Showing 1 – 21 of 21 results.
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 1998 (ICPSR 2826)
Released/updated on: 1999-11-10
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1998-01-01--1998-12-31
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program measures levels of and trends in drug use among persons arrested and booked in the United States. The ADAM Program 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. The data address the following topics: (1) types of drugs used by arrestees (based on self-reports and urinalysis), (2) self-reported dependency on drugs, (3) self-reported need for alcohol/drug treatment, (4) the relationship between drug use and certain types of offenses, and (5) the relationship between self-reported indicators of drug use and indicators of drug use based on urinalysis. Participation in the project is voluntary, and all information collected from the arrestees is anonymous and confidential. The data include the arrestee's age, race, gender, educational attainment, marital status, and the charge at the time of booking. The recently modified ADAM/DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 DUF data and all of the DUF 1996, DUF 1997, and ADAM 1998 data) also collected information about the 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. As part of the ADAM program, arrestees were asked to provide a urine specimen, which was screened for the presence of the following ten drug types: marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography).
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 1999 (ICPSR 2994)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1999-01-01--1999-12-31
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, the successor to the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]), measures levels of and trends in drug use among persons arrested and booked in 35 sites across the United States. The data address the following topics: (1) types of drugs used by arrestees (based on self-reports and urinalysis), (2) self-reported dependency on drugs, (3) self-reported need for alcohol/drug treatment, (4) the relationship between drug use and certain types of offenses, and (5) the relationship between self-reported indicators of drug use and indicators of drug use based on urinalysis. Participation in the project is voluntary, and all information collected from the arrestees is anonymous and confidential. The data include the arrestee's age, race, gender, educational attainment, marital status, and the charge at the time of booking. The modified ADAM/DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of the 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 data) also collected information about the arrestee's use of 15 drugs, including recent and past use (e.g., 3-day and 30-day drug use), age at first use, and whether the arrestee had ever been dependent on drugs. As part of the ADAM program, arrestees were asked to provide a urine specimen, which was screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography).
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2000 (ICPSR 3270)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2000-01-01--2000-12-31
Beginning in 1996, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) initiated a major redesign of its multisite drug-monitoring program, the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) system (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]). The program was retitled Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) (see ARRESTEE DRUG ABUSE MONITORING (ADAM) PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES, 1998 [ICPSR 2628] and 1999 [ICPSR 2994]). ADAM extended DUF in the number of sites and improved the quality and generalizability of the data. The redesign was fully implemented in all sites beginning in the first quarter of 2000. The ADAM program implemented a new and expanded adult instrument in the first quarter of 2000, which was used for both the male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) data. The juvenile data for 2000 (Part 3) used the juvenile instrument from previous years. The ADAM program also moved to probability-based sampling for the adult male population during 2000. Therefore, the 2000 adult male sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. 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 core instrument for the adult cases was supplemented by a facesheet, which was used to collect demographic and charge information from official records. Core instruments were used to collect self-report information from the respondent. Both the adult and juvenile instruments were administered to persons arrested and booked on local or state charges relevant to the jurisdiction (i.e., not federal or out-of-county charges) within the past 48 hours. At the completion of the interview the arrestee was asked to voluntarily provide a urine specimen. An external lab used the Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Testing (EMIT) protocols to test for the presence of ten drugs or metabolites of the drug in the urine sample. All amphetamine positives were confirmed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) to determine whether methamphetamine was used. For the adult data, variables from the facesheet include arrest precinct, ZIP code of arrest location, ZIP code of respondent's address, respondent's gender and race, three most serious arrest charges, sample source (stock, flow, other), interview status (including reason the individual selected in the sample was not interviewed), language of instrument used, and the number of hours since arrest. Demographic information from the core instrument includes respondent's age, ethnicity, residency, education, employment, health insurance coverage, marital status, housing, and telephone access. Variables from the calendar provide information on inpatient and outpatient substance abuse treatment, inpatient mental health treatment, arrests and incarcerations, heavy alcohol use, use of marijuana, crack/rock cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other drug (ever and previous 12 months), age of first use of the above six drugs and heavy alcohol use, drug dependency in the previous 12 months, characteristics of drug transactions in past 30 days, use of marijuana, crack/rock cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine in past 30 days, 7 days, and 48 hours, heavy alcohol use in past 30 days, and secondary drug use of 15 other drugs in the past 48 hours. Urine test results are provided for 11 drugs -- marijuana, cocaine, opiates, phencyclidine (PCP), benzodiazepines (Valium), propoxyphene (Darvon), methadone, methaqualone, barbiturates, amphetamines, and methamphetamine. The adult data files include several derived variables. The male data also include four sampling weights, and stratum identifications and percents. For the juvenile data, demographic variables include age, race, sex, educational attainment, employment status, and living circumstances. Data also include each juvenile arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, powder cocaine, crack, heroin, PCP, amphetamines, barbiturates, quaaludes, methadone, crystal methamphetamine, Valium, LSD, and inhalants). For each drug type, arrestees reported whether they had ever used the drug, age of first use, whether they had used the drug in the past 30 days and past 72 hours, number of days they used the drug in past month, whether they tried to cut down or quit using the drug, if they were successful, whether they felt dependent on the drug, whether they were receiving treatment for the drug, whether they had received treatment for the drug in the past, and whether they thought they could use treatment for that drug. Additional variables include whether juvenile respondents had ever injected drugs, whether they were influenced by drugs when they allegedly committed the crime for which they were arrested, whether they had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents, and if so, whether in the past 12 months, and information on arrests and charges in the past 12 months. As with the adult data, urine test results are also provided. Finally, variables covering precinct (precinct of arrest) and law (penal law code associated with the crime for which the juvenile was arrested) are also provided for use by local law enforcement officials at each site.
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2001 (ICPSR 3688)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Detroit, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Laredo, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Colorado, Honolulu, Missouri, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, Kansas City (Missouri), New York (state), Birmingham, Michigan, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Philadelphia
Time period: 2001-01-01--2001-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2001 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 33 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2001 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2002 (ICPSR 3815)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Washington, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Laredo, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia
Time period: 2002-01-01--2002-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2002 at four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 36 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. Data from arrestees in juvenile detention facilities (Part 3) continued to use the juvenile instrument from previous years, extending back through the DRUG USE FORECASTING series (ICPSR 9477). The ADAM program in 2002 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) weights. The juvenile file contains demographic variables and arrestee's self-reported past and continued use of 15 drugs, as well as other drug-related behaviors.
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 2003 (ICPSR 4020)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indiana, Tucson, Albuquerque, Spokane, Utah, San Jose, New York City, San Diego, Arizona, Las Vegas, Boston, Sacramento, Seattle, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Tulsa, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), Georgia, Tampa, Indianapolis, Oregon, United States, Oklahoma, Rio Arriba, Alabama, Cleveland, Washington, Nebraska, Albany (New York), Omaha, Minneapolis, Woodbury, Atlanta, Massachusetts, Colorado, Honolulu, New Orleans, Alaska, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Nevada, Des Moines, District of Columbia, San Antonio, Chicago, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York (state), Birmingham, Miami, New Mexico, Louisiana, Anchorage, Ohio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Houston
Time period: 2003-01-01--2003-12-31
The goal of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program is to determine the extent and correlates of illicit drug use in the population of booked arrestees in local areas. Data were collected in 2003 up to four separate times (quarterly) during the year in 39 metropolitan areas in the United States. The ADAM program adopted a new instrument in 2000 in adult booking facilities for male (Part 1) and female (Part 2) arrestees. The ADAM program in 2003 also continued the use of probability-based sampling for male arrestees in adult facilities, which was initiated in 2000. Therefore, the male adult sample includes weights, generated through post-sampling stratification of the data. For the adult male and female files, variables fell into one of eight categories: (1) demographic data on each arrestee, (2) ADAM facesheet (records-based) data, (3) data on disposition of the case, including accession to a verbal consent script, (4) calendar of admissions to substance abuse and mental health treatment programs, (5) data on alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence, (6) drug acquisition data covering the five most commonly used illicit drugs, (7) urine test results, and (8) for males, weights.
