Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS) 2: Organizational Process Improvement Intervention (OPII), 2010-2013 [United States],Version 2,

The Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies 2 (CJ-DATS 2) was launched in 2008 with a focus on conducting implementation research in criminal justice settings. NIDA's ultimate goal for CJ-DATS 2 was to identify implementation strategies that maximize the likelihood of sustained delivery of evidence-based practices to improve offender drug abuse and HIV outcomes, and to decrease their risk of incarceration. The Organizational Process Improvement Intervention (OPII) study (aka Assessment study) focused on implementing assessment and treatment planning processes. Screening and assessment were used to identify substance abuse-related problems and to develop programming to address the problems so identified. The OPII study engaged corrections and treatment agencies to improve the quality of interagency communication through the effective use of assessment and case planning processes and treatment referrals. Both inter-agency and intra-agency change processes were targeted. A multi-phase implementation protocol was used, wherein agencies engaged in team development, needs assessment, planning, implementation, and sustainability in distinct steps. Early- and delayed-start sites allowed the research team to control for effects of environmental changes within states. The protocol targeted critical communications channels between otherwise often highly segregated correctional and treatment agencies. Evaluation of the OPII used a multi-site cluster randomized design with multiple measures over the course of the intervention. Clusters consisted of a criminal justice agency and one or more community treatment providers that received referrals from that criminal justice agency. Each of the 9 centers had two clusters (one had three), and each cluster was randomized to an Early-Start or a Delayed-Start condition with multiple measures over the course of the intervention. After randomization, the Early-Start sites began the OPII, while the Delayed-Start sites conducted business as usual, without any additional intervention. After approximately 12 months, or when the Early-Start change team completed the Implementation phase, the Delayed-Start change team began to carry out the protocol. Throughout the study period different subsets of individuals working at correctional facilities and treatment programs at the study sites were asked to complete surveys. During the Baseline period of the study survey data were collected from correctional staff, correctional directors, treatment staff, treatment directors, correctional executives and treatment executives. These data can be found in (DS1-DS12). The executive respondents provided information at the organizational level for the programs they oversaw (DS5, DS6). Next, Needs Assessments were completed by the change teams and their facilitators (DS13-DS14). The change teams and facilitators also responded to surveys on Process Improvement Planning (DS15-DS19). During the Implementation stage, surveys were administered to select substance abuse treatment programs, change team facilitators, change team members and the immediate supervisors of the change team members (DS20-DS27). Selected correctional and treatment staff members (in the Early-Start sites only) were asked to complete Follow-up surveys at the end of the OPII process (DS28-DS33). Staff members who completed surveys also provided demographic data (DS36-DS41). DS42 is a restricted use version of DS41. Change team members kept track of the time they spent on OPII activities (DS35). Change team success was evaluated by a subset of raters (DS34).Surveys were administered at 21 study sites and there was a total of over 2,700 survey respondents.,The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of process improvement steps taken in correctional and substance abuse treatment settings to enhance assessments of substance abusing offenders, case plan development, transfer of information to community-based treatment agencies, and the monitoring of services provided by community based treatment agencies. In each domain, grantees were to focus on organizational and system-level implementation strategies, and to engage both community corrections and community-based treatment providers in a process that would leverage key facilitators, address barriers, and jointly address the public safety concerns of criminal justice agencies with the public health goals of NIDA and the community-based treatment partners. Specifically, NIDA charged the cooperative with testing implementation strategies that could result in sustained uptake and delivery of services in three domains: (1) delivery of medication-assisted treatment for offenders transitioning to the community; (2) delivery of an HIV continuum of care (i.e., screening and counseling, risk reduction interventions, and continuity of antiretroviral treatment from prison or jail into the community); and (3) implementation of screening and assessment processes to identify offenders with drug abuse and related health problems and to inform their treatment planning and re-entry process.,The OPII study engaged corrections and treatment agencies to improve interagency communication through the effective use of assessments, case plans and treatment referrals. Inter-agency and intra-agency change processes were targeted. A multi-phase implementation protocol was used, wherein agencies engaged in team development, needs assessment, planning, implementation, and sustainability in distinct steps. Early- and delayed-start sites allowed the research team to control for effects of environmental changes within states. The protocol targeted critical communications channels between otherwise often highly segregated correctional and treatment agencies. Evaluation of the OPII used a multi-site cluster randomized design with multiple measures over the course of the intervention. Clusters consisted of a criminal