Search results

Showing 1 – 48 of 48 results.
Curated
Partially restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000 [United States] (ICPSR 4672)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2000, the JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Partially restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2004 [United States] (ICPSR 25282)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2005-02-06--2005-06-29
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2004, the JRFC used two modules to collect information on the physical health and educational services provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Partially restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2006 [United States] (ICPSR 25981)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-11
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2007-03-02--2007-11-30
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2006, the JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Partially restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000-2010 -- Concatenated Data [United States] (ICPSR 27542)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Partially restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched Data [United States] (ICPSR 27543)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27541) and the JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 2000-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27542) that were matched on the facility identifier to create one data file. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Each record in the concatenated matched data file provides information about the juvenile and also includes the characteristics of the facility in which the juvenile was held from both the CJRP and JRFC collections. Therefore, these data can be analyzed at the juvenile or facility level. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date are included in this file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not be included in this concatenated matched file. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Partially restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched Facility-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27544)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP) AND JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED MATCHED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27543) that were aggregated to the facility level. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the concatenated matched data file (ICPSR 27543) were aggregated to the facility level. Therefore, the CJRP/JRFC concatenated matched facility-level data provide information about the characteristics of the facility from both the CJRP and JRFC collections and the juvenile population held in that facility from the CJRP collection. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date are included in this file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not be included in this concatenated matched facility-level file. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Partially restricted

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 1997-2010 -- Concatenated Matched State-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27545)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection includes data from the CENSUS OF JUVENILES IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT (CJRP) AND JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 1997-2010 -- CONCATENATED MATCHED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27543) that were aggregated to the state level. The CJRP asked juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on a specified reference date. For 1997, the reference date was the fifth Wednesday in October. For 1999-2003 and 2007, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October. For 2006 and 2010, the reference date was the fourth Wednesday in February. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population were also collected in the CJRP. The JRFC collected information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, ownership, and use of bed space in the facility. The JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. The JRFC also identified the type of facility, which was complemented with a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The JRFC census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the concatenated matched data file (ICPSR 27543) were aggregated to the state level. Therefore, the CJRP/JRFC concatenated matched state-level data provide information about the characteristics of juvenile residential facilities in the state from both the CJRP and JRFC collections and the juvenile population held in these facilities from the CJRP collection. Only facilities that held at least one juvenile for an offense on the CJRP census reference date were included in the concatenated matched file, i.e., all facilities in the biennial JRFC data may not have been included in the file used for the aggregation. Variables providing United States Census population data and upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction were also added. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Partially restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000-2010 -- Concatenated State-Level Data [United States] (ICPSR 27546)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
This collection includes data from the JUVENILE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY CENSUS (JRFC), 2000-2010 -- CONCATENATED DATA [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 27542) that were aggregated to the state level. The JRFC collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bed space in the facility to indicate whether the facility is experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. JRFC used four modules to collect information on the physical health services, educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. These four modules were not always collected each year. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. The JRFC has been administered biennially since 2000, in even-numbered years. The census reference date is the fourth Wednesday in October. Records in the JRFC concatenated data file (ICPSR 27542) were aggregated to the state level and variables providing United States Census population data and upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction were added. Data were harmonized so that variables present across years are identically named to facilitate analysis.
Curated
Partially restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2008 [United States] (ICPSR 34402)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-11
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2008-10-26--2009-06-24
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Partially restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2010 [United States] (ICPSR 34449)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-11
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Virgin Islands of the United States, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, Puerto Rico, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2011-01-21--2011-05-12
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2010, the JRFC used three modules to collect information on the educational services, substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Partially restricted

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2002 [United States] (ICPSR 23520)

Released/updated on: 2016-08-10
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Indiana, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Kentucky, California, Kansas, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, United States, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nevada, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), New Jersey, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Ohio
Time period: 2002-10-31--2003-04-15
The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collected basic information on facility characteristics, including size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. It also collected information on the use of bedspace in the facility to indicate whether the facility was experiencing crowding. The JRFC included questions about the type of facility, such as detention center, training school, ranch, or group home. This information was complemented by a series of questions about other residential services provided by the facility, such as independent living, foster care, or other arrangements. In 2002, the JRFC used two modules to collect information on the substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment provided to youth in these facilities. While not evaluating the effectiveness or quality of these services, the JRFC gathered important information about the youth the services were directed toward and how the services were provided. The census indicated the use of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs, and also examined prominent issues about conditions of confinement, including the restraint of youth and improper absences from the facility. Congress requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to report annually on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody; JRFC collected information on such deaths for the one-year period just prior to the census reference date. The census reference date was the fourth Wednesday in October.
Curated
Partially restricted

Integrated Public Health Surveys, 2010-2011 (ICPSR 33822)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2010-01-01--2011-01-01

This collection comprises a single data file which was produced as part of the data harmonization efforts of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The file contains merged data from five sources:

  1. 2010 National Profile of Local Health Departments, a survey of local health departments conducted by the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO).

  2. 2011 National Profile Survey of Local Boards of Health, a survey of local boards of health conducted by the National Association of Local Boards of Health (NALBOH).

  3. 2010 State and Territorial Public Health Survey, a survey of state and United States territory health departments conducted by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO).

  4. 2011 County Health Rankings, a compilation of county-level health measures and within-state county health rankings produced by the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute.

  5. 2010 Census Demographic Profile Summary File, a series of tables with housing and population data from the 2010 Census.

