Metadata record for Drug Use Forecasting in 24 Cities in the United States, 1987-1997

Drug Use Forecasting in 24 Cities in the United States, 1987-1997 United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research ICPSR 1998-07-15 9477 doi://10.3886/ICPSR09477.v2

The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program measures levels of and trends in drug use among persons arrested and booked in the United States. The data address the following topics: (1) types of drugs used by arrestees (based on self-reports and urinalysis), (2) self-reported dependency on drugs, (3) self-reported need for alcohol/drug treatment, (4) the relationship between drug use and certain types of offenses, and (5) the relationship between self-reported indicators of drug use and indicators of drug use based on urinalysis. Participation in the project is voluntary, and all information collected from the arrestees is anonymous and confidential. The data include the arrestee's age, race, gender, educational attainment, marital status, and the charge at the time of booking. The recently modified DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of the 1996 and 1997 data) also collected information about the arrestee's use of 15 drugs, including recent and past use (e.g., 3-day and 30-day drug use) of each of these drugs, age at first use, and whether the arrestee had ever been dependent on drugs. In the original DUF interview instrument (used for the 1987 to 1994 data and part of the 1995 data), the information collected was the same as above except that the use of 22 drugs was queried, and the age at which the arrestee first became dependent on the drug was included. Arrestees also were questioned in the original instrument about their history of intravenous drug use, whether the consideration of AIDS influenced whether they shared needles, history of drug and alcohol treatment, their past and current drug treatment needs, and how many persons they had sex with during the past 12 months. Finally, arrestees were asked to provide a urine specimen, which was screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography). The Gun Addendum Data (Parts 27, 35, and 37) contain variables on topics such as arrestees' encounters with guns, whether they agreed or disagreed with statements about guns, gun possession, how they obtained handgun(s), whether they were armed with a gun at their arrest or during crimes, and if they had ever used a gun against another person. The Heroin Addendum Data, 1995 (Part 29) contains information that was formerly covered in the main annual file in 1992-1994, but in 1995 was revised and prepared as a separate dataset.

UniverseScheme09477 Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program/Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Series For more information on the series, please go to http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/ICPSR/series/00110. Organization09477_1 OJP-89-C-008

The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program 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. Research addressing the prevalence of drug use typically does not include the population of offenders and therefore may underestimate levels of drug use in the United States. The DUF program makes an important contribution to research on the prevalence of drug use by sampling persons who are not sampled by other surveys of drug use. Moreover, the DUF data provide important information that may be used by law enforcement and drug treatment officials to allocate resources, design prevention strategies, and gauge the impact of local efforts to reduce drug use. The following is a sample of the questions addressed by the data: What types of drugs do arrestees use? Among arrestees reporting drug use, how many report that they are dependent on drugs? To what extent do arrestees report a need for alcohol/drug treatment? Is the likelihood of drug use greater for persons arrested for certain types of offenses? Finally, what is the relationship between self-reported drug use and indicators of drug use based on urinalysis?

ICPSR.XVII.E NAHDAP.I NACJD.XI ADAM/DUF Program alcohol abuse criminal histories crime patterns demographic characteristics drug dependence drug law offenses drug offenders drug related crimes drug testing drug use gun use handguns recidivism prediction substance abuse trends urinalysis United States 1987-06 1997-12 Individual arrestees. survey data, clinical data, and administrative records data Booked arrestees in 24 sites in the United States.

