Description & Citation--Study No. 2295 |
|
| ICPSR Study No.: | 2295 |
|---|
| |
|
Persistent URL:
| http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02295 |
|---|
| |
| Title: | California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA), 1991-1993 |
|---|
| |
| Alternate Title: | CALDATA, 1991-1993 |
|---|
| |
| Principal Investigator(s): | California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs |
|---|
| |
| Funding Agency: | California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs |
|---|
| |
| Grant Number: | 92-00110 |
|---|
| |
| Bibliographic Citation: | California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA), 1991-1993 [Computer File]. ICPSR02295-v2. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2008-10-07. doi:10.3886/ICPSR02295 |
|---|
| |
|
| Summary: | The California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment
(CALDATA) was designed to study the costs, benefits, and effectiveness
of the state's alcohol and drug treatment infrastructure (recovery
services) and specifically to assess (1) the effects of treatment on
participant behavior, (2) the costs of treatment, and (3) the economic
value of treatment to society. Data were collected on participants
(clients) across four types of treatment programs, or modalities:
residential, residential "social model," nonmethadone outpatient, and
outpatient methadone (detoxification and maintenance). Data were
collected in two phases. In Phase 1, treatment records were abstracted
for clients who received treatment or were discharged between October
1, 1991, and September 30, 1992. In Phase 2, these clients were
located and recruited for a follow-up interview. The CALDATA design
and procedures included elements from several national treatment
outcome studies including the Drug Services Research Survey (ICPSR
3393), Services Research Outcomes Study (ICPSR 2691), National
Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (ICPSR 2884), and Drug Abuse
Treatment Outcome Study (ICPSR 2258). The record abstract was designed
to collect identifying and locating information for interview
reference during the personal interviewing phase. The abstract also
collected demographic, drug, or alcohol use, and treatment and service
information. The follow-up questionnaire covered time periods before,
during, and after treatment and focused on topics such as ethnic and
educational background, drug and alcohol use, mental and physical
health, HIV and AIDS status, drug testing, illegal activities and
criminal status, living arrangements and family issues, employment and
income, and treatment for drug, alcohol, and mental health
problems. Drugs included alcohol, barbiturates, benzodiazepines,
cocaine powder, crack, downers, hallucinogens, heroin, illegal
methadone, inhalants, LSD, marijuana/hashish/THC, methamphetamines and
other stimulants, narcotics, over-the-counter drugs, PCP, ritalin or
preludin, and sedatives/hypnotics. CALDATA was originally known as the
California Outcomes Study (COS). |
|---|
| |
| Subject Term(s): | alcohol, cocaine, cost effectiveness, drug treatment, drugs, employment, hallucinogens, heroin, illegal activities, inhalants, intervention, marijuana, mental health, methadone, methadone maintenance, methamphetamines, physical health, program evaluation, substance abuse, substance abuse treatment, treatment costs, treatment programs |
|---|
| |
| Geographic Coverage: | California, United States |
|---|
| |
| Time Period: | 1991 - 1993 |
|---|
| |
| Date(s) of Collection: | September 1992 - December 1993 |
|---|
| |
| Unit of Observation: | individual, facility |
|---|
| |
| Universe: | All clients receiving recovery services in the four
treatment modalities included in the study from California-based
treatment providers known to the California Alcohol and Drug Data
System (CADDS) as of September 1992. The CADDS programs include all
providers who (1) received any type of public funding for treatment or
recovery services, (including grants, contracts, and MediCal
reimbursements) during the current or previous fiscal years, and (2)
are required to report to CADDS as a condition of state licensing. |
|---|
| |
| Data Type: | survey data |
|---|
| |
| Data Collection Notes: | The study was conducted by the National Opinion
Research Center at the University of Chicago and Lewin-VHI, Inc.,
Fairfax, Virginia, and Corte Madera, California. |
|---|
| |
|
| The original data
collection also included data on the treatment facilities. However,
these data are not being released, per the data producers. |
|---|
| |
|
| While
1,859 clients participated in the follow-up interview, 33 interviews
were completed too late to be included in the study's final report.
These cases are also excluded from the public use dataset, yielding a
total of 1,826 cases. |
|---|
| |
|
| Sample: | CALDATA employed a multistage stratified sample design
consisting of three stages. In the first stage, the state was
stratified geographically into four regions to ensure state-wide
coverage. Counties within these strata were randomly selected, with
large counties being selected with certainty and small counties being
clustered to provide sufficiently large sampling units. Selection
chances for the non-certainty counties were weighted based on the
number of participants. In the second stage of sampling, treatment
providers were selected using similar principles of geographically
balanced, size weighted random selection. In order to analyze each
treatment modality, approximately equal numbers of facilities were
selected across the modalities. As with counties, the smallest
providers were clustered to provide adequately sized sampling
units. In the third stage, client records were randomly chosen at each
sampled facility with the number varying by the size of the provider
and the extent to which the on-site listing of clients matched the
number expected for that provider. Approximately 3,000 clients were
selected for abstraction. Of these, 1,859 were recruited for the
follow-up interview. |
|---|
| |
| Weight: | PADJ_WTD should be used as the default sampling weight for analyses. |
|---|
| |
| Data Source: | personal interviews and record abstractions |
|---|
| |
|
| administrative record abstractions and personal
interviews |
|---|
| |
| Response Rates: | The overall CALDATA participant response rates are
approximately 50 percent for the discharge sample and approximately 46
percent for the continuing methadone maintenance (CMM) sample.
Response rates by modality in cooperating providers range from 56-61
percent, with the exception of methadone maintenance (76.5 percent). |
|---|
| |
| Extent of Processing: | Performed consistency checks. |
|---|
| |
|
| Standardized missing values. |
|---|
| |
|
| Created online analysis version with question text. |
|---|
| |
|
| Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables. |
|---|
| |
|
| Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes. |
|---|
| |
|
| Note: | A list of the data formats available for this study can be found in the
summary of holdings. Detailed file-level information (such as record length, case count, and variable count) is listed in the
file manifest. |
|---|
| |
| Restrictions: | Users are reminded that these data are to be used
solely for statistical analysis and reporting of aggregated
information and not for the investigation of specific individuals or
organizations. |
|---|
| |
| Original ICPSR Release: | 2004-02-11 |
|---|
| |
| Version History: | The last update of this study occurred on 2008-10-07. |
|---|
| |
|
| 2008-10-07 - New files were added. These files included one or more of the following: Stata setup, SAS transport (CPORT), SPSS system, Stata system, SAS supplemental syntax, and Stata supplemental syntax files, and a tab-delimited ASCII data file. |
|---|
| |
| Dataset(s): | - DS1: California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA), 1991-1993
|
|---|
| |