Produced by matching data from the last four sources to the NACCHO data, the data file contains one case for each of the 2,107 local health departments (LHD) that responded to the NACCHO survey. Each LHD's record in the file includes the ASTHO data for its state health department and the NALBOH data for its local board of health (LBH), if it had a LBH and the LBH responded to the NALBOH survey. (If a LHD had multiple LBHs, then the first one in the NALBOH data was matched to the LHD). In addition, county (or county equivalent)-level data from the County Health Rankings and Census Demographic Profile Summary File were matched to the records of the 1,535 LHDs represented in the data file with a jurisdiction covering a single county or county equivalent.

Curated
Partially restricted

National Profile of Local Health Departments, 2010 (ICPSR 32922)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Conducted by the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), the purpose of this survey of local health departments (LHDs) was to advance and support the development of a database for LHDs to describe and understand their structure, function, and capacities. A core set of questions was submitted to every LHD. In addition, some LHDs received one of two randomly assigned modules of supplemental questions. The core questions covered governance, funding, workforce (staffing levels, occupations employed, top executive education and licensure, and percentages of staff by race and Hispanic origin), LHD activities, and community health assessment and health improvement planning. The surveyed LHD activities include immunization, screening for diseases and conditions, treatment for communicable diseases, maternal and child health, epidemiology and surveillance activities, population-based primary prevention activities, and regulation, inspection and/or licensing activities. Topics covered by Module 1 included quality improvement, familiarity with a voluntary national accreditation program for state and local health departments, sharing of resources with other LHDs, emergency preparedness, and information technology. Module 2 examined human resources, policy-making and advocacy, access to health care services, practice-based research, health impact assessments, public health and law, and use of public health reports.
Curated
Partially restricted

National Profile of Local Health Departments, 2013 (ICPSR 34990)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Conducted by the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), the purpose of this survey of local health departments (LHDs) was to advance and support the development of a database for LHDs to describe and understand their structure, function, and capacities. A core set of questions was submitted to every LHD. In addition, some LHDs received one of two randomly assigned modules of supplemental questions. The core questions covered governance, funding, workforce (staffing levels, occupations employed, top executive education and licensure), LHD activities, community health assessment and health improvement planning, use of the Community Guide of Preventive Services, and policy-making and advocacy. The surveyed LHD activities include immunization, screening for diseases and conditions, treatment for communicable diseases, maternal and child health, epidemiology and surveillance activities, population-based primary prevention activities, and regulation, inspection and/or licensing activities. Topics covered by Module 1 included quality improvement, accreditation through the Public Health Accreditation Board, sharing of resources across LHDs, human resources issues, partnerships and collaboration with other organizations in the community, practice-based research, health impact assessments, use of the County Health Rankings reports, and collaboration with public health institutes. Module 2 examined emergency preparedness, public health informatics, access to health care services, and health disparities.
Curated
Partially restricted

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

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

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

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

Curated
Simple Crosstabs

State Investments in Successful Transitions to Adulthood, 1970-2000 (ICPSR 34373)

Released/updated on: 2013-03-07
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1971-01-01--2000-01-01

This research investigated the relationship between ascribed characteristics, family resources, personal circumstances, and public policies as these affect the transition to adulthood. The transition to adulthood has been extensively studied during the last four decades using a variety of well-established approaches and methods. Changes in the structure and pace of youth-to-adult transitions have been extensively documented, along with the increasingly complex lives young people lead as they negotiate the transition to adulthood. Relatively less attention has been devoted to the factors leading to these changes, and a variety of public policies related to state economic development efforts, education, and financial support for higher education have yet to be examined in any detail. This project built on the principal investigators' prior work on life course transitions and state economic and political contexts to estimate behavioral models of the late 20th and early 21st century transition to adulthood.

Specifically, this research:

  1. Defines and describes the successful transition to adulthood in terms of human capital accumulation, attainment of economic security, and partnership and life satisfaction.
  2. Identifies group and individual disparities in successful transitions, defined by ascribed characteristics, family resources, and personal circumstances.
  3. Measures the impact of the social and economic environments where these transitions occur and the effects of state structures and policies on the successful transition to adulthood, specifically examining whether the impact of these state policies differs by race/ethnicity, immigrant status, and disability status.

The analysis used discrete hazard modeling and hierarchical generalized linear modeling (HGLM) to build a general model of the transition to adulthood on a wide variety of dimensions (from educational attainment to stable employment in a full-time job, employment in a job with health insurance, to independent residence and life satisfaction) and examined systematic changes in the process leading to adulthood across cohorts and across race/ethnic, immigrant, and disability groups.

Curated
Partially restricted

Oregon Youth Substance Use Project (OYSUP), 1998-2014 (ICPSR 34263)

Released/updated on: 2022-02-07
Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States
Time period: 1998-01-01--2014-01-01

The Oregon Youth Substance Use Project (OYSUP) began in 1998, with the recruitment of 1,075 first through fifth graders within a single school district in a working class community in western Oregon. Youth were followed from early childhood (1st through 5th grade), through adolescence, and into emerging adulthood (at age 20-22), with additional data collection at age 20 to 26. The primary objective of OYSUP was to identify risk and protective factors predictive of or comorbid with the development of substance use and at-risk sexual behaviors. OYSUP consisted of a multi-method annual assessment of etiological factors across numerous contextual (e.g., family, peer, neighborhood and school) and individual (personality, biological) domains, predictive of children's cognitions regarding substance use, their own substance use and their at-risk sexual behaviors (beginning in middle school). This unique study follows a representative sample of youth with approximately annual assessments from early childhood, through adolescence, and into emerging adulthood (at age 20-22). The primary objective of the original project and its renewals is to identify risk and protective factors predictive of or comorbid with the development of substance use and at-risk sexual behaviors.