The DUF program is a nonexperimental survey of drug use among arrestees. In addition to supplying information on self-reported drug use, at the conclusion of the interview arrestees are asked to provide a urine specimen which is screened for the presence of ten illicit drugs. Between 1987 and 1997 the DUF program has collected information about drug use among arrestees in 24 sites across the United States, although the number of data collection sites varies slightly from year to year (see the description of the sample below). Samples of arrestees for the DUF program are drawn from booking facilities within each of the following sites and thus are limited to the types of arrestees booked at these facilities. In 11 sites (Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Kansas City, Omaha, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Washington, DC), the catchment area represents the central city (Kansas City ceased being a DUF site after 1992). In ten additional sites (Dallas, Ft. Lauderdale, Indianapolis, Miami, New Orleans, Manhattan [New York City], Phoenix, Portland, San Antonio, and San Jose), the catchment area is the county, parish, or borough. The city of Denver is Denver County and its entirety, and the city of St. Louis is also a county. The catchment area for Los Angeles includes part of the city and part of the county, and in Birmingham and San Diego the catchment area includes the entire central city and part of the county. Each quarter, trained local staff at these sites obtain voluntary and anonymous urine specimens from detained arrestees who have been in a booking facility for not more than 48 hours. The number of persons interviewed and the demographic composition of those interviewed varies somewhat across the 24 sites that have participated in the DUF program. On average, each site attempts to obtain a sample of 225 adult males per quarter. Data are collected from about 100 adult females each quarter at 21 of the 24 sites. Each quarter, 12 sites collect data from juvenile males and 8 collect data from juvenile females. Sites in which juveniles are interviewed attempt to obtain samples of 100 boys and 100 girls, although in many sites these quotas are not met due to the small number of juvenile arrestees from which to draw samples. The following procedures govern data collection in the DUF program. Male arrestees are selected by charge according to the following order of priority: (1) nondrug felony charges, (2) nondrug misdemeanor charges, (3) drug felony charges, and (4) drug misdemeanor charges. Males arrested for the following minor offenses are not sampled: vagrancy, loitering, or traffic violations (including driving while intoxicated). An exception to these general procedures is Omaha, where all arrestees are surveyed. In order to obtain a sufficient sample of adult female arrestees and juvenile arrestees, all adult female arrestees and all juvenile male and female arrestees are surveyed regardless of the nature of the crime for which they have been arrested. Individuals arrested on new charges who also have outstanding warrants are selected only on the basis of the new charge's position in the priority list, and the outstanding warrants are not considered. In addition to these selection criteria, sites are requested to survey no more than 20 percent of adult males arrested for drug offenses. To remain within the limit, the proportion of drug offenders interviewed is calculated each evening of data collection.

None. The data were collected from booked arrestees as follows. 1987 data: 2,993 males at 11 sites, 516 females at 5 sites. 1988 data: 10,554 males at 20 sites, 3,261 females at 14 sites. 1989 data: 16,186 males and 5,804 females at 21 sites. 1990 data: 20,556 males at 23 sites, 7,769 females at 21 sites. 1991 data: 22,335 adult males at 24 sites, 8,330 adult females at 21 sites. 1992 data: 22,265 adult males at 24 sites, 8,322 adult females at 21 sites. 1993 data: 20,551 adult males at 23 sites, 8,139 adult females at 21 sites. 1994 data: 20,015 adult males at 23 sites, 7,839 adult females at 21 sites, 4,558 juvenile males at 12 sites, 734 juvenile females at 8 sites. Part 1 Survey, 1995, data: 11,374 adult males at 23 sites, 4,474 adult females at 21 sites, 2,483 juvenile males at 12 sites, 412 juvenile females at 7 sites. Part 2 Survey, 1995, data: 9,364 adult males at 22 sites, 3,592 adult females at 20 sites, 1,810 juvenile males at 10 sites, 242 juvenile females at 5 sites. 1996 data: 19,835 adult males at 23 sites, 7,532 adult females at 21 sites, 4,145 juvenile males at 12 sites, 645 juvenile females at 7 sites. 1997 data: 19,736 adult males at 23 sites, 7,547 adult females at 21 sites, 3,686 juvenile males at 12 sites, 647 juvenile females at 8 sites. arrest records, personal interviews, and urine specimens 1987-06 1997-12

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:

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Approximately 90 percent of eligible arrestees agreed to be interviewed. Of those who consented to the interview, approximately 80 percent provided a urine specimen. The dataset includes only those persons who both agreed to be interviewed and provided a urine specimen.

