Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2008 (ICPSR 27221)
Version Date: Mar 31, 2010 View help for published
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Dana Hunt, Abt Associates;
William Rhodes, Abt Associates
Series:
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27221.v1
Version V1
Summary View help for Summary
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.
Citation View help for Citation
Export Citation:
Funding View help for Funding
Subject Terms View help for Subject Terms
Geographic Coverage View help for Geographic Coverage
Smallest Geographic Unit View help for Smallest Geographic Unit
county
Restrictions View help for Restrictions
This data collection may not be used for any purpose other than statistical reporting and analysis. Use of these data to learn the identity of any person or establishment is prohibited. To protect respondent privacy, these data are restricted from general dissemination. To obtain this file, researchers must agree to the terms and conditions of a Restricted Data Use Agreement in accordance with existing ICPSR servicing policies.
Distributor(s) View help for Distributor(s)
Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)
Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection
Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes
-
Users are encouraged to read the Technical Documentation Report: ADAM II, 2008 for more information.
Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose
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. ADAM II initiated a new data collection that replicated the methodology used in the first ADAM data collection in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends.
Study Design View help for Study Design
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) 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). Interviewers worked in teams in each jail. The supervising interviewer drew samples from the stock and flow of male arrestees. When an arrestee was sampled, the supervising interviewer completed a facesheet. The facesheet collected sufficient identifying information that the arrestee could be matched to census data representing all bookings into the jail. The supervising interviewers used the facesheet to record whether the arrestee answered the interview questions and whether he provided a urine specimen. A total of 7,717 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2008. Participation was voluntary and confidential. The average interview lasted twenty minutes with the length of the interview determined by the arrestee's level of drug use and drug market behavior. At the end of the interview, arrestees were asked to provide a urine specimen. The urine specimen was linked to the facesheet through a common barcoded label and analyzed at an off-site central laboratory for recent illegal drug use.
Sample View help for Sample
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) II comprised a non-probability sample of counties and a probability sample of arrestees booked into jails within those counties. The sampling design in each facility divided the data collection into periods of stock and flow. Interviewers arrived at the jail at a fixed time during the day, called H, and worked a shift of length S. The stock comprised all arrestees booked between H-24+S and H, and the flow comprised all arrestees booked between H and H+S. The supervising interviewer sampled from the stock and flow. Sampling from the stock required a list of individuals who had been booked since the interviewer's last work period. He or she sought the sampled arrestee, and if that arrestee is unavailable or unwilling to be interviewed, the supervising interviewer sought a replacement. Sampling from the flow required a list of individuals as they are booked into the jail. The supervising interviewer sought the most recently booked arrestee, and if that arrestee is unavailable or unwilling to be interviewed, the supervising interviewer sought a replacement.
Universe View help for Universe
All male arrestees in sampled jails in ten counties in the United States during the second and third quarters of 2008.
Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)
Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection
Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables
Representing minimal adjustments to the previously employed ADAM survey, 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.
Response Rates View help for Response Rates
In 2008 the overall response rate was 60 percent and the conditional response rate was 82 percent for consent to the interview. Of those who consented to be interviewed, 86 percent provided a urine specimen for testing. The overall response rate includes arrestees who were sampled but not available, e.g., no longer in the facility or too ill to be interviewed. The conditional response rate represents the number of interviews completed with arrestees who were sampled and physically available.
HideOriginal Release Date View help for Original Release Date
2010-03-31
Version History View help for Version History
- Hunt, Dana, and William Rhodes. Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2008. ICPSR27221-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2010-03-31. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR27221.v1
2010-03-31 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 variable labels and/or value labels.
- Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
Weight View help for Weight
The data include two weight variables, WGT_Q (Weights when analyzing interview questions) and WGT_U (Weights when analyzing urine tests).
HideNotes
The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.
One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.
This study is provided by ICPSR. ICPSR provides leadership and training in data access, curation, and methods of analysis for a diverse and expanding social science research community.