Quantitative survey data was collected from each respondent from 1998 to 2014. Within the aims of the original OYSUP study and the three subsequent renewals, participants and their parents were followed annually until they were one-year post-high school, with an additional intensive assessment at age 20-22. In each year, the target participant and their parents completed assessments. The intensive assessment at age 20-22 included a diagnostic interview with the target participants and an assessment of cortisol reactivity in response to acute stress. During the school years, teachers completed assessments assessing their student's behavior, and school records for most students were obtained each year. In addition, principals in elementary schools completed school climate assessments and census data is used to obtain measures of neighborhood climate. In the third renewal, questionnaires and interviews were given across a two-year span, when participants were aged 20 to 26. The goal of this supplement was to investigate the factors leading to e-cigarette use and and use of other novel tobacco products across two years. Finally, respondents' demographic information was also collected.

Curated

State Health Policy Research Dataset (SHEPRD): 1980-2010 (ICPSR 34789)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-14
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1980-01-01--2010-01-01
This dataset was developed to study trends in the adoption of state public health laws during 1980-2010. Specifically, the dataset covers annual trends in seatbelt laws, speed limits for passenger vehicles on rural interstates, minimum legal drinking ages, drunk driving laws, laws prohibiting the purchase of alcohol on Sundays, regulations for registering purchased kegs and/or prohibitions against selling kegs, beer taxes and total alcohol tax revenues, motorcycle and bicycle helmet laws, cigarette taxes, cigarette advertising bans, bans on workplace smoking, bans on smoking in restaurants and bars, and tobacco taxes (total revenue). The dataset contains information about these laws for each year between 1980 and 2010, inclusive. In addition, it contains variables that describe the social, economic, demographic, health care, political, and crime chacteristics of the states in each of these years.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs

The Community Vulnerability and Responses to Drug-User-Related HIV/AIDS, 1990-2013 [96 Metropolitan Statistical Areas, United States] (ICPSR 36575)

Released/updated on: 2017-08-08
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Milwaukee, Indiana, Ocean (New Jersey), Fort Worth, Cincinnati, Austin, Monmouth (New Jersey), Utah, San Jose, Rock Hill, Gastonia, San Diego, Columbus (Ohio), Syracuse, Springfield (Massachusetts), North Little Rock (Arkansas), Arizona, Las Vegas, Arlington, Springfield (Ohio), Boston, San Bernardino, Providence, Seattle, Kentucky, St. Petersburg, Bethlehem, Niagara Falls (New York), Nashville, California, Florida, Delaware, Hunterdon (New Jersey), Boca Raton (Florida), Troy, Knoxville, Mississippi, Fresno, New Haven, Sarasota, Illinois, Newark, Georgia, Little Rock, Virginia, Maryland, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Suffolk County (New York), United States, Oklahoma, Grand Rapids, Louisville, Waukesha (Wisconsin), Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Albany (New York), Wichita, Mesa (Arizona), Carlisle (Pennsylvania), Fall River, Massachusetts, Missouri, Winston-Salem, Holland (Michigan), New Orleans, Scranton, Denver, Salt Lake City, Harrisburg, Dallas, St. Louis, Nevada, Schenectady, Allentown, Raleigh, San Antonio, Muskegon, St. Paul, Clearwater, Hawaii, Rochester (New York), Passaic, Ventura (California), Birmingham, Michigan, Lebanon, Baltimore, New Mexico, Orlando, Louisiana, Toledo, Middlesex (New Jersey), Philadelphia, Riverside, Oklahoma City, Akron, Greensboro, Detroit, Charlotte, High Point, Tucson, Albuquerque, Everett, Oakland, Bakersfield, New York City, Somerset (New Jersey), Petersburg, Memphis, Ogden, Jacksonville, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Nassau (New York), Orange County (California), Sacramento, El Paso, Greenville, Kansas, Meriden, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Chapel Hill (North Carolina), West Palm Beach, Iowa, Texas, Lorain, Portland (Oregon), Hazleton, Tampa, Durham, San Marcos (Texas), Indianapolis, Richmond, Oregon, Warwick, Bergen (New Jersey), Newport News, Ann Arbor, Alabama, Cleveland, Dayton, Nebraska, Omaha, Warren, West Virginia, Elyria, Tacoma, Minneapolis, Youngstown, Atlanta, Honolulu, Phoenix, Bradenton, Wilmington (Delaware), Gary, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Vancouver (Washington), Lodi (California), Chicago, Fort Lauderdale, Wilkes-Barre, Minnesota, Kansas City (Missouri), Bellevue, New York (state), Anderson, New Jersey, Miami, San Francisco, Charleston (South Carolina), Jersey City, Long Beach, Spartanburg (South Carolina), New Hampshire, Easton, Ohio, Los Angeles, Hartford, Stockton, Houston
Time period: 1990-01-01--2013-01-01

The Community Vulnerability and Responses to Drug-User-Related HIV/AIDS, 1990-2013 [96 Metropolitan Statistical Areas, United States] study (CVAR) was a research study of why large United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) vary over time in their vulnerability to HIV/AIDS among drug users and in MSA responses to HIV/AIDS. This collection contains estimates of HIV prevalence among people who injected drugs (PWID) and among sub-populations of PWID. This collection is comprised of ten datasets with differing amounts of variables and provides trend data that describe the following:

  • Epidemiologic outcomes including population prevalence of PWIDs and Non-injecting drug users (NIDUs), and particularly their prevalence among youth; and, among PWIDs, HIV prevalence, late-diagnosis HIV cases, and AIDS incidence and mortality.
  • Implementation of evidence-based drug-related interventions including drug abuse treatment, syringe exchange, HIV counseling and testing.
  • Implementation of non-evidence-based drug-related interventions including incarceration and arrests of drug users.

