DOI: 10.3886/icpsr32282.v1
title: Research on Pathways to Desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Calendar Data, 2000-2010 [Restricted]
title: Version 1

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

Academic Achievement; 
Antisocial Activity; 
Community-Based Services; 
Contact With the Justice System; 
Court Monitoring; 
Gainful Activity; 
Head Injury; 
Living Situation; 
Making and Spending Money; 
Medication; 
Out of Community Placement; 
Romance; 
School; 
Each topical domain contains multiple reference periods for looking at the topic across the entire data collection period of the study.
Users who request these restricted data should first review the documentation available from NAHDAP (user guide and frequency codebooks) and from the Pathways Website (domain content codebooks). This review will help determine which specific datasets will be needed for your project. The "Research Description" in ICPSR's Data Access Request System (IDARS) must include a specific explanation of why you need each topic domain selected on the "Data Selection" page in IDARS. Most projects should only require one reference period per topic domain being requested. Data requests for all reference periods within a given domain will not be approved without a satisfactory explanation of why all of the reference periods are required for your project. Since the Calendar data collection is very extensive and Restricted Data Use Agreements are only for 2 years, data requests are not expected to need the entire Calendar data collection.
The Pathways to Desistance study was a multi-site study that followed 1,354 serious juvenile offenders from adolescence to young adulthood in two locales between the years 2000 and 2010. Enrolled into the study were adjudicated youths from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona (N=654) and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (N=700).Respondents were enrolled and baseline interviews conducted from November 2000 to January 2003. Follow-up interviews were then scheduled with the respondents at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, 60, 72 and 84 months past their baseline interview.The enrolled youth were at least 14 years old and under 18 years old at the time of their committing offense and were found guilty of a serious offense (predominantly felonies, with a few exceptions for some misdemeanor property offenses, sexual assault, or weapons offenses).
description: none
description: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of 
				disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major 
				statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to 
				these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:
			   		Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
description: Response Rates: 
					During the enrollment period (November 2000 to January 2003) 10,461 individuals who met the age and petitioned charge criteria were processed in the court systems in Philadelphia and Phoenix. In 5,382 of these cases (51 percent) the youth was found not guilty or had the charges reduced below a felony-level offense at adjudication. Another 1,272 cases were dropped (12 percent) from consideration because the court data were insufficient to determine the person's eligibility status at adjudication. 
Of the remaining 3,807 eligible cases 1,799 (47 percent) were excluded from consideration due to potential case overload of the local interviewer or the 15 percent threshold of drug offenders was close to being breached. This resulted in 2,008 youths who were approached for inclusion into the study. Of those youths who were approached 1,354 consented and participated (67 percent).Over the course of the 7-year follow-up period, there were 864 respondents (63.8 percent) were located and interviewed for 10 of 10 possible interviews. An additional 309 youths (22.8 percent) were located and interviewed for 8 or 9 out of 10 possible interviews. Conversely, there were 17 (1.3 percent) respondents who didn't participate in any additional surveys and another 22 (1.6 percent) who only were located and interviewed for just 1 or 2 follow-up of the 10 possible follow-up interviews. These numbers do not adjust for 91 participants who either died (n=48) or refused continued participation (n=43) of the study over the course of the 7-year follow-up period.Overall the study was able to achieve an average of 89.5 percent for each follow-up interview.
description: Datasets: 
					
						DS0: Study-Level Files
						DS1: Academic Achievement: By Recall Period
						DS2: Academic Achievement: By Year
						DS3: Antisocial Activities: By Linear Month
						DS4: Antisocial Activities: By Month
						DS5: Antisocial Activities: By Recall Period
						DS6: Community Based Services: By Linear Month
						DS7: Community Based Services: By Month
						DS8: Community Based Services: By Recall Period
						DS9: Contacts With the Justice System: By Linear Month
						DS10: Contacts With the Justice System: By Month
						DS11: Contacts With the Justice System: By Recall Period
						DS12: Court Monitoring Services: By Linear Month
						DS13: Court Monitoring Services: By Month
						DS14: Court Monitoring Services: By Recall Period
						DS15: Gainful Activity: By Linear Month
						DS16: Gainful Activity: By Month
						DS17: Gainful Activity: By Recall Period
						DS18: Gainful Activity: By Year
						DS19: Head Injury: By Linear Month
						DS20: Head Injury: By Month
						DS21: Living Calendar: By Linear Month
						DS22: Living Calendar: By Month
						DS23: Living Calendar: By Recall Period
						DS24: Living Calendar: By Year
						DS25: Living Calendar: By Location
						DS26: Making & Spending Money: By Linear Month
						DS27: Making & Spending Money: By Month
						DS28: Making & Spending Money: By Recall Period
						DS29: Making & Spending Money: By Year
						DS30: Making & Spending Money: By Job
						DS31: Medication: By Linear Month
						DS32: Medication: By Month
						DS33: Medication: By Recall Period
						DS34: Medication: By Medication
						DS35: Out of Community Placements: By Linear Month
						DS36: Out of Community Placements: By Month
						DS37: Out of Community Placements: By Recall Period
						DS38: Out of Community Placements: By Year
						DS39: Out of Community Placements: By Recall Period Facility
						DS40: Out of Community Placements: By Facility Stay
						DS41: Romance: By Linear Month
						DS42: Romance: By Month
						DS43: Romance: By Recall Period
						DS44: School: By Linear Month
						DS45: School: By Month
						DS46: School: By Recall Period
						DS47: School: By School
description: Research on Pathways to Desistance Series
description: record abstracts
					
