The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) 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. ADAM is a redesigned
version of the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program (DRUG USE
FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR
9477]), upgraded methodologically and expanded to include 35
cities. 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 ADAM
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 ADAM 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?
The ADAM 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 ADAM/DUF
program collected information about drug use among arrestees from
booking facilities in 24 sites across the United States, although the
number of data collection sites varied slightly from year to
year. Prior to 1998, samples of arrestees for the ADAM/DUF program
were drawn from booking facilities within each of the sites and thus
were 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 represented 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 was the county, parish, or borough. The data from Denver included
Denver County in its entirety, and the St. Louis data also encompassed
the county. In 1998, ADAM expanded to 35 sites, making a concerted
effort to add sites west of the Mississippi River. The 12 new sites
included Albuquerque, Anchorage, Des Moines, Laredo, Las Vegas,
Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Seattle,
Spokane, and Tucson. The data collection area for each site included
the county within which the city is located. (Anchorage and New York
are the exceptions: Anchorage represented the city only and New York
included all five boroughs, which represent five separate
counties. The name of the New York site was changed from Manhattan to
New York City to reflect the inclusion of all boroughs.) 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 35 sites participating in the ADAM 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 33 of the 35 sites. Each quarter, 13 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 detainees from which to draw samples.
Beginning in 1998, all arrestees booked into a facility within the
previous 48 hours were eligible to be interviewed, including those
arrested on warrants only. The eligibility criteria differ
substantially from past years. For eligibility criteria employed from
1987-1997, users are encouraged to see the user guides for ICPSR
9477.
The data were collected from booked arrestees as follows:
20,715 adult males at 35 sites, 6,699 adult females at 32 sites, 3,134
juvenile males at 13 sites, and 466 juvenile females at 8 sites. All
arrestees were eligible for the ADAM program.
Arrestees in 35 sites in the United States.
Individual arrestees.
arrest records, personal interviews, and urine
specimens
survey data, clinical data, and administrative records
data
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 modified DUF/ADAM interview instrument (used for part of
the 1995 DUF data and all of the DUF 1996, DUF 1997, and ADAM 1998
data) also included detailed questions about each arrestee's
self-reported use of 15 drugs. 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 within 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 included information about
whether arrestees had ever injected drugs and whether they were
influenced by drugs when they allegedly 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
that continue to be collected with the new version of the ADAM/DUF
interview provide information about arrestees' histories of
drug/alcohol treatment, including whether they ever received
drug/alcohol treatment and whether they needed drug/alcohol
treatment. A urine specimen provided by the arrestee was screened (by
the drug-testing system EMIT, Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Testing)
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
precinct (precinct of arrest) and law (penal law code associated with
the crime for which the subject was arrested) were collected for use
by local law enforcement officials at each site.
Approximately 80 percent of eligible arrestees
agreed to be interviewed. This agreement rate is down from
approximately 90 percent in previous years, due to the elimination of
the sampling method used in prior years. With all arrestees eligible
for the ADAM program, an increased number of arrestees do not agree to
participate. 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.
None.