DOI: 10.3886/icpsr27942.v1
title: Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): Performance Indicators for Corrections (PIC), 2002-2006 [United States]
title: Version 1

description: In 2002, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) funded the Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS) cooperative agreement. The Institute of Behavioral Research at Texas Christian University (TCU) was one of nine National Research Centers selected to study current drug treatment practices and outcomes in correctional settings and to examine strategies for improving treatment services for drug-involved offenders. The specific aims of the PIC study were to: Cross sectionally test and adapt the TCU CJ-CEST, BOP, and NDRI CAI assessments for use in multiple correctional settings;; To examine agency and program records of client progress relevant to treatment process; and to; Revise the assessments as necessary for use in longitudinal assessment protocols and CJ Management Information Systems (MIS).; During the first data collection period, Wave 1, a total of 3,266 inmates were surveyed from research centers based out of Texas Christian University, the University of Delaware, the University of Kentucky, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and the National Development and Research Institute (NDRI). After psychometrics were run and the forms revised slightly, a second administration took place but this time only at two centers (TCU and Delaware). During Wave 2 a total of 1,421 clients participated in the survey.
description: Given the limited availability of treatment for offenders with substance abuse problems, it is critical that correctional systems optimize the benefits from their treatment programs and evaluate which components have the greatest impact on effecting psychosocial, cognitive, and behavioral change. A key objective of this project was the establishment of science-based evidence for the role of corrections-based treatment in reducing drug use and crime-related costs to society.
description: Neither part contains a weight variable.
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.; Created online analysis version with question text.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
description: Presence of Common Scales: TCU Criminal Justice Client Evaluation of Self and Treatment (CJ-CEST): 130 items comprising 17 scales across 4 domains; Bureau of Prison's Criminal Thinking Scale (BOP): 56 items comprising 7 scales; NDRI Client Assessment Inventory for Correction Populations (CAI): 103 items comprising 14 scales across 4 domains;
description: Datasets: 
 
 DS0: Study-Level Files 
 DS1: Wave 1 
 DS2: Wave 2
description: Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS) Series
description: self-enumerated questionnaire, on-site questionnaire 
 Special Collaborators on this study in addition to Texas Christian University were the: National Development and Research Institutes; University of California, Los Angeles; University of Delaware; University of Kentucky;  
 For additional information about TCU's work on the CJ-DATS program please refer to TCU's Institute of Behavioral Research CJ-DATS page. An additional resource for further information is the National Institute on Drug Abuse Web site for CJ-DATS. 
 The only demographic variables collected during Wave 1 were gender, age, and race. During Wave 2 an additional section was added to the survey instrument for respondents to fill out that delved further into a person's demographics and background. 
 A few demographic / background variables were modified to help protect the confidentiality of the study participants. AGE: Collapsed into categories; RACE: Smaller categories combined together; EDUCYRS: Top- and bottom-coded; JAILNUM: Top-coded; MOSINTRT: Top-coded; Please note that of this list only AGE and RACE apply to Wave 1. Also of note, the variable RACE was not asked by the principal investigator exactly the same across the two waves. 
 The PIC is comprised of three scale components: Client Evaluation of Self and Treatment (CEST), Bureau of Prison's Criminal Thinking Scale (BOP), and the Client Assessment Inventory (CAI). Each of the three scales is comprised of smaller scales. At the end of each small, indidividual scale a mean scale score was calculated. Some of the individual variables within a scale were reverse coded as part of the calculation. The question text for the mean scale score variables includes the designation "(R)" for those items that were reverse coded. However, the individual variables themselves have not been reverse coded. 
 Both waves use the same CEST and BOP scales. In the questionnaire files the CEST is listed as Part I. The BOP Criminal Thinking Scales is listed as Part II. Scoring instructions for the CEST and BOP are provided at the end of each questionnaire file. 
 The principal investigator did not compute a mean scale score for the following scales for Wave 2: Self Efficacy (CEST), Social Consciousness (CEST), and Street Values (BOP). Wave 1 does contain a mean scale score variable for these three scales however. 
 The Client Assessment Inventory (CAI) was only used during Wave 1. However, it was not included as part of the survey administration for most of the cases from the TCU center during Wave 1. Scoring instructions for the CAI were not provided by the principal investigator. The CAI was not included as part of the survey during Wave 2.
description: Adult prison and jail population in the United States between the years 2002 and 2006.
description: To participate a research center had to meet the following three criteria. Access to at least 3 corrections based drug treatment programs (one of which had to serve women), ideally of varying settings.; Ability to identify and obtain institutional program records on at least 50 offenders from each treatment program.; Ability to implement the assessment cross-sectionally within each participating program.; From within a participating treatment program subjects were recruited and asked to voluntarily participate. Recruitment was not predicated upon how long the person had been in the treatment program. Clients were informed that their responses would be used to help make the assessment more useful and to provide feedback about their treatment experience (as a group) to program administrators.