Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 1999

Resource Type
Dataset : survey data, clinical data, and administrative records data
  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice
Other Title
  • Archival Version (Subtitle)
Collective Title
  • Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program/Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Series
Publication Date
Funding Reference
  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice
Free Keywords
ADAM/DUF Program; alcohol abuse; arrests; crime patterns; demographic characteristics; drug dependence; drug offenders; drug related crimes; drug testing; drug treatment; drug use; drugs; substance abuse; trends; urinalysis
  • Abstract

    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).
  • Abstract

    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 an expanded and redesigned version of the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]) that has been upgraded methodologically and was expanded to 35 cities in 1998. 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 a 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 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?
  • Abstract

    The ADAM program is a nonexperimental survey of drug use among arrestees. In addition to supplying information on self-reported drug use, arrestees are asked to provide a urine specimen at the conclusion of the interview, 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. The data from the city of Denver included Denver County in its entirety, and the St. Louis data also encompassed a county. (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. In 1998, ADAM expanded to 35 sites, making a concerted effort to add sites west of the Mississippi River. The 12 new sites were 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 represents 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. In 1999, St. Louis was temporarily on hiatus from the ADAM program, resulting in a total of 34 sites for 1999. Data collection took place four times a year (once each calendar quarter) in each site on a staggered schedule, with collection periods for any single population (male, female, or juvenile) generally lasting 1-2 consecutive weeks. Data collection for the various populations did not necessarily run concurrently. Interviewing typically occurred over 4- to 8-hour shifts every day for a 1- to 2-week period. Trained local staff at each site administered voluntary, confidential interviews and obtained anonymous urine specimens from detained arrestees who had been in a booking facility for not more than 48 hours. The number of persons interviewed and the demographic composition of those interviewed varied somewhat across the 34 sites participating in the 1999 ADAM program. On average, each site attempted to obtain a sample of 225 adult males per quarter. Data were collected from approximately 100 adult females each quarter at 33 of the 34 sites. In addition, nine sites collected data from juvenile males and six collected data from juvenile females. These data are provided in Part 2, Juvenile Arrestees Data. At sites in which juveniles were interviewed, staff attempted to obtain samples of 100 boys and 100 girls, although in many sites these quotas were 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. This represents a substantial change from the eligibility criteria used in past years. Users are encouraged to consult the user guides for ICPSR 9477 to compare the eligibility criteria used from 1987-1997.
  • Abstract

    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 ADAM/DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of the 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 data) also includes 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 include 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. Further, the data 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 instrument provide information about each arrestee's history of drug/alcohol treatment, including whether they ever received drug/alcohol treatment and whether they needed drug/alcohol treatment. In addition to the survey, 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 following variables included in the data were collected for use by local law enforcement officials at each site: precinct (precinct of arrest) and law (penal law code associated with the crime for which the subject was arrested).
  • Methods

    ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Performed consistency checks.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
  • Methods

    Presence of Common Scales: None.
  • Methods

    Response Rates: Approximately 80 percent of eligible arrestees agreed to be interviewed. This agreement rate is down from approximately 90 percent in previous years of the DUF program due to a change in the sampling method. With all arrestees eligible for the ADAM program, an increased number of arrestees did 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.
  • Table of Contents


    • DS0: Study-Level Files
    • DS1: Adult Arrestees Data
    • DS2: Juvenile Arrestees Data
Temporal Coverage
  • 1999-01-01 / 1999-12-31
    Time period: 1999-01-01--1999-12-31
  • 1999-01-01 / 1999-12-31
    Collection date: 1999-01-01--1999-12-31
Geographic Coverage
  • United States
Sampled Universe
Arrestees in 34 sites in the United States during 1999.
The data were collected from the following: 31,210 adult male arrestees at 33 sites, 10,278 adult female arrestees at 32 sites, 2,514 juvenile male detainees in 9 sites, and 434 juvenile female detainees in 6 sites. All arrestees were eligible for the ADAM program.
Collection Mode
  • (1) St. Louis data are not included in this data collection, because the city was temporarily on hiatus from the ADAM program in 1999. (2) 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. (3) Users are encouraged to refer to the documentation and reports for the DUF data (ICPSR 9477) for specific information on the DUF program from 1987-1997. (4) The user guide, codebook, and data collection instruments are provided as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.