The collection contains data on the MSA sub-populations including Black, Hispanic, White and "other" race categories. In addition, some statistics are presented in age range categories such as ages 15-29, 30-64 and 15-64.

Curated
Partially restricted

Early Steps Multisite Study (Condition Files), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38755)

Released/updated on: 2024-01-08
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01

The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, and 10.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternate caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.

The Condition Files refer to feedback and intervention follow-up sessions researchers conducted with "Parent Consultants". Parent consultants were highly trained masters- or doctoral-level clinicians with backgrounds typically in social work, counseling, or clinical psychology, who conducted assessment and feedback sessions with caregivers.

Curated
Partially restricted

NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development: Phase III, 2000-2004 [United States] (ICPSR 21942)

Released/updated on: 2018-06-25
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States, Massachusetts, California, Kansas, Virginia, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Washington, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2000-01-01--2004-01-01

The overall purpose of this study was to examine the influence of variations in early childcare histories on the psychological development of infants and toddlers from a variety of family backgrounds. This general objective was addressed through a prospective, longitudinal study of the experiences of 1,364 children and their families, which took into account the complex interactions among child characteristics and those of the human and physical environments in which the children were reared.

Research Goals

The specific research aims were as follows:

  • Examining the relationship between infants' childcare arrangements (defined in terms of hours, type, quality, and stability of care and the age at which the child entered care) and children's concurrent and long-term development. Specifically, the study investigated the association between children's experiences in childcare and their social, emotional, language, and cognitive development. The social-emotional assessments included measures of attachment, independence, compliance, behavior problems, prosocial and antisocial behavior, and general competence in interacting with peers. Cognitive variables include general developmental level and problem solving skills. Language assessments incorporated measures of children's expressive and receptive communicative competence.

  • Examining whether the social ecology of the home moderates the effects of childcare, i.e., whether children from different home environments are differentially affected by similar childcare experiences. The study examined the moderating effects of parents' values and attitudes, psychological adjustment and mental health, stress and social support, child-rearing practices, time use, interactions with the child, the marital relationship, and family demographics.

  • Examining whether individual differences among children moderate the effects of infant care on child development. The study examined the moderating effects of such child characteristics as age, sex, health, birth order, and temperament.

  • Identify demographic and family characteristics associated with families' childcare decisions. The study examined whether specific childcare arrangements are related to the parents' social class, marital status, psychological adjustment and personality, child-rearing values and attitudes, parenting practices, stress, social support, marital relationship, and the availability of childcare in the community.

  • Provide a natural history of infant care in the 1990s, and help establish a baseline of data pertaining to the kinds of care being used by families. Whereas other national databases, such as those provided by the United States Census Bureau, provide static estimates of the number of children in different types of childcare, this network study supplements that knowledge with longitudinal data on successive enrollments into day care at various ages, patterns of arrangements used concurrently and over time, and the stability of arrangements during the first three years of life. One of the most valuable aspects of the collaborative study is the opportunity it provides to obtain a more complete and accurate picture of patterns of infant care used by families today. Census surveys use only gross categories of care (e.g., center vs. in-home). In this study, more fine-grained information regarding the types of centers and home-care facilities was gathered.

  • Examine the consequences for families of maternal employment and childcare choices. Family relationships, parental mental health, family stress, and so on, are not just inputs to child development or moderators of childcare effects, they are also outcomes. High-quality childcare may alleviate family stress and enhance parental adjustment. Low-quality childcare may add to the stress parents experience. Although the main focus in the study was on the effect of childcare on the child, the study also examined the effect of childcare on the family.

  • Identify demographic characteristics of childcare associated with childcare quality. Of interest to policy makers is another aspect of the study, the investigation of those regulatory characteristics that predict care of higher quality. These characteristics included the level and type of caregiver training, the size of the childcare group, the auspices of the childcare program (public/private, profit/nonprofit, independent/chain, employer-sponsored/church-based), whether the facility was licensed or unlicensed, the level of payment and fees, and whether the caregiver was a relative of the family.

Data File Organization

504 data files were compiled for this study and are organized into 4 main groups:

  1. Analytical Data Sets (ADS) -- The raw data were examined and composites defined by small groups of individual principal investigators according to the demographic, family, childcare, and child outcome content of the data. The psychometric and distributional qualities of the variables along with site differences were examined. A set of variables that was psychometrically and distributionally acceptable to be used in analytic analyses was designed to test the study hypotheses. These data files comprise Parts 1-49 of the study data material.

  2. Supplemental Data Sets -- New and revised analysis variables as well as across-time mean scores and primary composites were produced as a supplement to the original Analytical Data Sets. These data files comprise Parts 50-55 of the study data material.

  3. Raw Census-Related Data Sets -- Files were produced using geocoded addresses for survey respondents to match block group level data from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses for investigators to create additional measures of interest from the geocoded addresses. These data files comprise Parts 56-58 of the study data material.

  4. Raw Data Sets -- The raw data were made available and comprise Parts 59-505 of the study data material.

Training Workshop

A three-day summer training workshop on the SECCYD was put on by NICHD at the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 2010. The binder from that workshop, which includes the Powerpoint slides used during presentations, are freely available to the public as part of the study documentation.