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Project in Rural Nebraska, 1998 (ICPSR 28141)
Released/updated on: 2011-01-28
Geographic coverage: Omaha, United States, Nebraska
Time period: 1998-10-01--1998-11-01
A pilot outreach project of the National Intstitute of Justice's Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program, the rural Nebraska ADAM program examined the prevalence and type of arrestee drug use in four rural Nebraska counties and compared the results to those found in Omaha, Nebraska, an established ADAM site. The data were collected in Madison (n=78), Dawson (n=50), Hall (n=53), and Scotts Bluff (n=149) counties, and Omaha, Nebraska, (n=202) in October and November of 1998. The catchment area for Omaha was the central city. The ADAM interview provided demographic and descriptive data, including race, age, marital status, source of income, screens of substance abuse and dependency, treatment history, arrest and incarceration experiences, and participation in local drug markets. At the conclusion of the interview, respondents were asked to provide a urine specimen. The current study included a supplemental questionnaire about methamphetamine use. The methamphetamine addendum included variables on why the respondent began and continued the use of methamphetamines, how often and how much methamphetamine was used, if and why the respondent had ever sought and completed treatment, source of the methamphetamine, and if the respondent had ever made or sold methamphetamine.
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2009 (ICPSR 30061)
Released/updated on: 2011-02-24
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
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., initiated a new data collection that replicated the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented 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 collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. A total of 7,794 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2009. Collection occurred 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, 2009, and ending September 30, 2009. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included 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.
Curated
Restricted
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2010 (ICPSR 32321)
Released/updated on: 2011-11-04
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
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., initiated a new data collection that replicated the ADAM methodology in order to obtain data comparable to previously established trends. ADAM II implemented 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 collected data about drug use, drug and alcohol dependency and treatment, and drug market participation among booked male arrestees within 48 hours of arrest. A total of 8,332 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2010. Collection occurred 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, 2010, and ending September 30, 2010. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the procedures included 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.
Curated
Restricted
Crack, Powder Cocaine, and Heroin: Drug Purchase and Use Patterns in Six Cities in the United States, 1995-1996 (ICPSR 2564)
Released/updated on: 2012-08-22
Geographic coverage: New York City, Oregon, District of Columbia, San Diego, San Antonio, United States, Chicago, Illinois, Texas, Portland (Oregon), California, New York (state)
Time period: 1995-01-01--1996-01-01
This study was designed to address the practical and policy implications of various drug market participation patterns. In 1995, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) collaborated on a project called the Procurement Study. This study was executed as an addendum to NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]) with the goal of extending previous research in which heroin users were interviewed on various aspects of drug market activity. The present study sought to explore additional features of drug market participation and use, both within and across drug types and cities, and included two additional drugs -- powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Data were collected from recently arrested users of powder cocaine, crack cocaine, and heroin in six DUF cities (Chicago, New York, Portland, San Diego, San Antonio, and Washington, DC). Each of the three files in this collection, Crack Data (Part 1), Heroin Data (Part 2), and Powder Cocaine Data (Part 3), is comprised of data from a procurement interview, urine test variables, and a DUF interview. During the procurement interview, information was collected on purchase and use patterns for specific drugs. Variables from the procurement interview include the respondent's method of using the drug, the term used to refer to the drug, whether the respondent bought the drug in the neighborhood, the number of different dealers the respondent bought the drug from, how the respondent made the connection with the dealer (i.e., street, house, phone, beeper, business/store, or friends), their main drug source, whether the respondent went to someone else if the source was not available, how the respondent coped with not being able to find drugs to buy, whether the respondent got the drug for free, the means by which the respondent obtained money, the quantity and packaging of the drug, and the number of minutes spent searching for, traveling to, and waiting for their last purchase. Urine tests screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography). Data from the DUF interview provide detailed information 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 DUF interview instrument also included alcohol/drug treatment history, information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs, and whether they were influenced by drugs when the crime that they were charged with was committed. 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 had prior arrests in the past 12 months. Demographic data include the age, race, sex, educational attainment, marital status, employment status, and living circumstances of each respondent.
Curated
Crime Days Precursors Study: Baltimore, 1952-1976 (ICPSR 8222)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: Baltimore, United States, Maryland
Time period: 1952-01-01--1976-01-01
This data collection focuses on 354 male narcotic addicts who were selected using a stratified random sample from a population of 6,149 known narcotic abusers arrested or identified by the Baltimore, Maryland, Police Department between 1952 and 1976. Variables include respondent's use of controlled drugs, including marijuana, hallucinogens, amphetamines, barbiturates, codeine, heroin, methadone, cocaine, tranquilizers, and other narcotics. Also of interest is the respondent's past criminal activity including arrests, length of incarceration, educational attainment, employment history, personal income, mobility, and drug treatment, if any.
