U.S.

Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice

A N N U A L
R E P O R T

2000
A R R E S T E E

D R U G A B U S E

M O N I T O R I N G

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program

 U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft
Attorney General

Deborah J. Daniels
Assistant Attorney General

Sarah V. Hart
Director, National Institute of Justice

Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice

World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
2000 Arrestee Drug Abuse
Monitoring: Annual Report

April 2003
NCJ 193013
 National Institute of Justice
Sarah V. Hart
Director

For their forthright and insightful comments on the draft, we are indebted to our colleagues at the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, particularly Robert Eiss; at the National Institute on Drug
Abuse, particularly Lynda Erinoff; and at the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, U.S. Department of
Justice, particularly Robert Samuels. We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of ADAM’s
data management contractor, Abt Associates Inc, and the laboratory contractor, PharmChem, Inc.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the
Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
 A D A M 2 0 0 0 A N N U A L R E P O R T

Contents

Executive Summary................................................................................................................1

PART I: DRUG USE AND RELATED BEHAVIOR: FINDINGS ...................................5

Chapter I—Overall Findings and ADAM Redesign .......................................7
Chapter II—Drug Dependence and Treatment.............................................23
Chapter III—Alcohol Use and Alcohol Dependence ...................................41
Chapter IV—Drug Markets ............................................................................59
Chapter V—Drug Use Among Adult Female Arrestees ...............................93
Chapter VI—Drug Use Among Juvenile Detainees ....................................133
PART II: 2000 FINDINGS, BY SITE–ADULT MALE ARRESTEES..........................139

PART III: APPLYING THE NEW ADAM METHOD ...................................................175

Chapter VII—Implementing the New ADAM Study
Design at the Local Level ..........................................................................177
Chapter VIII—“Calendaring” in ADAM: Examining
Annual Patterns of Drug Use and Related Behavior ...............................193
Chapter IX—Estimating Hardcore Drug Use in the Community ..............201

APPENDIX ..........................................................................................................................211

Contents

iii
 A D A M 2 0 0 0 A N N U A L R E P O R T

TABLES AND EXHIBITS

TABLES

Chapter 1
Table 1–1: Number of Weighted Cases, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000..................11

Appendix Table 1–1: Drug Test Results, by Drug by Site—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 .....21

Appendix Table 1–2: ADAM Sample Sizes, Interviews,

and Urinalyses, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 .......................................................22

Chapter 2
Appendix Table 2–1: Drug Dependence and
Treatment Status, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 ....................................................33

Appendix Table 2–2: Adult Male Arrestees at Risk for

Drug Dependence, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 ...................................................34

Appendix Table 2–3: Demographics and Sociodemographics

of Adult Male Arrestees at Risk for Drug Dependence, by Site, 2000 ...............................35

Appendix Table 2–4: Adult Male Arrestees Who Ever

Received Drug or Alcohol Treatment, By Selected Drugs, by Site, 2000 ..........................36

Appendix Table 2–5: Demographics and Sociodemographics

of Adult Male Arrestees Who Received Drug or Alcohol
Treatment in Past Year, by Site, 2000 ..................................................................................38

Appendix Table 2–6: Adult Male Arrestees at Risk for Drug

Dependence Who Received Treatment, by Site, 2000 ........................................................40

Chapter 3
Table 3–1: “Heavy” Alcohol Use–ADAM Definitions ........................................................42

Appendix Table 3–1: Binge Drinking in Past Year and

Past Month, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 .............................................................49

Appendix Table 3–2a: Binge Drinking, Past Month,

by Age and Race, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000.....................................................50

Appendix Table 3–2b: Binge Drinking, Past Month,

by Demographic and Sociodemographic Characteristics,
Contents

by Site—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 ..................................................................................51

Appendix Table 3–3: Binge Drinking, Past Month, by

Level of Drinking, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 ...................................................52

Appendix Table 3–4a: Adult Male Arrestees at Risk

for Alcohol Dependence, Past Year, by Age Group by Site, 2000......................................53

Appendix Table 3–4b: Adult Male Arrestees at Risk

for Alcohol Dependence in Past Year, by Demographic
and Sociodemographic Characteristics, by Site, 2000........................................................54

iv
 A D A M 2 0 0 0 A N N U A L R E P O R T

Appendix Table 3–5: Adult Male Arrestees at Risk for

Alcohol Dependence, Past Month, by Level of Alcohol
Consumption, by Site, 2000 .................................................................................................55