Curated
Partially restricted

NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development: Phase IV, 2005-2007 [United States] (ICPSR 22361)

Released/updated on: 2018-06-25
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, United States, Massachusetts, California, Kansas, Virginia, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Washington, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2005-01-01--2007-01-01

The overall purpose of this study was to examine the influence of variations in early childcare histories on the psychological development of infants and toddlers from a variety of family backgrounds. This general objective was addressed through a prospective, longitudinal study of the experiences of 1,364 children and their families, which took into account the complex interactions among child characteristics and those of the human and physical environments in which the children were reared.

Research Goals

The specific research aims were as follows:

  • Examining the relationship between infants' childcare arrangements (defined in terms of hours, type, quality, and stability of care and the age at which the child entered care) and children's concurrent and long-term development. Specifically, the study investigated the association between children's experiences in childcare and their social, emotional, language, and cognitive development. The social-emotional assessments included measures of attachment, independence, compliance, behavior problems, prosocial and antisocial behavior, and general competence in interacting with peers. Cognitive variables include general developmental level and problem solving skills. Language assessments incorporated measures of children's expressive and receptive communicative competence.

  • Examining whether the social ecology of the home moderates the effects of childcare, i.e., whether children from different home environments are differentially affected by similar childcare experiences. The study examined the moderating effects of parents' values and attitudes, psychological adjustment and mental health, stress and social support, child-rearing practices, time use, interactions with the child, the marital relationship, and family demographics.

  • Examining whether individual differences among children moderate the effects of infant care on child development. The study examined the moderating effects of such child characteristics as age, sex, health, birth order, and temperament.

  • Identify demographic and family characteristics associated with families' childcare decisions. The study examined whether specific childcare arrangements are related to the parents' social class, marital status, psychological adjustment and personality, child-rearing values and attitudes, parenting practices, stress, social support, marital relationship, and the availability of childcare in the community.

  • Provide a natural history of infant care in the 1990s, and help establish a baseline of data pertaining to the kinds of care being used by families. Whereas other national databases, such as those provided by the United States Census Bureau, provide static estimates of the number of children in different types of childcare, this network study supplements that knowledge with longitudinal data on successive enrollments into day care at various ages, patterns of arrangements used concurrently and over time, and the stability of arrangements during the first three years of life. One of the most valuable aspects of the collaborative study is the opportunity it provides to obtain a more complete and accurate picture of patterns of infant care used by families today. Census surveys use only gross categories of care (e.g., center vs. in-home). In this study, more fine-grained information regarding the types of centers and home-care facilities was gathered.

  • Examine the consequences for families of maternal employment and childcare choices. Family relationships, parental mental health, family stress, and so on, are not just inputs to child development or moderators of childcare effects, they are also outcomes. High-quality childcare may alleviate family stress and enhance parental adjustment. Low-quality childcare may add to the stress parents experience. Although the main focus in the study was on the effect of childcare on the child, the study also examined the effect of childcare on the family.

  • Identify demographic characteristics of childcare associated with childcare quality. Of interest to policy makers is another aspect of the study, the investigation of those regulatory characteristics that predict care of higher quality. These characteristics included the level and type of caregiver training, the size of the childcare group, the auspices of the childcare program (public/private, profit/nonprofit, independent/chain, employer-sponsored/church-based), whether the facility was licensed or unlicensed, the level of payment and fees, and whether the caregiver was a relative of the family.

Data File Organization

158 data files were compiled for this study and are organized into 4 main groups:

  1. Analytical Data Sets (ADS)-- The raw data were examined and composites defined by small groups of individual principal investigators according to the demographic, family, childcare, and child outcome content of the data. The psychometric and distributional qualities of the variables along with site differences were examined. A set of variables that was psychometrically and distributionally acceptable to be used in analytic analyses was designed to test the study hypotheses. These data files comprise Parts 1-19 of the study data material.

  2. Supplemental Data Sets -- New and revised analysis variables as well as across-time mean scores and primary composites were produced as supplements to the original Analytical Data Sets. These data files are Parts 20-26 of the study data material.

  3. Raw Census-Related Data Sets -- Files were produced using geocoded addresses for survey respondents to match block group-level data from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses for investigators to create additional measures of interest from the geocoded addresses. These data files comprise Parts 27-30 of the study data material.

  4. Raw Data Sets -- The raw data were made available and comprise Parts 31-158 of the study data material.

Included in this phase of the study are the output of several third-party software programs that were used during Phases II, III and IV to collect data for specific tasks or activities. These programs produced one output data file per subject, which were combined to produce some of the raw data files for those studies. The original program output is included as expanded documentation in this phase of the study.

Training Workshop

A three-day summer training workshop on the SECCYD was put on by NICHD at the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 2010. The binder from that workshop, which includes the Powerpoint slides used during presentations, are freely available to the public as part of the study documentation.

