nmm 22 4500 ICPSR25821 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130525s2009 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR25821 MiAaI MiAaI Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2007 [electronic resource] Dana Hunt 2010-01-28 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2009 ICPSR 25821 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-25. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) II program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, the ONDCP and Abt Associates have initiated a new data collection that replicates the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. A total of 8,296 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2007. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) II survey collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25821.v2 ADAM/DUF Program icpsr methamphetamine icpsr urinalysis icpsr addiction icpsr alcoholism icpsr cocaine icpsr drug abuse icpsr drug offenders icpsr drug use icpsr heroin icpsr marijuana icpsr NACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and Crime NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System Hunt, Dana Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 25821 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25821.v2 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR27221 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130525s2010 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR27221 MiAaI MiAaI Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2008 [electronic resource] Dana Hunt , William Rhodes 2010-03-31 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2010 ICPSR 27221 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-25. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM II) program was designed to monitor trends in drug use among arrested populations in key urban areas across the United States. The first ADAM data collection was instituted in 2000 as a replacement for the Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF), which employed a non-scientific sampling procedure to select primarily felony arrestees in 23 urban areas throughout the country. The year 2000 revision of ADAM instituted a representative sampling strategy among booked male arrestees in an expanded network of 35 sites. The program was suspended by the National Institute of Justice in 2003 and restarted in 2007 with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). With ADAM II, ONDCP and its contractor, Abt Associates Inc. have initiated a new data collection that replicates the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implements two quarters of data collection in ten sentinel ADAM sites to revive monitoring drug trends, with a particular focus on obtaining valid and reliable information on methamphetamine use. Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, the ADAM II survey collects data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. Data collection has been conducted across two back-to-back quarters in each of 10 counties from a county-based representative sample of 250 male arrestees per quarter for a total of 500 arrestees annually per site or a total of 5,000 arrestees across sites annually. A total of 7,717 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2008. Collection occurs in two cycles in booking facilities at each site to provide estimates for two calendar quarters each year. Data in this file were collected beginning April 1, 2007 and ending March 31, 2008. Additional data collection periods were optioned by ONDCP, and subsequent cycles of back-to-back data collection (not yet available) began April 1, 2008. Participation is voluntary and confidential, and the procedures include a personal interview (lasting approximately 20 minutes) and collection of a urine specimen. Demographic variables include age, race, most serious charge, date of arrest, time of arrest, and education level. The data also include whether the provided urine specimen was positive for several drugs including marijuana, cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and barbiturates. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27221.v1 ADAM/DUF Program icpsr methamphetamine icpsr urinalysis icpsr addiction icpsr alcoholism icpsr cocaine icpsr drug abuse icpsr drug offenders icpsr drug use icpsr heroin icpsr marijuana icpsr NACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and Crime NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System Hunt, Dana Rhodes, William Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 27221 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27221.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR02706 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130525s2000 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR02706 MiAaI MiAaI Differences in the Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use Across Five Factors in Indianapolis, Fort Lauderdale, Phoenix, and Dallas, 1994 [electronic resource] Andre B. Rosay , University of Maryland at College Park , Denise C. Herz 2000-09-11 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2000 ICPSR 2706 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-25. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. This study investigated the accuracy of self-reported drug use in three ways. First, the researchers examined differences in the accuracy of self-reported drug use across five factors: gender, race, age, type of drug, and offense seriousness. Second, an attempt was made to determine the specific sources of inaccurate self-reports in terms of differences in underreporting and overreporting. Third, the researchers sought to explain differences in underreporting and overreporting in terms of true differences or differences in opportunity to underreport or overreport. This study used data collected in 1994 as part of the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program [DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 (ICPSR 9477)]. The DUF drug testing and measurement methodology allows the accuracy of self-reported drug use to be checked with a biological criterion, namely urine tests. The sample for this study consisted of 4,752 white and Black adults from Indianapolis, Ft. Lauderdale, Phoenix, and Dallas. The five exogenous measures included in this study were type of drug (marijuana vs. crack/cocaine), age (18 through 30 vs. 31 or over), offense seriousness (misdemeanor vs. felony), race (Black vs. white), and gender (male vs. female). The endogenous measures were accuracy (self-report and drug test both positive or both negative vs. otherwise), underreporting (self-report negative but drug test positive vs. otherwise), and overreporting (self-report positive but drug test negative vs. otherwise). Variables include result of marijuana urine test, result of cocaine/crack urine test, marijuana self-report, cocaine/crack self-report, age group, sex, race, offense category, and ethnic/gender group. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02706.v1 African Americans icpsr age icpsr crack cocaine icpsr drug law offenses icpsr drug offender profiles icpsr drug testing icpsr drug use icpsr gender icpsr marijuana icpsr race icpsr urinalysis icpsr White Americans icpsr NACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and Crime RCMD I. Crime ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive Program Rosay, Andre B. University of Maryland at College Park Herz, Denise C. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 2706 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02706.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR33201 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130525s2012 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR33201 MiAaI MiAaI Monitoring Drug Epidemics and the Markets That Sustain Them, Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) and ADAM II Data, 2000-2003 and 2007-2010 [electronic resource] Andrew Golub , Henry H. Brownstein , Eloise Dunlap 2012-12-13 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2012 ICPSR 33201 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-25. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. This study examined trends in the use of five widely abused drugs among arrestees at 10 geographically diverse locations from 2000 to 2010: Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Denver, Indianapolis, Manhattan, Minneapolis, Portland Oregon, Sacramento, and Washington DC. The data came from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program reintroduced in 2007 (ADAM II) and its predecessor the ADAM program. ADAM data included urinalysis results that provided an objective measure of recent drug use, provided location specific estimates over time, and provided sample weights that yielded unbiased estimates for each location. The ADAM data were analyzed according to a drug epidemics framework, which has been previously employed to understand the decline of the crack epidemic, the growth of marijuana use in the 1990s, and the persistence of heroin use. Similar to other diffusion of innovation processes, drug epidemics tend to follow a natural course passing through four distinct phases: incubation, expansion, plateau, and decline. The study also searched for changes in drug markets over the course of a drug epidemic. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR33201.v1 ADAM/DUF Program icpsr arrests icpsr cocaine icpsr crack cocaine icpsr crime patterns icpsr drug abuse icpsr drug offenders icpsr drug related crimes icpsr drug testing icpsr drug treatment icpsr drug use icpsr heroin icpsr marijuana icpsr methamphetamine icpsr trends icpsr urinalysis icpsr NACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and Crime ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System Golub, Andrew Brownstein, Henry H. Dunlap, Eloise Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 33201 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR33201.v1