Appendix Table 3–6: Proportions of Adult Male Arrestees

at Risk for Alcohol or Drug Dependence, by Age When
Drinking Began, by Site, 2000..............................................................................................56

Appendix Table 3–7: Drug Use in Past Month, by Level

of Alcohol Use–Adult Male Arrestees, by Drug by Site, 2000 ...........................................57

Chapter 4
Table 4–1: Method of Contacting Dealer to Obtain
Selected Drugs on Cash and Noncash Basis—Averages
Among Sites—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 .........................................................................64

Table 4–2: Reasons Attempts to Purchase Drugs Failed—

Averages Among Sites—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 .........................................................71

Table 4–3: Cash and Noncash Transactions, Most

Active Drug Market Sites—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 ....................................................71

Table 4–4: Number of Times Per Day Arrestees

Obtained Drugs, Most Active Drug Market Sites—
Adult Male Arrestees, 2000..................................................................................................71

Table 4–5: Number of Days in Past Month When

Arrestees Obtained Drugs, Most Active Drug Market Sites—
Adult Male Arrestees, 2000..................................................................................................72

Table 4–6: Number of Drug Transactions Per Month,

Most Active Drug Market Sites—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 ...........................................72

Table 4–7: Percentage of Arrestees Who Generated More

Than Half the Drug Transactions, Most Active Drug Market Sites—
Adult Male Arrestees, 2000..................................................................................................73

Table 4–8: Market Size (in Dollars) of Past-month Cash-only

Transactions, Most Active Drug Market Sites—
Adult Male Arrestees, 2000..................................................................................................73

Appendix Table 4-1: Drug Market Participation in

Past 30 Days, by Drug by Site–Adult Male Arrestees, 2000...............................................79
Appendix Table 4–2: Drug Transaction Type
Contents

(Cash, Noncash, or Combination), by Drug by Site—

Adult Male Arrestees, 2000..................................................................................................80

Appendix Table 4-3: Methods of Obtaining Drugs by

Noncash Transactions, by Drug by Site–
Adult Male Arrestees, 2000..................................................................................................81

Appendix Table 4-4: Methods of Contacting Dealer

to Obtain Marijuana, by Site–Adult Male Arrestees, 2000.................................................82

Appendix Table 4-5: Methods of Contacting Dealer

to Obtain Crack Cocaine, by Site–Adult Male Arrestees, 2000..........................................83
v
 A D A M 2 0 0 0 A N N U A L R E P O R T

Appendix Table 4-6: Methods of Contacting Dealer

to Obtain Powder Cocaine, by Site–Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 ......................................84

Appendix Table 4-7: Contacts with Multiple Drug Dealers

for Cash Purchases, by Drug by Site–Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 ....................................85

Appendix Table 4-8: Regularity of Relationship with

Drug Dealer for Cash Purchase, by Drug by Site–Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 .................86

Appendix Table 4-9: Use of Couriers/“Go-Betweens” for

Cash Purchases, by Drug by Site–Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 ..........................................87

Appendix Table 4-10: Outdoor Drug Purchases, by

Drug by Site–Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 ...........................................................................88

Appendix Table 4-11: Outside-Neighborhood Drug

Purchases, by Drug by Site–Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 ...................................................89

Appendix Table 4-12: Failed Drug Purchases, by

Drug by Site–Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 ...........................................................................90

Appendix Table 4-13: Reasons Attempts to Purchase

Drugs Failed, by Drug by Site–Adult Male Arrestees, 2000...............................................91

Chapter 5
Table 5–1: Average Age of Adult Female Arrestees, by Site, 2000 ....................................96

Table 5–2: Drug Transaction Types (Cash and Other)

for Marijuana and Crack Cocaine, by Selected Sites—
Adult Female Arrestees, 2000..............................................................................................99

Table 5–3: Outdoor Cash Purchases of Marijuana

and Crack Cocaine, by Selected Sites—Adult Female Arrestees, 2000 ...........................100

Table 5–4: Outside-Neighborhood Cash Purchases

of Marijuana and Crack Cocaine, by Selected Sites—
Adult Female Arrestees, 2000............................................................................................101
Table 5–5: Failed Cash Purchases of Marijuana and
Crack Cocaine, by Selected Sites—Adult Female Arrestees, 2000 ..................................102

Appendix Table 5–1: Sample Size—Adult Female Arrestees, 2000 ................................107

