My da|ra Login

Detailed view

metadata language: English

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2010

Version
v1
Resource Type
Dataset : administrative records data, clinical data, survey data
Creator
  • Hunt, Dana (Abt Associates)
  • Rhodes, William (Abt Associates)
Other Title
  • Version 1 (Subtitle)
Collective Title
  • Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program/Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Series
Publication Date
2011-11-04
Funding Reference
  • United States Office of National Drug Control Policy
Language
English
Free Keywords
ADAM/DUF Program; alcohol abuse; arrests; crime patterns; demographic characteristics; drug abuse; drug dependence; drug offenders; drug related crimes; drug testing; drug treatment; drug use; drugs; substance abuse; trends; urinalysis
Description
  • Abstract

    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.
  • Abstract

    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.
  • Abstract

    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 8,332 arrestees were interviewed during the second and third quarters of 2010. Participation was voluntary and confidential. The average interview lasted 20 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.
  • Abstract

    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.
  • Methods

    The data include two weight variables, WGT_Q (Weights when analyzing interview questions) and WGT_U (Weights when analyzing urine tests).
  • 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: Created variable labels and/or value labels.; Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
  • Methods

    Response Rates: Interviews were collected from 4,791 of the 8,332 eligible arrestees sampled across the 10 counties. In 2010, 4,182 of arrestees interviewed voluntarily provided a urine sample for testing.
  • Table of Contents

    Datasets:

    • DS1: Dataset
Temporal Coverage
  • Time period: 2010
  • 2010-04-01 / 2010-09-30
    Collection date: 2010-04-01--2010-09-30
Geographic Coverage
  • Atlanta
  • California
  • Charlotte
  • Chicago
  • Colorado
  • Denver
  • District of Columbia
  • Georgia
  • Illinois
  • Indiana
  • Indianapolis
  • Minneapolis
  • Minnesota
  • New York (state)
  • New York City
  • North Carolina
  • Oregon
  • Portland (Oregon)
  • Sacramento
  • United States
Sampled Universe
All male arrestees in sampled jails in ten counties in the United States during the second and third quarters of 2010. Smallest Geographic Unit: county
Sampling
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) II survey 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.
Collection Mode
  • face-to-face interview

    Users are encouraged to read the ADAM II Technical Documentation Report (October 2010) and the ADAM II: 2010 Annual Report for more information.

Note
Funding insitution(s): United States Office of National Drug Control Policy (GS-10F-0086K).
Availability
Download
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
  • 32321 (Type: ICPSR Study Number)
Publications
  • Caulkins, Jonathan P., Kilmer, Beau, Reuter, Peter H., Midgette, Greg. Cocaine's fall and marijuana's rise: Questions and insights based on new estimates of consumption and expenditures in US drug markets. Addiction.110, (5), 728-736.2015.
    • ID: 10.1111/add.12628 (DOI)
  • Gallo, Kimberly D.. The Relationship between Age of Onset of Drug Use, Drug Dependence, Mental Disorders, and Offense Type and Severity. Thesis, California State University, San Bernardino. 2015.
  • Hunt, Elizabeth, Peters, Roger H., Kremling, Janine. Behavioral health treatment history among persons in the justice system: Findings from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring II Program. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal.38, (1), 7-15.2015.
    • ID: 10.1037/prj0000132 (DOI)
  • Peters, Roger H., Kremling, Janine, Hunt, Elizabeth. Accuracy of self-reported drug use among offenders: Findings from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring-II Program. Criminal Justice and Behavior.42, (6), 623-643.2015.
    • ID: 10.1177/0093854814555179 (DOI)
  • Kilmer, Beau, Everingham, Susan S., Caulkins, Jonathan P., Midgette, Gregory, Pacula, Rosalie Liccardo, Reuter, Peter H., Burns, Rachel M., Han, Bing, Lundberg, Russell. What America's Users Spend on Illegal Drugs: 2000-2010. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. 2014.
    • ID: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/wausid_results_report.pdf (URL)
  • Kopak, Albert M., Hoffmann, Norman G.. Pathways between substance use, dependence, offense type, and offense severity. Criminal Justice Policy Review.25, (6), 743-760.2014.
    • ID: 10.1177/0887403413499582 (DOI)
  • Kopak, Albert M., Vartanian, Lisa, Hoffmann, Norman G., Hunt, Dana E.. The connections between substance dependence, offense type, and offense severity. Journal of Drug Issues.44, (3), 291-307.2014.
    • ID: 10.1177/0022042613511439 (DOI)
  • Kopak, Albert, Hoffmann, Norman G.. The association between drug dependence and drug possession charges. Drugs and Alcohol Today.14, (2), 2014.
  • Golub, Andrew, Brownstein, Henry H.. Drug generations in the 2000s: An analysis of arrestee data. Journal of Drug Issues.43, (3), 335-356.2013.
    • ID: 10.1177/0022042613475599 (DOI)
  • Abt Associates, Inc.. ADAM II: 2010 Annual Report. Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program.NCJ 234454, Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President. 2011.
    • ID: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ondcp/adam2010.pdf (URL)

Update Metadata: 2015-08-05 | Issue Number: 6 | Registration Date: 2015-06-16

Hunt, Dana; Rhodes, William (2011): Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program II in the United States, 2010. Version 1. Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program/Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Series. Version: v1. ICPSR - Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR32321.v1