Curated
Criminal Histories and Criminal Justice Processing of Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Sample Members in Washington, DC, 1989-1991 (ICPSR 6122)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1989-01-01--1991-01-01
These data provide information on the relationship between arrestee drug tests and future criminality once other risk factors, such as prior criminal history, are accounted for. Also explored is whether the association between drug test results and future offending varies depending upon the attributes of individual offenders. The dataset contains information drawn from the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) in Washington, DC, and the National Institute of Justice's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program. Data are available from each source for 1989 and 1990 with subsequent arrest data provided by PSA through August 1991. The 1989-1990 data supplied by PSA contain information on criminal history and drug test results taken at the time of arrest. Data provided from the DUF program include drug test results from a sample of persons arrested as well as information obtained from arrestee interviews on items such as family and work status. The combined data contain the arrestees' demographic characteristics, arrest and charge information, prior criminal history, and subsequent offending. Drugs tested for include cocaine, opiates, methadone, PCP, amphetamines, barbiturates, marijuana, methaqualone, Darvon, and Valium. In addition, self-reported information regarding an individual's use of and dependency on these drugs is supplied. Demographic information includes age, sex, income, and employment status. Due to changes in the DUF measurement instrument from 1989 to 1990, the variables contained in the two data files are not completely identical.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies (CJ-DATS): Transitional Care Management (TCM), Increasing Aftercare Participation for Parolees, 2004-2008 [United States] (ICPSR 31621)
Released/updated on: 2014-03-14
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, Connecticut, Kentucky, Los Angeles, Hartford, California, New York (state), Lexington
Time period: 2004-11-01--2008-05-01
In an effort to increase participation in community aftercare treatment for substance-abusing offenders who have paroled from prison, the Transitional Case Management (TCM) intervention tested a model of strengths-based case management consisting of (1) completion by the inmate of a strengths and goals assessment as part of discharge planning, (2) a telephone conference call that included the inmate and people central to the inmate's aftercare plan (including the parole officer), and (3) strengths case management for 12 weeks in the community to promote treatment participation and increase the client's access to needed services. (For a more detailed description, see Prendergast Law and Cartier, 2008). With four CJ-DATS Research Centers participating, the study randomized 812 prison treatment clients to the Transitional Case Management condition or to the Standard Referral condition. Detailed assessments occurred at baseline and at three and nine months following release to parole. Data from treatment and criminal justice records, including costs, were also collected. Treatment and criminal justice staff completed surveys on agency collaboration and cooperation. Respondents were asked questions regarding the barriers to treatment/recovery, education/job training, relationships, finance, living arrangement/housing, health and documentation. They were also asked question related to whether they needed or received certain services. Other variables included socio-demographic and family background, peer relation and criminal history, health and psychological status, drug and treatment history.
Curated
Restricted
Drug Use Forecasting in 24 Cities in the United States, 1987-1997 (ICPSR 9477)
Released/updated on: 1998-07-15
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1987-06-01--1997-12-01
The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program measures levels of and trends in drug use among persons arrested and booked in the United States. The data address the following topics: (1) types of drugs used by arrestees (based on self-reports and urinalysis), (2) self-reported dependency on drugs, (3) self-reported need for alcohol/drug treatment, (4) the relationship between drug use and certain types of offenses, and (5) the relationship between self-reported indicators of drug use and indicators of drug use based on urinalysis. Participation in the project is voluntary, and all information collected from the arrestees is anonymous and confidential. The data include the arrestee's age, race, gender, educational attainment, marital status, and the charge at the time of booking. The recently modified DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of the 1996 and 1997 data) also collected information about the arrestee's use of 15 drugs, including recent and past use (e.g., 3-day and 30-day drug use) of each of these drugs, age at first use, and whether the arrestee had ever been dependent on drugs. In the original DUF interview instrument (used for the 1987 to 1994 data and part of the 1995 data), the information collected was the same as above except that the use of 22 drugs was queried, and the age at which the arrestee first became dependent on the drug was included. Arrestees also were questioned in the original instrument about their history of intravenous drug use, whether the consideration of AIDS influenced whether they shared needles, history of drug and alcohol treatment, their past and current drug treatment needs, and how many persons they had sex with during the past 12 months. Finally, arrestees were asked to provide a urine specimen, which was screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography). The Gun Addendum Data (Parts 27, 35, and 37) contain variables on topics such as arrestees' encounters with guns, whether they agreed or disagreed with statements about guns, gun possession, how they obtained handgun(s), whether they were armed with a gun at their arrest or during crimes, and if they had ever used a gun against another person. The Heroin Addendum Data, 1995 (Part 29) contains information that was formerly covered in the main annual file in 1992-1994, but in 1995 was revised and prepared as a separate dataset.