Curated
Partially restricted

Situational Crime Prevention at Specific Locations in Community Context: Place and Neighborhood Effects in Cincinnati, Ohio, 2005-2008 (ICPSR 26981)

Released/updated on: 2013-12-23
Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio, Cincinnati
Time period: 2006-07-01--2006-10-01, 2006-07-01--2006-10-01, 2005-01-01--2006-12-01, 2007-01-01--2008-01-01, 2007-03-01--2008-06-01
The study examined the situational and contextual influences on violence in bars and apartment complexes in Cincinnati, Ohio. Interviews of managers and observations of sites were made for 199 bars (Part 1). Data were collected on 1,451 apartment complexes (Part 2). For apartment complexes owners were interviewed for 307 and observations were made at 994. Crime data were obtained from the Cincinnati Police Department records of calls for service and reported crimes.
Curated
Partially restricted

Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 2), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38407)

Released/updated on: 2022-07-05
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. This data includes home-based assessments carried out at age 2 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
Curated
Partially restricted

Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 3), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38745)

Released/updated on: 2023-06-08
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 3 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside of Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson. A list of more than 80 published papers using the data set can be found at www.pitt.edu/ppcl under the Early Steps Publications section.
Curated
Partially restricted

Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 4), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38748)

Released/updated on: 2023-06-27
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, and 10.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
Curated
Partially restricted

Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 5), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38749)

Released/updated on: 2023-07-17
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, and 10.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
Curated
Partially restricted

Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 7), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38751)

Released/updated on: 2023-06-27
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 7.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
Curated
Partially restricted

Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 8), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38752)

Released/updated on: 2024-02-13
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01

The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, and 10.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.

Curated
Partially restricted

Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 9), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38753)

Released/updated on: 2023-10-16
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, and 10.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
Curated
Partially restricted

Early Steps Multisite Study (Age 10), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Eugene, Oregon, and Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002-2014 (ICPSR 38754)

Released/updated on: 2023-11-13
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Charlottesville, United States, Eugene, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Time period: 2002-01-01--2014-01-01
The Early Steps Multisite (ESM) Study is a randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the early childhood version of the Family Check-Up intervention. The enclosed data file includes home-based assessments carried out at child ages 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, and 10.5 involving 731 families from three distinct communities in the United States: Pittsburgh, PA (urban), Eugene, OR (suburban), and in and outside Charlottesville, VA (rural). Assessments include questionnaires and interviews with primary caregivers (i.e., typically mothers) and alternative caregivers (fathers, grandparents, and other child caregivers) about child behavior, sociodemographic and family risk, parent well-being and support, coupled with observations of developmentally-tailored parent-child interaction tasks (e.g., teaching, clean-up, and meal preparation tasks at ages 2-5, discussion tasks at ages 7.5 and 9.5). Teacher reports on multiple domains of child behavior were obtained beginning at age 7.5 through age 10.5, and youth reports on their own adjustment beginning at child age 8.5. Direct testing of children's academic achievement was administered at child ages 5, 7.5, and 8.5 using scales from the Woodcock-Johnson.
The following results may be significantly less relevant compared to results above.
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

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1990 (ICPSR 9833)

Released/updated on: 2013-05-06
Geographic coverage: United States
This series measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, anabolic steroids, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions include age at first use, as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, inhalants, cocaine, hallucinogens, heroin, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of psychotherapeutics. Respondents were also asked about problems resulting from their use of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, their perceptions of the risks involved, insurance coverage, and personal and family income sources and amounts. Demographic data include gender, race, ethnicity, educational level, job status, income level, household composition, and population density.
Curated

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1988 (ICPSR 9522)

Released/updated on: 2013-06-19
Geographic coverage: United States
This series measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, anabolic steroids, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions include age at first use, as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, inhalants, cocaine, hallucinogens, heroin, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of psychotherapeutics. Respondents were also asked about problems resulting from their use of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, their perceptions of the risks involved, insurance coverage, and personal and family income sources and amounts. Demographic data include gender, race, ethnicity, educational level, job status, income level, household composition, and population density.
Curated

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1985 (ICPSR 6844)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States
This series measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of prescription drugs among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions include age at first use as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: cannabis, cocaine, hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, alcohol, tobacco, nonmedical use of prescription drugs including psychotherapeutics, and polysubstance use. Respondents were also asked about health conditions, substance abuse treatment history, problems resulting from their use of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, their perceptions of the risks involved, and personal and family income sources and amounts. Demographic data include gender, race, age, ethnicity, marital status, motor vehicle use, educational level, job status, income level, veteran status, past and current household composition, and population density.
Curated
Partially restricted

Tsogolo La Thanzi (TLT): Baseline Wave, Malawi, 2009-2012 [Healthy Futures] (ICPSR 36863)

Released/updated on: 2018-10-22
Geographic coverage: Balaka, Malawi, Africa
Time period: 2009-01-01--2012-01-01

The Tsogolo La Thanzi (TLT): Baseline Wave collection contains data collected as part of the Tsogolo la Thanzi (TLT) Study. TLT is a longitudinal study in Balaka, Malawi designed to examine how young people navigate reproduction in an AIDS epidemic. Tsogolo la Thanzi means "Healthy Futures" in Chichewa, Malawi's most widely spoken language. New data is being collected to develop better understandings of the reproductive goals and behavior of young adults in Malawi -- the first cohort to never have experienced life without AIDS. To understand these patterns of family formation in a rapidly changing setting, TLT used the following approach: an intensive longitudinal design where respondents are interviewed every fourth months at TLT's centralized research center. Data collection began in May of 2009 and was completed in June of 2012. To assess changes on a longer time-horizon, a follow-up survey we refer to as Tsogolo la Thanzi 2 (TLT-2) was fielded between July and October of 2015.

The Women dataset (dataset 1) contains variables that pertain to pregnancy, family composition, partners and relationships, mental health, marriage, sex and protection, sexually transmitted diseases, goods purchases, and diet.

The Male Partners dataset (dataset 2) contains variables that pertain to relationships, religion, politics, family composition, mental health, sex and protection, pregnancy, marriage, sexually transmitted diseases, goods purchases, and diet.

The Random Men dataset (dataset 3) asked respondents about their mental health, partners and relationships, sexually transmitted diseases, sex and protection, family composition, goods purchases, and diet.