Appendix Table 5–2: Drug Test Results, by Drug by Site–

Adult Female Arrestees, 2000............................................................................................108
Contents

Appendix Table 5–3a: Drug Test Results for NIDA-5

Drugs and Cocaine, by Age by Site—Adult Female Arrestees, 2000...............................109

Appendix Table 5–3b: Drug Test Results for Marijuana

and Opiates, by Age by Site—Adult Female Arrestees, 2000 ..........................................110

Appendix Table 5–3c: Drug Test Results for Methamphetamine

and PCP, by Age by Site—Adult Female Arrestees, 2000 ...............................................111

Appendix Table 5–3d: Drug Test Results for Multiple NIDA-5 Drugs,
by Age by Site—Adult Female Arrestees, 2000 ................................................................112

vi
 A D A M 2 0 0 0 A N N U A L R E P O R T

Appendix Table 5–4a: Drug Test Results—Adult Females

Arrested for Violent Offenses, by Drug by Site, 2000 .......................................................113

Appendix Table 5–4b: Drug Test Results—Adult Females

Arrested for Drug and Alcohol Offenses, by Drug by Site, 2000 .....................................114

Appendix Table 5–4c: Drug Test Results—Adult Females

Arrested for Property Offenses, by Drug by Site, 2000.....................................................115

Appendix Table 5–4d: Drug Test Results—Adult Females

Arrested for Driving While Intoxicated, by Drug by Site, 2000 .......................................116

Appendix Table 5–4e: Drug Test Results—Adult Females

Arrested for Domestic Violence Offenses, by Drug by Site, 2000 ....................................117

Appendix Table 5–4f: Drug Test Results—Adult Females

Arrested for “Other” Offenses, by Drug by Site, 2000 ......................................................118

Appendix Table 5–5a: Drug Test Results by Race/Ethnicity

by Drug by Site—Adult Female Arrestees, 2000 (Whites and Blacks) ............................119

Appendix Table 5–5b: Drug Test Results by Race/Ethnicity

by Drug by Site—Adult Female Arrestees, 2000 (Hispanics and “Other”) .....................120

Appendix Table 5–6: Age and Race/Ethnicity, by Site—

Adult Female Arrestees, 2000............................................................................................121

Appendix Table 5–7: Demographics and Sociodemographics,

by Site—Adult Female Arrestees, 2000.............................................................................122

Appendix Table 5–8: Drug Use, Past 12 Months and Past

30 Days, by Drug by Site—Adult Female Arrestees, 2000 ...............................................123

Appendix Table 5–9: Extent of Heavy Drinking, by Site—

Adult Female Arrestees, 2000............................................................................................124

Appendix Table 5–10: Need for Treatment, as Measured by

Risk for Dependence and Injection Drug Use, by Site—
Adult Female Arrestees, 2000............................................................................................125

Appendix Table 5–11: Treatment for Drugs, Alcohol,

or Mental Health Problems, by Site—Adult Female Arrestees, 2000 ..............................126

Appendix Table 5–12a: Treatment for Drugs and

Mental Health Problems Among Adult Female Arrestees
Who Used Cocaine, by Type of Treatment by Site, 2000 .................................................127

Appendix Table 5–12b: Treatment for Drugs and

Contents

Mental Health Problems Among Adult Female Arrestees

Who Used Marijuana or Heroin, by Type of Treatment by Site, 2000.............................128

Appendix Table 5–12c: Treatment for Drugs and

Mental Health Problems Among Adult Female Arrestees
Who Used Methamphetamine, by Type of Treatment by Site, 2000 ...............................129

Appendix Table 5–13: Drug Market Participation

in Past 30 Days, by Drug by Site—Adult Female Arrestees, 2000 ...................................130

Appendix Table 5–14a: Methods of Obtaining Marijuana by

Noncash Means, Selected Sites—Adult Female Arrestees, 2000.....................................131
vii
 A D A M 2 0 0 0 A N N U A L R E P O R T

Appendix Table 5–14b: Methods of Obtaining Crack Cocaine

by Noncash Means, Selected Sites—Adult Female Arrestees, 2000................................131

Appendix Table 5–15a: Reasons Attempts to Purchase

Marijuana Failed, Selected Sites—Adult Female Arrestees, 2000...................................132

Appendix Table 5–15b: Reasons Attempts to Purchase

Crack Cocaine Failed, Selected Sites—Adult Female Arrestees, 2000............................132

