This study investigates the relationship between mental disorder and violent behavior. Detailed interviews were conducted with inmates in the North Carolina prison system. Each respondent was given a psychological assessment using the Diagnostic Interview Schedule, Version III. Conditions of particular interest were schizophrenia, mood disorders (depression and dysthymia), traumatic stress disorder, and alcohol disorders. The data supply information on the respondent's criminal history, psychological status at the time of interview, and history of rule infractions while incarcerated for the current offense. In addition to the psychological assessment, questions were also asked covering areas of general health status, criminal history, and drug and alcohol use. Demographic information includes age, education, marital status, and race.

The study developed and tested the Brief Mental Health Screening Tool to enhance the identification of psychiatric disorders among adult detainees. Participants were randomly recruited within 24 to 72 hours of entering State-run jails in Connecticut. In the first phase, participants completed a 25-minute screening interview, after which 20 percent of the participants were asked to complete a longer interview 1 week later to establish a more detailed account of Axis I and Axis II psychiatric disorders and psychosocial functioning. In a second phase, the new Brief Mental Health Screening Tool was tested and validated on a new sample of participants.

This study is largely exploratory and observational, with the main goals to understand (a) how cognitions change across time, (b) which cognitions are related to each other, and (c) which cognition measures are related to recidivism. Employing a two-phase program of research, this study sought to answer several research questions about the relationship between cognitions and desistance from crime: What cognitions do probationers self-identify as key beliefs that motivate their desire to desist from crime? What are the psychometric properties of newly developed standardized measures designed to assess desistance cognitions? Do probationers differ in their crime and desistance cognitions and, on average, do these cognitions change across time? How are crime and desistance cognitions related to official-record assessment and outcome data? Specifically, are there associations between self-reported cognitions and risk and strength factors rated by supervision officers? Do crime and desistance cognitions predict future revocations and arrests as hypothesized by rational choice, correctional psychology, and / or desistance theories? Variables include offender's self-report of their personal perception on the costs and benefits of crime, costs and benefits of attempting to stay crime-free, attitudes, impulsive traits, and emotions. A demographic variable is available: participant gender.

This data collection consists of the SPSS syntax used to recode existing variables and create new variables from the SURVEY OF INMATES OF LOCAL JAILS, 1996 [ICPSR 6858] and the SURVEY OF INMATES IN STATE AND FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, 1997 [ICPSR 2598]. Using the data from these two national surveys on jail and prison inmates, this study sought to expand the analyses of these data in order to fully explore the relationship between type and intensity of substance abuse and other health and social problems, analyze access to treatment and services, and make estimates of the need for different types of treatment services in correctional systems.

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

This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the structured substance abuse treatment program at Barrett Juvenile Correction Center in Virginia by comparing the outcomes of youth admitted to Barrett with the outcomes of youth who were eligible for admittance to Barrett but were detained at one of the traditional juvenile correctional centers in Virginia. The effectiveness of Barrett's program was also assessed by comparing the outcomes of youth who were admitted to Barrett but who differed according to how many of the four phases of treatment, focused on modifying negative attitudes and behaviors, they completed. Barrett differs from the six other juvenile correctional centers in Virginia in that it provides a highly structured substance abuse treatment program to all admitted youth. Youth are considered for admission to Barrett if they are male, aged 11 to 18, have a sentence of six to 18 months, and have a recommended or mandatory need for substance abuse treatment as determined by the Reception and Diagnostic Center (RDC), which assesses youths' needs prior to sentencing. Barrett's treatment program takes a therapeutic community approach, which emphasizes altering negative attitudes and behaviors through the completion of four sequential phases of treatment. In contrast, the goal of the traditional institutions was to achieve public safety while meeting the disciplinary, medical, recreational, and treatment needs of the youth. These facilities offered some treatment programs but only on an "as needed" basis. The sample for this study consists of all 412 youth released from Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center from July 1, 1998, to June 30, 2000, and a matched sample of 406 youth released from other juvenile correctional centers in Virginia during the same period. The treatment staff at Barrett submitted information on youths' treatment progress at the time of discharge. The RDC provided demographic, criminal history, and assessment information for all youths. The Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice provided information concerning actual time served and recidivism at the juvenile level. The Virginia State Police supplied additional recidivism data, including information on adult recidivism. Parole officers also provided data on recidivism and on progress toward meeting the conditions of parole. Demographic variables included in the dataset are race of the offender and his age at commitment. Clinical variables for Barrett youth only are Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) and Intelligence Quotient (IQ) scores, total number of categories for which the youth scored yes on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV), the length of the sentence, whether the youth had a recommended or mandatory need for substance abuse treatment, and the highest phase of treatment completed. Parole officers supplied data at three, six, and 12 months after release on whether they judged youths to be currently using a substance and whether youths were meeting the conditions of parole. These conditions included curfew, counseling services, educational programs, the employment requirement, and the electronic monitoring requirement. Also included are arrests and substance-related charges as reported by the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, the Virginia State Police, and parole officers. A variable for total reconvictions is included as well.