The data include the age, race, sex, educational attainment, marital status, employment status, and living circumstances of a sample of persons arrested and booked in the United States. The recently modified DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of the 1996 and 1997 data), also included detailed questions about each arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs. The original DUF interview instrument (used for the 1987 to 1994 data and part of the 1995 data) elicited information about the use of 22 drugs and the age at which the arrestee first became dependent on the drug. For each drug type, arrestees were asked whether they had ever used the drug, the age at which they first used the drug, whether they had used the drug within the past three days, how many days they had used the drug with the past month, whether they had ever needed or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were dependent on the drug at the time of the interview. Data from the new interview instrument also include information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs and whether they were influenced by drugs when the police said they committed the crimes for which they were arrested. The data also include information about whether the arrestee had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether he or she had prior arrests in the last 12 months. Data from the DUF original interview instrument also include information about arrestees' preferred method for using cocaine, how much money arrestees spend on drugs in an average week, how many persons they had sex with during the past 12 months, whether they ever injected drugs, whether they injected drugs within the past six months, whether they ever shared needles, whether they shared needles within the past six months, and whether the consideration of AIDS influenced whether they shared needles. Data from both versions of the DUF interview provide information about each arrestee's history of drug/alcohol treatment, including whether they ever received drug/alcohol treatment and whether they needed drug/alcohol treatment. In addition to the survey, a urine specimen provided by the arrestee was screened (by the drug testing system EMIT) for the following ten drug types: marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines. All positive results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography to eliminate positives that may be caused by over-the-counter drugs. Finally, the following variables included in the data were collected for use by local law enforcement officials at each site: precinct (precinct of arrest) and law (penal law code associated with the crime for which the subject was arrested). The Gun Addendum Data (Parts 27, 35, and 37) contain variables on topics such as arrestees' encounters with guns, whether they agreed or disagreed with statements about guns, gun possession, how they obtained handgun(s), whether they were armed with a gun at their arrest or during crimes, and if they had ever used a gun against another person. The Heroin Addendum Data, 1995 (Part 29), contains information that was formerly covered in the main annual file in 1992-1994, but in 1995 was revised and prepared as a separate dataset.

ICPSR

The data are restricted from general dissemination. Users are advised that starting in October 1998, the National Institute of Justice requested that all data in this collection be restricted and made available only by special arrangement with the staff of the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) at ICPSR. These additional access restrictions to protect confidentiality have become necessary as the revised DUF program, renamed Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in 1997, began moving into smaller cities and continues to collect geographic (Zip code) and other detailed information. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Data Transfer Agreement Form and specify the reasons for the request. A copy of the Data Transfer Agreement Form can be requested by calling 800-999-0960 or 734-647-5000. The Data Transfer Agreement Form is also available as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file from the NACJD Web site at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/Private/private.pdf. Completed forms should be returned to: Director, National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, Institute for Social Research, P.O. Box 1248, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248, or by fax: 734-647-8200. More information about the DUF/ADAM program can be obtained by visiting the ADAM Web site at http://www.adam-nij.net/.

AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.

The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Rearch ICPSR

Ann Arbor MI

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/ netmail@icpsr.umich.edu United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice 1998-07-15 ICPSR 1998-07-15 Data for this collection have been transferred to the NACJD Private Use/Restricted Access Archive. Users interested in obtaining the data should refer to the RESTRICTIONS statement in this data collection description. StudyUnit09477

(1) SPSS export files are available for all data files except Parts 3 and 6. (2) The codebooks for the 1996 and 1997 data and the data collection instruments for 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 are provided as Portable Document Format (PDF) files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided in the README file on the diskette version of this study for the years 1987-1995 and through the ICPSR Website on the Internet. (3) The data collection instruments for 1987-1993 are available only in hardcopy form upon request from ICPSR. (4) In response to recommendations by the Government Accounting Office (GAO), significant modifications were made to the DUF survey instrument midway through 1995, resulting in two different survey instruments used that year. The new survey instrument (1995 Survey, Part 2) retains many of the variables from the original DUF questionnaire (1995 Survey, Part 1), as well as adding more detailed questions. (5) In efforts to make the DUF data more "user friendly," the coding scheme and formatting of the 1994 data and 1995 Survey, Part 1, data were changed slightly from previous years and, further, the coding scheme and formatting of the 1995 Survey, Part 2, data differ somewhat from the 1994 and 1995 Survey, Part 1, data.