Chapter 6
Table 6–1: ADAM Sites Where Juvenile Detainees Participated—2000 ..........................133

Table 6–2: Drug Test Results, by Drug by Site—Juvenile Male Arrestees, 2000 .............135

Table 6–3: Drug Test Results, by Drug by Site—Juvenile Female Arrestees, 2000 .........136

Chapter 8
Table 8–1: Self-Reported Crack Use, Selected Sites,
by Calendar Period—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 ............................................................194

Table 8–2: Arrest Rates in Past 12 Months, Selected Sites—

Adult Male Arrestees, 2000................................................................................................196

Table 8–3: Adult Male Arrestees Not Included in Other

Measures of Drug Use and Related Behavior, Selected Sites, 2000 .................................197

Chapter 9
Table 9–1: Estimated Number of Hardcore Drug Users in
the ADAM Sites—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 .................................................................208

EXHIBITS
Chapter 2
Exhibit 2–1: Percentages of Drug-using Adult Male
Arrestees at Risk for Dependence in Past Year, by Drug, 2000 ..........................................25

Exhibit 2–2: Participation by Drug-using Adult Male

Arrestees in Drug or Alcohol Treatment or Mental
Health Treatment—Ranges Among the Sites, 2000.............................................................26
Contents

Exhibit 2–3: Percentages of Drug-using Adult Male

Arrestees Who Ever Received Inpatient Drug or Alcohol
Treatment, by Drug—Ranges Among the Sites, 2000 .........................................................27

Exhibit 2–4: Percentages of Drug-using Adult Male

Arrestees Who Ever Received Outpatient Drug or
Alcohol Treatment, by Drug—Ranges Among the Sites, 2000 ...........................................27

Exhibit 2–5: Hispanic Adult Male Arrestees: Percentages

at Risk for Drug Dependence and Percentages with Health
Insurance, Past 12 Months, Selected Sites, 2000 ................................................................28
viii
 A D A M 2 0 0 0 A N N U A L R E P O R T

Exhibit 2–6: Percentages of Drug-using Adult Male

Arrestees Who Received Drug or Alcohol Treatment,
Past 12 Months, by Race, Selected Sites, 2000 ...................................................................28

Exhibit 2–7: Percentages Who Lack Health Insurance:

Drug-dependent and Drug-using Adult Male Arrestees
and All Adult Male Arrestees, Selected Sites, 2000...........................................................28

Chapter 3
Exhibit 3–1: Binge Drinking in Past Month Among
Homeless and Nonhomeless Adult Male Arrestees, by Site, 2000 ....................................43

Exhibit 3–2: Levels of Heavy Alcohol Use, Past Month—

Ranges Among the Sites—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 ......................................................44

Chapter 4
Exhibit 4–1: Extent of Drug Market Participation in the Past
Month, by Selected Drugs–Ranges Among the Sites—
Adult Male Arrestees, 2000..................................................................................................61

Exhibit 4–2: Drug Transaction Types (Cash and Other),

by Selected Drugs—Ranges Among the Sites—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 ....................62

Exhibit 4–3: Noncash Drug Transactions Involving Gifts,

by Selected Drugs—Ranges Among the Sites—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 ....................63

Exhibit 4–4: Use of Two or More Drug Dealers to Make Cash

Purchases, by Selected Drugs—Ranges Among the Sites—
Adult Male Arrestees, 2000..................................................................................................66

Exhibit 4–5: Most Recent Cash Purchase of Drugs from a

Regular Source (Dealer), by Selected Drugs—Ranges Among
the Sites—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000................................................................................67

Exhibit 4–6: Outdoor Purchases of Drugs–Ranges Among

the Sites, by Selected Drugs—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000................................................68

Exhibit 4–7: Drug Purchases Made Outside the Neighborhood,

by Selected Drugs—Ranges Among the Sites—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 ....................69

Exhibit 4–8: Failed Purchases, by Selected Drugs—

Ranges Among the Sites—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 ......................................................70
Contents

Chapter 5
Exhibit 5–1: Drug Test Results—Ranges Among the Sites—
Adult Female Arrestees, 2000..............................................................................................94