										More information about this study is available on the Pathways to Desistance Web site.			
								
										Other contributors to the Pathways to Desistance study:

Carol A. Schubert, University of Pittsburgh (Study Director); 
Laurie Chassin, Ph.D., Arizona State University (Co-Investigator); 
George P. Knight, Ph.D., Arizona State University (Co-Investigator); 
Sandra Losoya, Ph.D., Arizona State University (Site Coordinator); 
Laurence Steinberg, Ph.D., Temple University (Co-Investigator); 
Robert Brame, Ph.D., University of North Carolina-Charlotte; 
Elizabeth Cauffman, Ph.D., University of California-Irvine (Co-Investigator); 
Jeffrey Fagan, Ph.D., Columbia University; 
Alex Piquero, Ph.D., Florida State University; 			
								
										A user guide is available that provides a general synopsis of how the individual files are organized and related, and also what is contained within each study part.			
								
										On the Pathways to Desistance Web site there is a section that goes into further detail about what is contained in the 13 domain content codebooks. Within the link for each domain there is a PDF document that provides further explanation of the variables for that specific calendar and the decision making process the Principal Investigators made.			
								
										Part #21, Living Calendar by Linear Month, and Part #23, Living Calendar by Recall Period, contain additional repeating variables that provide detailed geography information. Details of these five repeating variables are explained in the User Guide.			
								
										All variables with a date format were changed to be string variables. The two sets of variables S#QSTADAT (Start date of interview) for all files, and L#REALDATE (Calendar date mapped to linear month) or S#REALDATE## (Calendar date mapped to recall period month) for the By Linear Month and By Month files respectively also had the value labels and missing values designation removed. The formats of these variables should be changed back to a date format prior to use. Please consult the User Guide for additional information about the value labels for missing values.			
								
										The PDF codebooks for each data part follow the information contained in the User Guide. Bookmarks reflect major and sub-headings. For each section of the codebook decisions were made intentionally as to how the variables would be displayed. String, date, ID, and common repeating variables have their frequency tables suppressed. Categorical variables show the frequency table but do not contain summary statistics. Numerical variables will display summary statistics but have had the frequency table suppressed.
description: Youths 14-19 years of age from the juvenile and adult court systems in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona, and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania from November 2000 to April 2003.
				   		Smallest Geographic Unit: None
description: Six juvenile justice systems were examined for potential inclusion in the study.  Philadelphia County and Maricopa County (Phoenix) were selected as data collection sites for the following reasons:(a) high enough rates of serious crime committed by juveniles; (b) a diverse racial/ethnic mix of potential participants; (c) a sizable enough number of female offenders; (d) a contrast in the way the systems operate; (e) political support for the study and cooperation from the practitioners in the juvenile and criminal justice systems; and (f) the presence of experienced research collaborators to oversee the data collection.
Youth were selected for potential enrollment after a review of court files in each locale revealed that they had been adjudicated (found guilty) of a serious offense. Eligible crimes included all felony offenses with the exception of less serious property crimes, as well as misdemeanor weapons offenses and misdemeanor sexual assault.Drug offenses constitute a large proportion of all offenses committed by youth. And males comprise the vast majority of youth who are charged with drug offenses. Therefore the study instituted a capped proportion of males with drug offenses to 15 percent of the sample at each site. All females who met the age and adjudicated crime requirements, or any youth whose case was being considered for trial in the adult court system, were eligible for enrollment regardless if the charged crime was a drug offense.