This study evaluated program design, quality of treatment delivery, and program effectiveness of three separate state sponsored alcohol specific treatment programs in prisons located in Montana, Ohio, and Texas from 2006 to 2012.

This study evaluated the Mental Illness-Chemical Abuse (MICA) Program at Oshkosh Correctional Institution in Wisconsin. MICA is a residential substance abuse treatment program that consists of three stages: (1) an 8- to 12-month residential therapeutic community stage, (2) an institutional aftercare stage, and (3) a community aftercare stage. This outcome study documented important aspects of program implementation and effectiveness. It included all 141 inmates admitted to MICA between October 1997 and March 2000. A control group comprised of 66 inmates who were too close to their mandatory release dates to participate in the program but who were otherwise eligible was also included. Data were gathered from Department of Corrections administrative records regarding admissions information, assessment results, institutional behavior, institutional placement and services after program completion or exit, and recidivism. MICA staff provided information on treatment progress, behavior, and mental health status. MICA outreach specialists provided three-month post-release data on community outcomes for MICA graduates. Parole agents provided three-month post-release data on parole compliance and recidivism for all study participants. Variables include assessment results, institutional services received, history of incarceration, urinalysis testing, changes in mental health status and program behavior throughout treatment, clinical test results, conduct reports, institutional placement and services after MICA, whether the individual had appropriate resources upon release to the community, parole status, recidivism, mental health and chemical use status after release, support services provided by MICA staff after release, and other support services received after release.

This study was undertaken to investigate the relationship, if any, between drug treatment and success or failure of drug-involved offenders on probation/community supervision. Further, the researchers sought to evaluate the outcomes of drug-involved offenders admitted to (1) secure residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) programs, (2) non-secure residential drug treatment programs, (3) non-residential drug treatment programs, and (4) no drug treatment programs. Data were collected from administrative records provided by the Florida Department of Corrections, specifically case history records of offenders admitted to supervision in the community from July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1997. Part 1 is comprised of all cases admitted to community supervision between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993 (fiscal years 1991 and 1992) and treated in a secure residential drug treatment program. Part 2 is comprised of all cases admitted to community supervision from July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1995, receiving treatment in a non-secure residential drug treatment program. Part 3 contains data on offenders admitted to non-residential drug treatment programs, whose community supervision admissions were between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993. Part 4 contains data on offenders admitted to non-residential drug treatment programs, whose community supervision admissions were between July 1, 1993, and June 30, 1995 (fiscal years 1993 and 1994). Part 5 contains data on cases admitted to community supervision between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993, who did not receive drug treatment of any kind. Cases admitted to community supervision between July 1, 1993, and June 20, 1995, receiving no drug treatment are contained in Part 6. Each supervision admission record contains a history of subsequent court actions that were complete through December 31, 1997. Variables for all parts include population estimates, unemployment rates, population by age-specific categories, violent and nonviolent index offenses, per capita personal income, clearance rates, split sentence flag, primary offense disposition, primary offense felony level, current commitment years supervised, supervision type, whether current offense included a drug charge, number of prior supervision terms, number of prior commitments, reasons for failure, treatment facility code, number of drug sale/traffic offenses, outcome of supervision period, and reasons for prison intake. Demographic variables include race and gender.

This project examined the problem behaviors of maltreated children and adolescents and the predictors of changes in behavior over an 18-month period. Problem behaviors included aggression, delinquency, risky sexual practices, substance abuse, and suicidal behaviors. The project used data from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW), a national probability survey of children assessed following a child maltreatment report. This collection consists of SAS code used to produce subsets of the NSCAW data and the analyses for three chapters of the project's final report. Chapter 2 examined aggression and changes in behavior over 18 months for children aged six to ten years at the time of the baseline interview. Chapter 3 examined self-reported delinquency and caregiver-reported aggressive and delinquent behavior and changes in behavior over 18 months for youth aged 11 to 15 years at the time of the baseline interview. Chapter 4 examined risky behavior changes (risky sexual behavior, substance abuse, and suicidal risk behavior) over 18 months for youth aged 11 to 15 years at the time of the baseline interview.