Exhibit 5–2: Extent of Drug Market Participation in

the Past Month, by Selected Drugs—Ranges Among the Sites—
Adult Female Arrestees, 2000..............................................................................................98

ix
 A D A M 2 0 0 0 A N N U A L R E P O R T

Chapter 8
Exhibit 8–1: Annual Rates of Arrest, by Selected Drugs, by
Selected Sites—Adult Male Arrestees, 2000 .....................................................................195

Exhibit 8–2: Percentages of Adult Male Arrestees Who Used

Heroin or Cocaine in Past Year, by Level of Use, New York—
Adult Male Arrestees, 2000................................................................................................198

Exhibit 8–3: Patterns of Heroin Use for 3 Adult Male

Arrestees in Year Before Arrest, New York—2000............................................................199

Exhibit 8–4: Heroin Use by “User B” in Context of Treatment

and Involvement in Criminal Justice System, New York—ADAM Data, 2000 ...............199

Chapter 9
Exhibit 9–1: Hardcore Drug Users Are Assumed to All Have
the Same Arrest Rate ..........................................................................................................201

Exhibit 9–2: The Estimate Requires Creating a Model of

the Arrest Process ...............................................................................................................202

Exhibit 9–3: The Basic Logic of the Estimation Model Illustrated ..................................203

Exhibit 9–4: Introducing Measured Heterogeneity into the Estimation ..........................204

Exhibit 9–5: Changing the Calculation to Accommodate

Measured Heterogeneity.....................................................................................................205

Exhibit 9–6: Introducing Unmeasured Heterogeneity into the Estimation .....................205

Exhibit 9–7: Average Annual Arrest Rate of Hardcore

Drug Users in a County ......................................................................................................206

Exhibit 9–8: Hardcore Users in the Community Per Hardcore

User in the Booking Population.........................................................................................207
Contents

x
 A D A M 2 0 0 0 A N N U A L R E P O R T

Executive Summary

admissions to treatment, and drug market

W
hen the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) established the Drug participation. Another series of essays
Use Forecasting (DUF) program in documents the new ADAM method and
1988, it was the first time an objective drug explores possible new ways to apply it.
testing method would be routinely used to
The “audiences” for ADAM data are the
assess the validity of self-reported drug use
same as in the past. For policymakers,
among people charged with crime. DUF
there is a broad overview of drug use
demonstrated that it is possible to conduct
among the population at risk for crime. For
research on drug use among arrestees in the
practitioners in the justice system who deal
jail setting, and for many years the program
day-to-day with drug use and related
provided information to policymakers and
crime, ADAM offers information useful for
practitioners about drug use in the at-risk
planning control strategies. Practitioners in
population of arrestees.
the ADAM sites can compare the drug-use
Evaluations of DUF led NIJ to decide to profile of their jurisdiction with that of
strengthen the program by making the sam- other sites. For researchers, the ADAM data
pling procedure more scientifically sound, offer myriad possibilities for investigating
standardizing data collection, and institut- the drug-crime link.
ing other changes. After several years of
development and testing, the restructured
Overall findings and ADAM
program was fully implemented in 2000 as
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM). redesign
Probability-based sampling was adopted, In 2000, drug use continued to be common
the interview instrument (questionnaire) among adult male arrestees, as in previous
was enhanced to cover several new areas of years. The ADAM redesign strengthens the

Executive
drug use and related behavior, and the reliability of the findings and makes it pos-
number of sites was increased. sible to explore new areas of drug use and
related behavior.
The 2000 annual report reflects these
changes. That means it departs from previ- ■ In half the 35 ADAM sites, urinalysis indi-
ous years’ reports in some ways. As in the cated that 64 percent or more of adult male
past, it presents information about arrestees had recently used at least one of
arrestees’ drug use, both overall and site by five drugs: cocaine (undistinguished
Summary

site. This year the report also features a between crack and powder), marijuana,
series of chapters that examine in depth opiates, methamphetamine, or PCP (phen-
some of the new topics that are now a rou- cyclidine). Marijuana was the drug most
tine part of the questionnaire. The empha- commonly used, followed by cocaine.
sis is on adult male arrestees, because prob-
ability-based sampling is currently used ■ The transition from DUF to ADAM in
only for this population. As in the past, the 2000 completed a major redesign of the
report includes a summary table of data program. One component of the redesign
from each site, but this year the tables also included enhancing the data collection
show risk for drug and alcohol dependence, instrument (the interview questionnaire)