2006-03-30 File CB2994.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (98-IJ-CX-C001).
One or more files in this study are not available for download due to special restrictions; consult the study documentation to learn more on how to obtain the data.
Alternative Identifiers
  • 2994 (Type: ICPSR Study Number)
  • Is previous version of
    DOI: 10.3886/ICPSR02994.v1
  • Eriksson, Li, Mazerolle, Paul. A cycle of violence?: Examining family-of-origin violence, attitudes, and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.30, (6), 945-964.2015.
    • ID: 10.1177/0886260514539759 (DOI)
  • Miller, Riane N., Kuhns, Joseph B.. Exploring the impact of medical marijuana laws on the validity of self-reported marijuana use among juvenile arrestees over time. Criminal Justice Policy Review.23, (1), 40-66.2012.
    • ID: 10.1177/0887403410392026 (DOI)
  • Pyrooz, David C., Fox, Andrew M., Katz, Charles M., Decker, Scott H.. Gang organization, offending, and victimization: A cross-national analysis. Youth Gangs in International Perspective: Results from the Eurogang Program of Research.New York, NY: Springer. 2012.
  • Katz, Charles M., Webb, Vincent J., Fox, Kate, Shaffer, Jennifer N.. Understanding the relationship between violent victimzation and gang membership. Journal of Criminal Justice.39, (1), 48-59.2011.
    • ID: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.10.004 (DOI)
  • Kremling, Janine. An Analysis of the Influence of Sampling Methods on Estimation of Drug Use Prevalence and Patterns among Arrestees in the United States: Implications for Research and Policy. Dissertation, University of South Florida. 2010.
  • Dave, Dhaval. Illicit drug use among arrestees, prices and policy. Journal of Urban Economics.63, (2), 694-714.2009.
    • ID: 10.1016/j.jue.2007.04.011 (DOI)
  • Leigh, B.C.. Drinking and Crime: A case-crossover analysis of data from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program. 32nd Annual Scientific Meeting of the Research Society on Alcoholism.San Diego, CA. 2009.
    • ID: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2009.00957.x (DOI)
  • The White House. National Drug Control Strategy: Data Supplement 2009. NCJ 225448, Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2009.
    • ID: (URL)
  • Decker, Scott H., Katz, Charles M., Webb, Vincent J.. Understanding the black box of gang organization: Implications for involvement in violent crime, drug sales, and violent victimization. Crime and Delinquency.54, (1), 153-172.2008.
    • ID: 10.1177/0011128706296664 (DOI)
  • The White House. National Drug Control Strategy. Data Supplement 2008.NCJ 221951, Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2008.
    • ID: (URL)
  • Wood, Darryl S.. Criterion validity of self-reported drug use among Alaska Native and non-Native arrestees in Anchorage, Alaska. Criminal Justice Studies.21, (1), 49-60.2008.
    • ID: 10.1080/14786010801972688 (DOI)
  • Damphousse, Kelly R.. Start spreading the news: Understanding the drug problem in the mid-American states with the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program. Free Inquiry.35, (1), 63-78.2007.
  • Gorman, Dennis M., Huber, J. Charles, Jr.. Do medical cannabis laws encourage cannabis use?. International Journal of Drug Policy.18, (3), 160-167.2007.
    • ID: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2006.10.001 (DOI)
  • Rhodes, William, Hunt, Dana, Chapman, Meg, Kling, Ryan, Dyous, Christina, Fuller, Doug. Using ADAM Data to Investigate the Effectiveness of Law Enforcement. NCJ 221073, Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc.. 2007.
    • ID: (URL)
  • Decker, Scott H., Katz, Charles M., Webb, Vincent J.. Assessing the validity of self-reports by gang members: Results from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program. Crime and Delinquency.52, (2), 232-252.2006.
  • Ren, Ling. Rethinking the Crime Drop in the United States During the 1990s: An Examination of Competing Theoretical Perspectives. Dissertation, University of Nebraska at Omaha. 2006.
  • Reuter, Peter. Drug Use. Gender Issues.23, (3), 65 -2006.
    • ID: 10.1007/BF03186778 (DOI)
  • Ross, Michael W., Risser, Jan, Peters, Ronald J.. Cocaine use and syphilis trends: Findings from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program and syphilis epidemiology in Houston. American Journal on Addictions.15, (6), 473-477.2006.
    • ID: 10.1080/10550490601000462 (DOI)
  • Golub, Andrew, Liberty, Hillary James, Johnson, Bruce D.. Inaccuracies in self-reports and urinalysis tests: Impacts on monitoring marijuana use trends among arrestees. Journal of Drug Issues.35, (4), 941-965.2005.