The Male Partners at Alternative Waves dataset (dataset 4) includes baseline data collected for male partners who began participating in the study between Wave 2 and Wave 8. If male partners entered the study at Wave 2 or later, their first interview was the baseline questionnaire (Wave 1), and at the next round of data collection they received the current wave's questionnaire. This dataset includes variables that pertain to relationships, religion, mental and physical health, family composition, sex and protection, fatherhood, marriage, sexually transmitted diseases, good purchases and diet.

Demographic variables in each dataset include age, tribe, language, and education.

Curated
Partially restricted

Tsogolo La Thanzi (TLT): Biomarker Data, Malawi, 2009-2012, 2015 [Healthy Futures] (ICPSR 37200)

Released/updated on: 2018-11-29
Geographic coverage: Balaka, Malawi, Africa
Time period: 2009-01-01--2012-01-01

The Tsogolo La Thanzi (TLT): Biomarker collection contains data collected as part of the Tsogolo la Thanzi (TLT) Study. TLT is a longitudinal study in Balaka, Malawi designed to examine how young people navigate reproduction in an AIDS epidemic. Tsogolo la Thanzi means "Healthy Futures" in Chichewa, Malawi's most widely spoken language. New data is being collected to develop better understandings of the reproductive goals and behavior of young adults in Malawi -- the first cohort to never have experienced life without AIDS. To understand these patterns of family formation in a rapidly changing setting, TLT used the following approach: an intensive longitudinal design where respondents are interviewed every fourth months at TLT's centralized research center. Data collection began in May of 2009 and was completed in June of 2012. To assess changes on a longer time-horizon, a follow-up survey referred to as Tsologo la Thanzi 2 (TLT-2) was fielded between June and August of 2016.

The biomarker data collection contains the results of HIV testing and pregnancy testing. These data sets include respondents from all waves.

Curated

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1991 (ICPSR 6128)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States
This series measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, anabolic steroids, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Data are also provided on treatment for drug use and on illegal activities related to drug use. Questions include age at first use, as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, inhalants, cocaine, hallucinogens, heroin, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of psychotherapeutics. Respondents were also asked about problems resulting from their use of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, their perceptions of the risks involved, insurance coverage, and personal and family income sources and amounts. Demographic data include gender, race, ethnicity, educational level, job status, income level, household composition, and population density.
Curated

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1993 (ICPSR 6852)

Released/updated on: 2013-05-06
Geographic coverage: United States
This series measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, anabolic steroids, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Data are also provided on treatment for drug use and on illegal activities related to drug use. Questions include age at first use, as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, inhalants, cocaine, hallucinogens, heroin, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of psychotherapeutics. Respondents were also asked about problems resulting from their use of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, their perceptions of the risks involved, insurance coverage, and personal and family income sources and amounts. Demographic data include gender, race, ethnicity, educational level, job status, income level, household composition, and population density.
Curated

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1997 (ICPSR 2755)

Released/updated on: 2013-05-06
Geographic coverage: United States
This series measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions include age at first use as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, cocaine (and crack), hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of prescription drugs, including psychotherapeutics. Respondents were also asked about substance abuse treatment history, illegal activities, problems resulting from the use of drugs, personal and family income sources and amounts, need for treatment for drug or alcohol use, criminal record, and needle-sharing. Questions on mental health and access to care, which were introduced in the 1994-B questionnaire (see NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ON DRUG ABUSE, 1994 [ICPSR 6949]), were retained in this administration of the survey. In 1996, the section on risk/availability of drugs was reintroduced, and sections on driving behavior and personal behavior were added (see NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ON DRUG ABUSE, 1996 [ICPSR 2391]). The 1997 questionnaire continued the risk/availability section along with new items about the use of cigars, people present when respondents used marijuana or cocaine for the first time (if applicable), reasons for using these two drugs the first time, reasons for using these two drugs in the past year, reasons for discontinuing use of these two drugs (for lifetime but not past-year users), and reasons respondents never used these two drugs. In addition, a new series of questions asked only of respondents aged 12 to 17 was introduced. These items covered a variety of topics that may be associated with substance use and related behaviors, such as exposure to substance abuse prevention and education programs, gang involvement, relationship with parents, and substance use by friends. Demographic data include gender, race, age, ethnicity, marital status, educational level, job status, income level, veteran status, and current household composition.
Curated
Partially restricted
Simple Crosstabs

Survey of Prison Inmates, United States, 2016 (ICPSR 37692)

Released/updated on: 2024-03-28
Geographic coverage: United States
To fulfill part of its mission, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) conducted the Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI), a national, wide-ranging survey of prisoners age 18 or older who were incarcerated in state or federal correctional facilities within the United States. SPI provides national statistics on prisoner characteristics across a variety of domains, such as current offense and sentence, incident characteristics, firearm possession and sources, criminal history, demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, family background, drug and alcohol use and treatment, mental and physical health and treatment, and facility programs and rules violations. SPI can also be used to track changes in these characteristics over time, describe special populations of prisoners, and identify policy-relevant changes in the state and federal prison populations. Formerly the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities (SISFCF), this survey was renamed SPI with the 2016 iteration.
Curated

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1995 (ICPSR 6950)

Released/updated on: 2013-05-06
Geographic coverage: United States
This series measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions include age at first use as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, cocaine (and crack), hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, alcohol, tobacco, anabolic steroids, nonmedical use of prescription drugs including psychotherapeutics, and polysubstance use. Respondents were also asked about substance abuse treatment history, illegal activities, problems resulting from use of drugs, perceptions of the risks involved, personal and family income sources and amounts, need for treatment for drug or alcohol use, criminal record, and needle-sharing. Questions on mental health and access to care, which were introduced in the 1994-B questionnaire (see NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ON DRUG ABUSE, 1994 [ICPSR 6949]), were retained in this administration of the survey. Demographic data include gender, race, age, ethnicity, marital status, motor vehicle use, educational level, job status, income level, veteran status, and past and current household composition.
Curated