1
 A D A M 2 0 0 0 A N N U A L R E P O R T

to ask about alcohol use, risk for depend- of 70 percent. Drinking at the level
ence on drugs and alcohol, substance defined as “heaviest” was not uncommon:
abuse treatment, and drug market partici- The proportions who had five or more
pation, including how and where drugs drinks on one occasion on 13 or more
are obtained. The number of sites in the days in the month before their arrest
ADAM program increased from 23 to 35 ranged from 10 percent to 24 percent.
(including two “affiliated” sites1).
Arguably the most important change was ■ Risk for alcohol dependence was meas-
the adoption, at all ADAM sites, of prob- ured by a special set of questions, or
ability-based sampling for selecting adult “screen.” By this measure, more than
male arrestees. four in five of the “heaviest” drinkers
were at risk. In half the sites, 85 percent
or more were at risk, with the range
Drug dependence and treatment among the sites 67 percent to 91 percent.
As part of the redesigned program, adult
■ The heaviest drinkers were also likely to
male arrestees’ risk for dependence on
have used illicit drugs. On average, 71
drugs is measured, and they are asked
percent of them had used at least one
about their experiences with treatment.
drug in the month before their arrest.
■ Between about one-fourth and one-half of
all adult male arrestees in the ADAM Drug markets
sites were found to have been at risk for
dependence on drugs. The ADAM redesign makes it possible to
obtain information about drug markets
■ Although a large percentage of adult male from a large number of buyers at the local
arrestees had not only used drugs but level in many sites nationwide. Adult male
also were at risk for drug dependence, arrestees were asked about the extent of
few had received treatment. Among the their participation in drug markets, how
ADAM sites, the range in the proportions and where they acquired drugs, what diffi-
who said they were treated on an inpa- culties they encountered trying to do so,
tient basis in the year before their arrest how often they obtained drugs, and the
for either drugs or alcohol was 4 percent dollar value of the drugs.
to 17 percent, and the range of those who
had received outpatient treatment was 2 ■ In the 23 sites analyzed,2 the market for
percent to 15 percent. marijuana was the largest, as measured
by percentage of adult male arrestees
Summary

■ With few exceptions, adult male arrestees who participated. Much smaller percent-
who were treated for drug or alcohol use in ages participated in the markets for crack
the year before their arrest were more likely cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, and
than not to have no health insurance. methamphetamine.

■ Many arrestees participated in one or

Alcohol use and alcohol dependence more drug markets. The majority report-
Executive

Alcohol abuse can be associated with ed little difficulty completing a drug

behavioral problems, including crime. transaction, saying such obstacles as
ADAM asks adult male arrestees about police activity and lack of drug availabili-
their use of alcohol and measures their risk ty were not a problem.
for dependence on it.
■ Fairly large proportions of adult male
■ Adult male arrestees drank heavily. arrestees did not rely solely on cash to
Among the sites, the proportions who obtain drugs, whether marijuana, crack
had five or more drinks on at least one cocaine, or powder cocaine. These non-
occasion in the month before their arrest cash exchanges most commonly took
ranged from a low of 35 percent to a high place at a social setting or at work. In

2
 A D A M 2 0 0 0 A N N U A L R E P O R T

many sites, when arrestees paid cash for Angeles, Phoenix, Portland, San Antonio, San
marijuana, the most common method of Diego, and Tucson). Data were also gathered
obtaining it was by using a phone or in Cleveland, but for juvenile male detainees
pager, and for crack cocaine it was by only. The samples were not probability-based,
approaching a dealer in a public place. nor were the interviews conducted with the
expanded ADAM questionnaire.4
■ In four high-volume sites (Miami,
Phoenix, Seattle, and Tucson), the num- ■ Juveniles were more likely to test posi-
ber of transactions in the crack market tive by urinalysis for marijuana than any
was much larger than in the powder other drug.
cocaine and marijuana markets. In these
sites, the estimated size (measured in dol- ■ Cocaine came in a distant second; the
lars) of the crack cocaine market in a 30- percentages testing positive for metham-
day period was 2 to 10 times larger than phetamine were also low.
the size of the powder cocaine and mari-
juana markets. The range among these Implementing the new ADAM study
sites in the market size of crack cocaine
was about $226,000 to $1,400,000.
design at the local level
Implementing the new, probability-based
ADAM study design involved adopting
Drug use among adult female standardized data collection procedures
arrestees among 35 sites. This entailed redefining
Although only about one in five people the catchment areas (the area from which
arrested in the United States is a woman, arrestees are drawn to participate in the
and the proportion of women who commit program) to make them uniform among the
drug offenses is even smaller, the number sites, and designing sampling plans at the
of women charged with drug offenses is not county level and the level of each facility
inconsequential. Research on women’s to ensure that all arrestees have some prob-
involvement in drugs has been relatively ability of being included among those par-
limited, but the ADAM redesign offers the ticipating in the program.
opportunity to expand research on their ■ In DUF, the definition of the catchment
drug use and drug-related behavior.3 area varied from site to site, and often
■ As in previous years, urinalysis revealed consisted of a single jail. In ADAM the
that a large percentage of women catchment area was redefined as the