justice agency and one or more community treatment providers that received referrals from that criminal justice agency. Each of the 9 centers had two clusters (one had three), and each cluster was randomized to an Early-Start or a Delayed-Start condition with multiple measures over the course of the intervention. After randomization, the Early-Start sites began the OPII, while the Delayed-Start sites conducted business as usual, without any additional intervention. After approximately 12 months, or when the Early-Start change team completed the Implementation phase, the Delayed-Start change team began to carry out the protocol. The OPII study was conducted in 5 phases. Each phase had a planned duration as indicated below; however, the actual duration of each phase varied across sites. The phases were planned as follows: (1) Team Development (1-2 months); (2) Needs Assessment (3-4 months); (3) Process Improvement Planning (3-4 months); (4) Implementation (6 months); and (5) Follow-Up/Sustainability (6 months). LCT members were surveyed in all 5 phases.,There are no weight variables associated with the data files.,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: Created online analysis version with question text.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..,Presence of Common Scales: There were many psychometric measures used in this study. See the study user guide for more information.,Datasets:

DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Baseline Survey of Organizational Characteristics Correctional Director (BSOC CD)
DS2: Baseline Survey of Organizational Characteristics Correctional Officer (BSOC CO)
DS3: Baseline Survey of Organizational Characteristics Treatment Director (BSOC TD)
DS4: Baseline Survey of Organizational Characteristics Treatment Staff (BSOC TS)
DS5: Baseline Survey of Organizational Characteristics Executive Corrections (BSOC EXC)
DS6: Baseline Survey of Organizational Characteristics Executive Treatment (BSOC EXT)
DS7: Community Provider Assessment of Conveyance and Use of Case Plans (Baseline Phase)
DS8: Goal Commitment (Baseline Phase)
DS9: Management Support - Change Team Version (Baseline Phase)
DS10: Management Support - Management Version (Baseline Phase)
DS11: Staff Perceptions of Assessment Process (Baseline Phase)
DS12: Assessment and Recommendations for Treatment Rating Form (ART RF)
DS13: Working Alliance -Change Team version (Needs Assessment Phase)
DS14: Working Alliance -Facilitator version (Needs Assessment Phase)
DS15: Goal Commitment (Process Improvement Planning Phase)
DS16: Management Support-Change Team version (Process Improvement Planning Phase)
DS17: Management Support-Management version (Process Improvement Planning Phase)
DS18: Staff Satisfaction-Change Team version (Process Improvement Planning Phase)
DS19: Staff Satisfaction-Management version (Process Improvement Planning Phase)
DS20: Community Provider Assessment of Conveyance and Use of Case Plans (Implementation Phase)
DS21: Management Support - Change Team version (Implementation Phase)
DS22: Management Support -Management version (Implementation Phase)
DS23: Staff Satisfaction - Change Team version (Implementation Phase)
DS24: Staff Satisfaction - Management version (Implementation Phase)
DS25: Staff Perceptions of Assessment Process (Implementation Phase)
DS26: Working Alliance - Change Team version (Implementation Phase)
DS27: Working Alliance - Facilitator version (Implementation Phase)
DS28: Community Provider Assessment of Conveyance and Use of Case Plans (Follow-up Phase)
DS29: Services Coordination Correctional Director (CD) (Follow-up Phase)
DS30: Services Coordination Correctional Officers (CO) (Follow-up Phase)
DS31: Services Coordination Treatment Director (TD) (Follow-up Phase)
DS32: Services Coordination Treatment Staff (TS) (Follow-up Phase)
DS33: Staff Perceptions of Assessment Process (Follow-up Phase)
DS34: Success Indicator Ratings
DS35: Local Change Team Time Report
DS36: Demographics Original
DS37: Demographics Correctional Director (CD)
DS38: Demographics Correctional Officer (CO)
DS39: Demographics Treatment Director (TD)
DS40: Demographics Treatment Staff (TS)
DS41: Change Team Members and Demographics
DS42: Change Team Members and Demographics [Restricted],record abstracts, paper and pencil interview (PAPI), on-site questionnaire
ICPSR recoded site, center and respondent ID variables to protect respondent confidentiality.
ICPSR top and/or bottom coded some variables to protect respondent confidentiality. See the codebook notes for further information.
ICPSR recoded or removed some variables for the public-use version of Dataset 41. The unaltered data are available as a restricted-use file. See restrictions field for more information. NAHDAP provides a tutorial on completing the online restricted-use data application.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) both transferred funds to The National Institute on Drug Abuse for this project. However, there are not specific grant numbers associated with BJS or SAMHSA.,Correctional and substance abuse treatment staff, directors and programs in 10 states within the United States.,Each CJDATS research center recruited two correctional agencies. Each correctional agency had 1 or more community treatment providers. Correctional settings included prisons, probation and parole units. There are 10 sites (clusters) in each study condition, for a total of 21 study sites. Note that although there were 9 CJDATS Research Centers, one Center had two sets of study sites, while another Center had a total of three study sites. The remaining seven research centers fielded one cluster each, with two study sites per cluster. Staff members participating in the Local Change Teams (LCT) included representatives from both community-based treatment and correctional agencies. Each LCT included 6-10 staff members. The total number of LCT members was 231. LCT members were the main participants in the study; however, non-LCT member staff were included in the administration of some of the surveys.,