Curated
Estimating the Elasticities of Demand for Cocaine and Heroin with Data from 21 Cities from the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program, 1987-1991 (ICPSR 6567)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1987-01-01--1991-01-01
The objective of this research was to estimate the elasticity of the demand for cocaine and heroin with respect to the price. Price elasticity is the percentage of change in the dependent quantity corresponding to a one-percent change in price. The project involved the development of an econometric model to determine price elasticity, given that national- and city-level data on the consumption of cocaine and heroin are insufficient or nonexistent. The researchers circumvented this lack of data by partitioning the desired elasticity into the product of two elasticities, involving a measurable intermediate quantity whose relationship to the quantity of consumption could be modeled and estimated by measurable techniques. The intermediate quantity used for this project was the fraction of arrestees testing positive for cocaine or heroin as measured by the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) System. From the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA's) System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) data, expected purity was computed by regressing on log quantity and dummy variables for location and quarter. Price series were produced by finding the median standardized price per expected pure gram for each location and quarter. Variables for Part 1, National Data, include year, quarter, standardized prices for a gram of cocaine and a gram of heroin, and expected purity of cocaine and heroin. The Cities Data, Part 2, cover city, year, quarter, number of observations used to compute the median price of cocaine and heroin, standardized prices, and expected purity.
Curated
Monitoring Drug Epidemics and the Markets That Sustain Them, Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) and ADAM II Data, 2000-2003 and 2007-2010 (ICPSR 33201)
Released/updated on: 2012-12-13
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Oregon, District of Columbia, Charlotte, Sacramento, Indiana, United States, Chicago, Minnesota, California, New York (state), New York City, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Illinois, Colorado, Portland (Oregon), Denver, Georgia, Indianapolis
Time period: 2000-01-01--2003-01-01, 2007-01-01--2010-01-01
This study examined trends in the use of five widely abused drugs among arrestees at 10 geographically diverse locations from 2000 to 2010: Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Denver, Indianapolis, Manhattan, Minneapolis, Portland Oregon, Sacramento, and Washington DC. The data came from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program reintroduced in 2007 (ADAM II) and its predecessor the ADAM program. ADAM data included urinalysis results that provided an objective measure of recent drug use, provided location specific estimates over time, and provided sample weights that yielded unbiased estimates for each location. The ADAM data were analyzed according to a drug epidemics framework, which has been previously employed to understand the decline of the crack epidemic, the growth of marijuana use in the 1990s, and the persistence of heroin use. Similar to other diffusion of innovation processes, drug epidemics tend to follow a natural course passing through four distinct phases: incubation, expansion, plateau, and decline. The study also searched for changes in drug markets over the course of a drug epidemic.
Curated
Restricted
Monitoring Drug Markets in Manhattan [New York City], With the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, 1998-2002 (ICPSR 22381)
Released/updated on: 2009-06-03
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 1998-01-01--2002-01-01
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. The program obtained both self-report and urinalysis data from a total of 5,210 Manhattan 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 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.
Curated
Restricted
Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE), 2003-2009 (ICPSR 30983)
Released/updated on: 2012-11-05
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, New York, United States, Illinois, Georgia, Florida, Washington, South Carolina, Pennsylvania
Time period: 2004-02-01--2004-06-01, 2005-03-01--2006-06-01, 2005-08-01--2006-12-01, 2006-09-01--2008-01-01, 2006-09-01--2008-01-01
The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) study included 23 drug courts and 6 comparison sites selected from 8 states across the country. The purpose of the study was to: (1) Test whether drug courts reduce drug use, crime, and multiple other problems associated with drug abuse, in comparision with similar offenders not exposed to drug courts, (2) address how drug courts work and for whom by isolating key individual and program factors that make drug courts more or less effective in achieving their desired outcomes, (3) explain how offender attitudes and behaviors change when they are exposed to drug courts and how these changes help explain the effectiveness of drug court programs, and (4) examine whether drug courts generate cost savings.
Offenders in all 29 sites were surveyed in 3 waves, at baseline, 6 months later, and 18 months after enrollment. The research comprises three major components: process evaluation, impact evaluation, and a cost-benefit analysis. The process evaluation describes how the 23 drug court sites vary in program eligibility, supervision, treatment, team collaboration, and other key policies and practices. The impact evaluation examines whether drug courts produce better outcomes than comparison sites and tests which court policies and offender attitudes might explain those effects. The cost-benefit analysis evaluates drug court costs and benefits.
