Monitoring Drug Markets in Manhattan [New York City], With the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, 1998-2002 (ICPSR 22381)

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

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

How much drug users spend on their habits can potentially provide various insights into drug-related problems. Information about individuals' drug expenses can indicate much about the size of drug markets, the financial burden of use, drug-related crime, and potential challenges for treatment. The purpose of the study was to determine how much Manhattan (New York City) arrestees surveyed by the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program spend on drug expenses.

Study Design View help for Study Design

In 1987, the United States National Institute of Justice established the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program to measure trends in illicit drug use among booked arrestees in most large cities (or counties) with a total population of at least one million, as well as many smaller cities for geographic diversity. The program obtained both self-report and urinalysis data from arrestees. In 1997, the program was redesigned and retitled Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM). In 2000, ADAM introduced significant changes to the survey instrument, sampling procedures, and public-use data files. For this study, the researchers utilized data on a total of 5,210 Manhattan (New York City) arrestees surveyed by the ADAM program from 1998 to 2002.

The principal investigators developed a formula for an episodic estimator of a respondent's drug expense for cash, noncash, and cash-combination transactions. The ADAM questionnaire asked each respondent whether he/she had in the past 30 days obtained any marijuana, crack/rock cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. For each drug the respondent obtained, the survey then asked if he/she had ever paid cash and whether he/she had obtained drugs without paying cash. The value of a transaction was based on either the price paid or the amount of a drug obtained, depending on the nature of the transaction. For cash-only transactions, the value was set at the price paid. The researchers used a two-step procedure for estimating the value of noncash transactions. First, they examined the types of units involved in transactions for each drug. For each type of unit, the research team examined the distribution of prices per unit paid in cash-only purchases as well as the median and the mode. They then set a typical price-per-unit for each drug and each type of unit. Second, the principal investigators estimated the value of noncash transactions as the number of units obtained multiplied by the typical price per unit. For cash-combination transactions, the researchers calculated the value of the transaction based on the quantity of drugs obtained using the procedure for noncash transactions.

Sample View help for Sample

Starting in 1998, the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program began to phase in sampling strategies designed to yield a statistically representative sample of arrestees for each site. This sampling plan was fully implemented by 2000. From 1998 through the first quarter of 2001, ADAM also interviewed arrestees in the four other boroughs of New York City, however these cases were excluded from this study. For this study, the final sample consisted of 5,210 Manhattan arrestees surveyed by the ADAM program from 1998 to 2002. More specifically, during the 1998-1999 period, the sample consisted of 2,242 ADAM-Manhattan respondents. During the 2000-2002 period, the sample consisted of 2,968 ADAM-Manhattan respondents.

Universe View help for Universe

All persons arrested and booked on local and state charges (i.e., not federal and out-of-county charges) in Manhattan (New York City), NY, between 1998 and 2002.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Source View help for Data Source

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

The dataset contains a total of 267 variables relating to Manhattan arrestees' demographics, interview information, criminal history, urinalysis test results, drug use, drug market transactions, and drug expenses. Demographic variables include gender, age, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, primary income source, and employment status. Interview variables include year of interview, quarter of the year, age of interviewer, and race of interviewer. Criminal history variables provide information on arrests and incarcerations. Urinalysis test results are provided for five drugs -- marijuana, cocaine, opiates, methamphetamine, and methadone. Drug use variables include use of marijuana, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine (ever, past 12 months, past 30 days, and past 72 hours) and the age of first use of the above five drugs. Drug market transactions variables contain detailed information on the characteristics of arrestees' drug transactions in the past 30 days. Drug expense variables include the cost and value per month for marijuana, powder cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin, and drugs as well as the cost and value per day of use for the same five drugs.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

During the period from 2000 to 2002, approximately 70 percent of the ADAM-eligible arrestees in Manhattan were available and agreed to participate. Response rate information is not available for ADAM-eligible arrestees in Manhattan during the period from 1998 to 1999.

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

none

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2009-06-03

Version History View help for Version History

Weight View help for Weight

The dataset contains two weight variables: WEIGHTU "WEIGHT--PROVIDED URINE" and WEIGHTQ "WEIGHT--RESPONDED TO SURVEY". The principal investigators modified the ADAM-Manhattan sample weights to control for nonparticipation in each year from 2000 to 2002 and for the oversampling of female arrestees in each year from 1998 to 2002.