Executive
arrestees had used drugs. Cocaine was county for all sites.
the drug for which the proportion testing ■ Data collection was redesigned to
positive was highest, with marijuana account for variations among the sites in
coming in second. the structure and size of local criminal
■ Of the women arrestees who used drugs justice systems and processes. The coun-
or alcohol, about half were found at risk ty-level sampling model adopted was
for drug dependence. flexible enough to be applied to the spe-
cific counties/sites.
Summary

■ Only very small percentages of women

arrestees had been treated for drug or alco- ■ The transition from DUF to ADAM showed
hol use the year before their arrest. The that standardized protocols and probability-
average among the sites was 11 percent. based sampling can be implemented in the
dynamic environment of the jail.

Drug use among juvenile detainees ■ Within one year of introducing the new
sampling method, almost all the ADAM
Data on drug use were collected from male
sites had successfully implemented it.
and female juvenile detainees in 8 of the 35
That means they can now develop reliable
ADAM sites (Birmingham, Denver, Los
3
 A D A M 2 0 0 0 A N N U A L R E P O R T

prevalence estimates for a variety of ■ The proportions of arrestees who used

drug-related issues, including the propor- heroin and cocaine at least 15 days a
tions of arrestees who test positive for month in every month of the year were
drugs and those who need treatment. higher than the proportions who used
them less frequently (for example 1 to 7
days a month in each month).
“Calendaring” in ADAM:
examining annual patterns of
Estimating hardcore drug use in
drug use and related behavior
the community
A new feature in the ADAM interview
instrument in 2000 is “calendaring,” which ADAM is developing a method that can be
permits analysis of drug use and related used to estimate the prevalence of hardcore
behavior for the period of a full year. drug use in the sites. Made possible by the
Through memory aids built into the ques- adoption of probability-based sampling, the
tionnaire, arrestees’ behavior is examined method infers prevalence in the communi-
month by month for the entire 12-month ty from the count of adult male hardcore
period of the survey. The technique can users who are arrested and booked at the
increase accuracy in arrestees’ recall of ADAM sites. Arrest rates are therefore key
drug use and related behavior. to the calculations.

■ Data from selected sites, when broken ■ Preliminary estimates indicate that, in
down by different periods of time in the most ADAM sites, there are 750 arrests
year, demonstrated that recent drug use is and bookings a year for every 1,000 hard-
not always a good measure of longer- core drug users and that the number of
term, more typical use. hardcore users ranges from just over
1,500 (Minneapolis) to almost 126,000
■ The annual rates of arrest for individual (New York). For sites where sampling
arrestees can vary by type of drug used. takes place in several jail facilities, the
numbers are likely underrepresentations,
■ The ADAM redesign permits the data to by perhaps as much as half.
be “crosswalked” with other annually
conducted national surveys of drug use ■ Once the method has been refined, the
and related behavior. Analysis indicates ADAM sites should be able to use it to
that some of these surveys do not cover make their own calculations.
the subpopulation reached by ADAM.
Summary

NOTES
1. ADAM’s two affiliated sites—so called because they are funded by sources other than NIJ—are Charlotte/Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina, and Albany/New York Capital Area.

2. This analysis was confined to the 23 sites where the markets for all three heavily used drugs—marijuana, crack cocaine, and powder
cocaine—were most active.
Executive

3. Because the number of women arrested is much lower than the number of men, fewer are available for participation in ADAM. Some
ADAM sites do not include women arrestees. The expanded ADAM questionnaire was used to interview the women arrestees, but proba-
bility-based sampling does not yet include them.

4. Juvenile detainees are interviewed with the DUF instrument (questionnaire), but the program is considering designing a new interview
instrument for them, to collect information about drug treatment and participation in drug markets.