Curated
Restricted
Pathological Gambling in Arrestee Populations in Des Moines, Iowa, and Las Vegas, Nevada, 2000-2001 (ICPSR 3499)
Released/updated on: 2003-06-05
Geographic coverage: Des Moines, Iowa, United States, Las Vegas, Nevada
Time period: 2000-01-01--2001-01-01
This study sought to examine the extent, nature, and consequences of pathological gambling disorders in arrestee populations. Five research questions were addressed: (1) What is the prevalence of pathological gambling in arrestee populations? (2) What is the profile of the pathological gambler arrested for felony and misdemeanor offenses? (3) How does the nature and level of criminal activity among pathological gamblers compare to that of non- pathological gamblers? (4) What proportion of the crime committed by offenders with pathological gambling disorders is linked to their gambling activities (either to fund gambling or pay off gambling debts)? and (5) How does substance abuse interact with pathological gambling to affect the nature and extent of criminal activity? The data for this research were collected in conjunction with the National Institute of Justice's Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) programs. Arrestees in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Des Moines, Iowa, who had completed the ADAM interview and provided a urine specimen were asked if they would be willing to answer an additional set of questions concerning their gambling behavior. Data from the ADAM interview and drug screening were merged with data collected using the gambling addendum, producing the dataset for this study. Variables from the ADAM instruments were comprised of demographic data on each arrestee, calendar of admissions to drug treatment-related programs, data on dependence and abuse, drug market and use data, and urine test results. The gambling addendum was used to collect data on five topics: (1) past-year gambling activity, (2) the use of alcohol and illegal drugs prior to and during gambling, (3) substance abuse and/or self-reported gambling problems, (4) past-year criminal activity (property, drug, and violent offending), and (5) motivations for criminal activity (gambling or non-gambling related).
Curated
Restricted
Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program in Kyle, Texas, 1993-1995 (ICPSR 2765)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, Texas
Time period: 1993-01-01--1995-01-01
This study was undertaken to evaluate the treatment process and outcomes associated with a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) In-Prison Therapeutic Community (ITC) component of the 1991 Texas Criminal Justice Chemical Dependency Treatment Initiative, as well as to assess the effectiveness of prison-based drug treatment. Specifically, this study evaluated the RSAT ITC treatment process and outcomes in Kyle, Texas, using the prison-based treatment assessment (PTA) data systems. The study design included process and outcome evaluations using a sample of graduates from the first ITC treatment facility (Kyle cohort) and a matched comparison group of prison inmates who were eligible, but not selected, for assignment to an ITC. Data collection occurred at three points in time -- at the end of treatment in the Kyle ITC, and at six months and one year following an offender's release from the ITC program. Variables in the 19 files for this study include: Part 1 (Educational Demographic Data, Kyle Cohort): Highest grade level achieved by respondent, Texas Department of Criminal Justice education achievement and IQ scores, and the number of days at the Kyle ITC program. Parts 2-4 (Treatment Background Data, Kyle Cohort, Aftercare Treatment Data, Kyle Cohort, Treatment Condition Data, Kyle Cohort): Treatment condition, discharge codes, and whether there were three months of residential aftercare. Part 5 (Session One Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Gender, ethnicity, age, marital status, whether the respondent was given medication, followed directions, made friends, or got into trouble while in elementary school, whether he held a job prior to prison, if either of his parents spent time with, yelled at, or sexually abused him, whether he used drugs, if so, specific drugs used (e.g., alcohol, inhalants, marijuana, or crack), and whether he did jail time. Part 6 (Session Two Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Whether drugs kept the respondent from working, caused emotional problems, or caused medical problems, if people were important to the respondent, if he had trouble staying focused, felt sad or depressed, satisfied with life, lonely, nervous, or got mad easily, whether he felt the staff was caring and helpful, whether he showed concern for the group and accepted confrontation by the group, whether the respondent felt the counselor was easy to talk to, respected him, or taught him problem-solving, and whether the respondent viewed himself as thinking clearly, clearly expressing thoughts, and was interested in treatment. Part 7 (Session Three Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): How the respondent saw himself as a child, whether he was easily distracted, anxious, nervous, inattentive, short-tempered, stubborn, depressed, rebellious, irritable, moody, angry, or impulsive, whether the respondent had trouble with school, was considered normal by friends, ever lost a job or friends due to