Summary: | The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM)
Program/Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Series is an expanded and
redesigned version of the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program, which
was upgraded methodologically and expanded to 35 cities in 1998. The
redesign was fully implemented beginning in the first quarter of 2000
using new sampling procedures that improved the quality and
generalizability of the data. The DUF program began in 1987 and was
designed to estimate the prevalence of drug use among persons in the
United States who are arrested and booked, and to detect changes in
trends in drug use among this population. The DUF program was a
nonexperimental survey of drug use among adult male and female
arrestees. In addition to supplying information on self-reported drug
use, arrestees also provide a urine specimen, which is screened for
the presence of ten illicit drugs. Between 1987 and 1997 the DUF
program collected information in 24 sites across the United States,
although the number of data collection sites varied slightly from year
to year. Data collection took place four times a year (once each
calendar quarter) in each site and selection criteria and catchment
areas (central city or county) varied from site to site. The original
DUF interview instrument (used for the 1987-1994 data and part of the
1995 data) elicited information about the use of 22 drugs. A modified
DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of
the 1996-1999 data) included detailed questions about each arrestee's
use of 15 drugs. Juvenile data were added in 1991. The ADAM program,
redesigned from the DUF program, moved to a probability-based sampling
for the adult male population during 2000. The shift to sampling of
the adult male population in 2000 required that all 35 sites move to a
common catchment area, the county. The ADAM program also implemented a
new and expanded adult instrument in the first quarter of 2000, which
was used for both the male and female data. The term "arrestee" is
used in the documentation, but because no identifying data are
collected in the interview setting, the data represent numbers of
arrests rather than an unduplicated count of persons
arrested. |
|---|