    • ID: 10.1177/002204260503500413 (DOI)
  • Jones, Peter R.. Drug use trends across the DUF/ADAM divide: 1988-2002. Boston, MA. 2005.
  • Katz, Charles M., Webb, Vincent J., Decker, Scott H.. Using the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program to further understand the relationship between drug use and gang membership. Justice Quarterly.22, (1), 58-88.2005.
    • ID: 10.1080/0741882042000333645 (DOI)
  • Rosenfeld, Richard, Fornango, Robert, Baumer, Eric. Did Ceasefire, Compstat, and Exile reduce homicide?. Criminology and Public Policy.4, (3), 419-450.2005.
  • Bliss, Meredith L.. Changes in Indicators of Methamphetamine Use and Property Crime Rates in Oregon. Salem, OR: Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. 2004.
    • ID: (URL)
  • Webb, Vincent J., Katz, Charles M., Decker, Scott H.. Assessing the Validity of Self-Reports by Gang Members: Results From the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program. Conference of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.Las Vegas, NV. 2004.
  • Yacoubian, George S., Jr., Peters, Ronald J.. Exploring the prevalence and correlates of methamphetamine use: Findings from Sacramento's ADAM program. Journal of Drug Education.34, (3), 281-294.2004.
    • ID: 10.2190/QBHY-ADHA-MYMW-HCMR (DOI)
  • Dugan, Laura, Nagin, Daniel S., Rosenfeld, Richard. Do domestic violence services save lives?. National Institute of Justice Journal.(250), 20-25.2003.
    • ID: (URL)
  • Falkowski, Carol L.. Drug Abuse Trends. Center City, MN: Hazelden Foundation. 2003.
  • MacCoun, Robert, Kilmer, Beau, Reuter, Peter. Research on Drugs-Crime Linkages: The Next Generation. NIJ Special Report.. 2003.
    • ID: (URL)
  • Myrstol, Brad. Drug use trends among Anchorage arrestees: 1999-2001. Alaska Justice Forum.19, (4), 1, 10-12.2003.
    • ID: (URL)
  • Pacula, Rosalie L., Kilmer, Beau. Marijuana and Crime: Is There a Connection Beyond Prohibition?. NBER Working Paper Series.10046, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. 2003.
    • ID: (URL)
  • Yacoubian, George S., Jr.. Assessing the efficacy of the calendar method with Oklahoma City arrestees. Journal of Crime and Justice.26, (1), 117-131.2003.
    • ID: 10.1080/0735648X.2003.9721173 (DOI)
  • Golub, Andrew, Johnson, Bruce D., Taylor, Angela, Eterno, John. Does Quality-of-Life Policing Widen the Net?. NCJ 198996, . 2002.
    • ID: (URL)
  • Mieczkowski, Tom. Does ADAM need a haircut? A pilot study of self-reported drug use and hair analysis in an arrestee sample. Journal of Drug Issues.32, (1), 97-118.2002.
    • ID: 10.1177/002204260203200105 (DOI)
  • Yacoubian, George S.. Exploring benzodiazepine use among Houston arrestees. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs.34, (4), 393-399.2002.
    • ID: 10.1080/02791072.2002.10399980 (DOI)
  • Yacoubian, George S., Peters, Ronald J., Jr., Urbach, Blake J., Johnson, Regina J.. Comparing drug use between welfare-receiving arrestees and non-welfare-receiving arrestees. Journal of Drug Education.32, (2), 139-147.2002.
    • ID: 10.2190/J9P8-2MP4-6CU7-P004 (DOI)
  • Yacoubian, George S., Urbach, B. J.. To pee or not to pee: Reconsidering the need for urinalysis. Journal of Drug Education.32, (4), 261-270.2002.
    • ID: 10.2190/FAW4-6GNP-Q6N7-V5MB (DOI)
  • (author unknown). Ecstasy surveillance in the United States: The time to monitor juvenile arrestees is now. Journal of Offender Monitoring.14, (3-4), 23-24.2001.
  • Anonymous. Drug use among adult and juvenile arrestees remains high. Juvenile Justice Update.6, (6), 4 -2001.
  • Giblin, Matthew J.. Aspects of drug use: Arrestees in Anchorage, 2000. Alaska Justice Forum.18, (3), 6-8.2001.
    • ID: (URL)
  • Golub, Andrew, Johnson, Bruce D.. The Rise of Marijuana as the Drug of Choice Among Youthful Adult Arrestees. Research in Brief.NCJ 187490, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 2001.
    • ID: (URL)
  • (author unknown). 1999 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 2000.
  • (author unknown). 1999 Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees, Research Report. NCJ 181426, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 2000.
  • Anonymous. Half of male suspects are substance users. Crime Control Digest.34, (30), 4-5.2000.
  • Atwell, Cassie, Giblin, Matthew. Drug use among arrestees in Anchorage. Alaska Justice Forum.17, (1), 7-8.2000.
    • ID: (URL)
  • Nadler, Richard. Always with us...and wrong about the poor. National Review.52, (21), 48-49.2000.

Update Metadata: 2015-08-05 | Issue Number: 6 | Registration Date: 2015-06-15