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.
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.
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.
All male arrestees in sampled jails in ten counties in the United States during the second and third quarters of 2008.
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.
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.