Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program/Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Series

collection: series

About this Collection

The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program/Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Series is an expanded and redesigned version of the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program, which was upgraded methodologically and expanded to 35 cities in 1998. The redesign was fully implemented beginning in the first quarter of 2000 using new sampling procedures that improved the quality and generalizability of the data. The DUF program began in 1987 and 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. The DUF program was a nonexperimental survey of drug use among adult male and female arrestees. In addition to supplying information on self-reported drug use, arrestees also provide a urine specimen, which is screened for the presence of ten illicit drugs. Between 1987 and 1997 the DUF program collected information in 24 sites across the United States, although the number of data collection sites varied slightly from year to year. Data collection took place four times a year (once each calendar quarter) in each site and selection criteria and catchment areas (central city or county) varied from site to site. The original DUF interview instrument (used for the 1987-1994 data and part of the 1995 data) elicited information about the use of 22 drugs. A modified DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of the 1996-1999 data) included detailed questions about each arrestee's use of 15 drugs. Juvenile data were added in 1991. The ADAM program, redesigned from the DUF program, moved to a probability-based sampling for the adult male population during 2000. The shift to sampling of the adult male population in 2000 required that all 35 sites move to a common catchment area, the county. The ADAM program also implemented a new and expanded adult instrument in the first quarter of 2000, which was used for both the male and female data. The term "arrestee" is used in the documentation, but because no identifying data are collected in the interview setting, the data represent numbers of arrests rather than an unduplicated count of persons arrested.

Funding

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) initiated ADAM in 1998 to replace DUF. In 2007, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) initiated ADAM II.

Studies

1 results

Differences in the Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use Across Five Factors in Indianapolis, Fort Lauderdale, Phoenix, and Dallas, 1994

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.

Variables

0 results

Variable-level metadata is not available for this collection.