chose to be champions for the Aim 3 Field Test. Additionally, four virtual monthly learning collaboratives were held as part of the Field Test, designed as monthly touch points to refresh and reinforce the SFA principles and get coaching and feedback around any challenges around using SFA, facilitated by the research study team.
Evaluating the adapted SFA materials and intervention. Reaction interviews were conducted with 13 participants to supplement the surveys.

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--2012-01-01

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--2011-01-01

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).

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

Curated

Treatment of Incarcerated Women with Substance Use Disorder and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in Providence, Rhode Island, 1999-2001 (ICPSR 3416)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: Rhode Island, United States

Time period: 1999-10-01--2001-11-30

The goal of this study was to evaluate the initial efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability of Seeking Safety (SS) treatment in a sample of incarcerated women with comorbid substance use disorder (SUD) and comorbid post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Seeking Safety, a cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy treatment, is a psychosocial treatment for women with comorbid PTSD and SUD and, at the time this study was conducted, it was the treatment with the most efficacy data for this population. SS treatment appears to be a promising intervention for incarcerated women with PTSD and SUD because (1) the treatment targets many of the deficits found in this population that may interfere with their recovery and place these women at risk for reoffending (such as impulsiveness, anger dyscontrol, and maladaptive lifestyle activities), and (2) it teaches skills to manage these problematic behaviors. This study aimed to conduct an open feasibility trial of Seeking Safety treatment in a sample of six incarcerated women with SUD and PTSD and to conduct a randomized controlled pilot study to evaluate the initial efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability of the proposed treatment as an adjunct to treatment as usual (TAU), compared to a TAU control group in a sample of 22 incarcerated women with comorbid PTSD and SUD. The primary hypothesis was that, compared to the TAU condition, women in the SS treatment condition would have less severe drug and alcohol use as well as fewer PTSD symptoms and legal problems after intervention, and at six weeks and three months after release. The first six participants recruited for the study received SS group treatment as an adjunct to the treatment provided by the Discovery Program, the substance abuse treatment program in the minimum security arm of the Women's Facility of the Adult Correctional Institution in Providence, Rhode Island. The remaining participants were randomly assigned to either the control group (TAU) or to a group that received SS treatment as an adjunct to TAU. The treatment groups were conducted by clinicians who worked as substance abuse therapists in the Discovery Program and a clinical psychologist from Brown University. All SS therapists received training in delivering SS therapy from Dr. Lisa Najavits, who developed SS treatment. Assessments were conducted at pretreatment, post-treatment during incarceration, and three and six months postrelease for PTSD-related measures. Measures of severity of substance abuse and legal problems were taken at pretreatment, as well as at the six- and 12-week postrelease intervals. Measures were taken with a variety of clinical instruments, including the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) module on substance use, the Clinician Administered Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Scale-I (CAPS-I), the Trauma History Questionnaire (THQ), the Helping Alliance Questionnaire-II (HAQ-II), the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, and the End-of-Treatment Questionnaire. Basic demographic data were also collected from administrative records. Variables include alcohol, drug, and legal composite scores at pretreatment and post-treatment, number of relapses, whether the woman returned to prison, whether the woman lied about substance abuse, use of particular substances one month prior to prison and during lifetime, PTSD indicators of frequency and intensity, total client satisfaction scores, patients' ratings of therapists and treatment, and trauma scales for crime, sexual abuse, and physical abuse. Demographic variables include age, ethnic background, education, first time in prison, the nature of the current conviction, and number of arrests with convictions.