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1996 (ICPSR 2391)

Released/updated on: 2013-05-06
Geographic coverage: United States
This series measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions include age at first use as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, cocaine (and crack), hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of prescription drugs, including psychotherapeutics. Respondents were also asked about substance abuse treatment history, illegal activities, problems resulting from the use of drugs, personal and family income sources and amounts, need for treatment for drug or alcohol use, criminal record, and needle-sharing. Questions on mental health and access to care, which were introduced in the 1994-B questionnaire (see NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ON DRUG ABUSE, 1994 [ICPSR 6949]), were retained in this administration of the survey. In 1996, the section on risk/availability of drugs was reintroduced, and sections on driving behavior and personal behavior were added. Demographic data include gender, race, age, ethnicity, marital status, educational level, job status, income level, veteran status, and current household composition.
Curated

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1982 (ICPSR 6845)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States
This series measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of prescription drugs among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions include age at first use, as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: cannabis, cocaine, hallucinogens, heroin, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of prescription drugs, including psychotherapeutics. Respondents were also asked about problems resulting from their use of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, their perceptions of the risks involved, and personal and family income sources and amounts. Half of the respondents were asked questions regarding substance use by close friends. Demographic data include gender, race, age, ethnicity, educational level, job status, income level, veteran status, household composition, and population density. Youth respondents were also asked about time spent on homework and leisure activities.
Curated

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1979 (ICPSR 6843)

Released/updated on: 2015-11-23
Geographic coverage: United States
This series measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and nonmedical use of prescription drugs among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions include age at first use, as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: cannabis, cocaine, hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, alcohol, tobacco, nonmedical use of prescription drugs including psychotherapeutics, and polysubstance use. Respondents were also asked about their knowledge of drugs, perceptions of the risks involved, population movement, and sequencing of drug use. Fifty-seven percent of respondents were asked specific questions about their perceptions of the consequences of marijuana and alcohol use. The other 43 percent were asked about heroin use among friends. Demographic data include gender, race, age, ethnicity, marital status, educational level, job status, income level, and household composition.
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
Partially restricted

Prevalence and Case Characteristics of Drug-Facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape Among College Students and Other Young Women in the United States, 2006 (ICPSR 20626)

Released/updated on: 2010-02-26
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2006-01-23--2006-06-26
This study had four key goals. The first goal was to identify how many women in the United States and in college settings have ever been raped or sexually assaulted during their lifetime and within the past year. The next goal was to identify key case characteristics of drug-facilitated and forcible rapes. The third goal was to examine factors that affect the willingness of women to report rape to law enforcement or seek help from their support network. The last goal was to make comparisons between the different types of rape. Part 1 (General Population) data consisted of a national telephone household sample of 3,001 United States women, whereas Part 2 (College Population) data consisted of 2,000 college women selected from a reasonably representative national list of women attending four year colleges and universities. Both data parts contain the same 399 variables. Interviews were completed between January 23 and June 26, 2006. Respondents were asked questions regarding risk perception, fear of violence, and accommodation behavior. The women were also asked their opinions and attitudes about reporting rape to the authorities and disclosing rape to family members, peers, or other individuals. This includes questions about barriers to reporting and experiences that women have had being the recipient of a disclosure from a friend, relative, or other individual. The respondents were asked a series of questions about rape, including different types of forcible, drug- or alcohol-facilitated, and incapacitated rape. For women who endorsed one or more rape experiences, a wide range of rape characteristics were assessed including characteristics around the nature of the event, perpetrator-victim relationship, occurrence of injury, involvement of drugs or alcohol, receipt of medical care, and whether the rape was reported to the authorities. The respondents were also asked a series of questions regarding substance use, including prescription and illegal drugs and alcohol. Additionally, a series of questions related to post-traumatic stress disorder and depression were asked. Finally, the women were asked to provide basic demographic information such as age, race, ethnicity, and income.
Curated

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1994 (ICPSR 6949)

Released/updated on: 2013-06-20
Geographic coverage: United States
This series measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions include age at first use as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, cocaine (and crack), hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, alcohol, tobacco, anabolic steroids, nonmedical use of prescription-type psychotherapeutic drugs, and polysubstance use. Respondents were also asked about substance abuse treatment history, illegal activities, problems resulting from use of drugs, perceptions of the risks involved, and personal and family income sources and amounts. Questions on need for treatment for drug or alcohol use, criminal record, and needle-sharing were also included. A split sample design using two questionnaires was employed with the 1994 NHSDA. The 1994-A questionnaire is comparable to NHSDA questionnaires prior to 1994 and contains all of the core questions from previous NHSDAs. The 1994-B questionnaire, which includes new questions on access to care and mental health, incorporates significant changes from the previous questionnaires and can only be compared to NHSDA surveys in 1995 and beyond. The changes to the questionnaire were undertaken in order to facilitate respondent cooperation, enhance the clarity of questions, improve the accuracy of responses, and increase the reliability of measurements across survey years. In addition, a rural supplementary sample was included in 1994 to obtain substance abuse prevalence estimates for rural areas. Demographic data include gender, race, age, ethnicity, marital status, motor vehicle use, educational level, job status, income level, veteran status, and past and current household composition.