drinking or drug abuse, or was ever arrested or hospitalized for drug or alcohol abuse, and in the last week whether the respondent's mood was one of sadness, satisfaction, disappointment, irritation, or suicide. Parts 8 and 9 (Six-Month Follow-Up Interview Data, Kyle Cohort, and One-Year Follow-Up Interview Data, Kyle Cohort): Organization of meetings and activities in the program, rules and regulations, work assignments, privileges, individual counseling, the care and helpfulness of the treatment staff and custody staff, the respondent's behavior, mood, living situation, drug use, and arrests within the last six months, whether the counselor was easy to talk to, helped in motivating or building confidence, or assisted in making a treatment plan, whether the respondent felt a sense of family or closeness, if his family got along, enjoyed being together, got drunk together, used drugs together, or had arguments or fights, if the respondent had a job in the last six months to a year and if he enjoyed working, whether he was on time for his job, whether he had new friends or associated with old friends, and which specific drugs he had used in the last six months (e.g., hallucinogens, heroin, methadone, or other opiates). Part 10 (Treatment Background Data, Comparison Group): Treatment condition of the comparison group. Part 11 (Educational Demographic Data, Comparison Group): Whether respondents completed a GED and their highest grade completed. Parts 12 and 13 (Six-Month Follow-Up Interview Data, Comparison Group, and One-Year Follow-Up Interview Data, Comparison Group): How important church was to the respondent, whether the respondent had any educational or vocational training, if he had friends that had used drugs, got drunk, dealt drugs, or had been arrested, if within the last six months to a year the respondent had been arrested for drug use, drug sales, forgery, fencing, gambling, burglary, robbery, sexual offense, arson, or vandalism, whether drugs or alcohol affected the respondent's health, relations, attitude, attention, or ability to work, whether the respondent experienced symptoms of withdrawal, the number of drug treatment programs and AA or CA meetings the respondent attended, whether the respondent received help from parents, siblings, or other relatives, if treatment was considered helpful, and risky behavior engaged in (e.g., sharing needles, using dirty needles, and unprotected sex). Parts 14 and 16 (Probation Officer Data, Six-Month Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group, and Probation Officer Data, One-Year Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Date of departure from prison, supervision level, number of treatment team meetings, whether there was evidence of job hunting, problems with transportation, child care, or finding work, number of drug tests in the last six months, times tested positive for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, opiates, crack, or other drugs, and number of arrests, charges, convictions, and technicals. Parts 15 and 17 (Hair Specimen Data, Six-Month Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group, and Hair Specimen Data, One-Year Follow-Up Interview, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Hair collection and its source at the six-month follow-up (Part 15) and one-year follow-up (Part 17) and whether parolee was positive or negative for cocaine or opiates. Part 18 (Texas Department of Public Safety Data, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Dates of first, second, and third offenses, if parolee was arrested, and first, second, and third offenses from the National Crime Information Center. Part 19 (Texas Department of Criminal Justice Data, Kyle Cohort and Comparison Group): Treatment condition, date of release, race, and a Texas Department of Criminal Justice Salient Factor Risk Score.
Curated
Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area Drug Study (DC*MADS), 1991: Homeless and Transient Population (ICPSR 2346)
Released/updated on: 2008-07-24
Geographic coverage: United States
The DC Metropolitan Area Drug Study (DC*MADS) was conducted in 1991, and included special analyses of homeless and transient populations and of women delivering live births in the DC hospitals. DC*MADS was undertaken to assess the full extent of the drug problem in one metropolitan area. The study was comprised of 16 separate studies that focused on different sub-groups, many of which are typically not included or are underrepresented in household surveys.
The Homeless and Transient Population study examines the prevalence of illicit drug, alcohol, and tobacco use among members of the homeless and transient population aged 12 and older in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Statistical Area (DC MSA). The sample frame included respondents from shelters, soup kitchens and food banks, major cluster encampments, and literally homeless people. Data from the questionnaires include history of homelessness, living arrangements and population movement, tobacco, drug, and alcohol use, consequences of use, treatment history, illegal behavior and arrest, emergency room treatment and hospital stays, physical and mental health, pregnancy, insurance, employment and finances, and demographics. Drug specific data include age at first use, route of administration, needle use, withdrawal symptoms, polysubstance use, and perceived risk.