The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program/Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Series is an expanded and redesigned version of the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program, which was upgraded methodologically and expanded to 35 cities in 1998. The redesign was fully implemented beginning in the first quarter of 2000 using new sampling procedures that improved the quality and generalizability of the data. The DUF program began in 1987 and was designed to estimate the prevalence of drug use among persons in the United States who are arrested and booked, and to detect changes in trends in drug use among this population. The DUF program was a nonexperimental survey of drug use among adult male and female arrestees. In addition to supplying information on self-reported drug use, arrestees also provide a urine specimen, which is screened for the presence of ten illicit drugs. Between 1987 and 1997 the DUF program collected information in 24 sites across the United States, although the number of data collection sites varied slightly from year to year. Data collection took place four times a year (once each calendar quarter) in each site and selection criteria and catchment areas (central city or county) varied from site to site. The original DUF interview instrument (used for the 1987-1994 data and part of the 1995 data) elicited information about the use of 22 drugs. A modified DUF interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of the 1996-1999 data) included detailed questions about each arrestee's use of 15 drugs. Juvenile data were added in 1991. The ADAM program, redesigned from the DUF program, moved to a probability-based sampling for the adult male population during 2000. The shift to sampling of the adult male population in 2000 required that all 35 sites move to a common catchment area, the county. The ADAM program also implemented a new and expanded adult instrument in the first quarter of 2000, which was used for both the male and female data. The term "arrestee" is used in the documentation, but because no identifying data are collected in the interview setting, the data represent numbers of arrests rather than an unduplicated count of persons arrested. Funding The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) initiated ADAM in 1998 to replace DUF. In 2007, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) initiated ADAM II.

This project involved an experiment conducted in three Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) [DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 (ICPSR 9477)] program sites to determine whether using a more detailed informed consent procedure and/or altering the sequence of the interview and urine specimen collection could enhance the validity of arrestees' self-reports of drug use without adversely affecting study response rates. A 2x2 factorial design was used to assess the effects of the two manipulations. The first two experimental conditions involved administering either the standard DUF informed consent or an enhanced consent that told the arrestees more about the confidential nature of the research and the capabilities of urinalysis. The second two conditions involved collecting the urine specimen either before or after the interview was administered. The experiment included 2,015 adult arrestees from Cleveland, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Houston, Texas, who were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. The experiment was designed so that the only variability across the interviews was the manipulation of informed consent and the sequencing of the urine specimen request. All other procedures of a standard DUF collection were followed. Data were collected in Cleveland between July 8 and August 22, 1997, in Detroit from August 4 to September 27, 1997, and in Houston from October 17 to November 1, 1997. Variables specific to this project include the experimental condition to which the respondent was assigned, follow-up questions asking whether the arrestee would have responded differently if assigned to the other conditions, and several dummy variables on length and type of drug use. Data from the DUF interview provided 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. 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). Demographic data include the age, race, sex, educational attainment, marital status, employment status, and living circumstances of each respondent.

This study examined the use of arrestee urinalysis results as a predictor of other community drug problems. A three-stage public health model was developed using drug diffusion and community drug indicators as aggregate measures of individual drug use careers. Monthly data on drug indicators for Washington, DC, and Portland, Oregon, were used to: (1) estimate the correlations of drug problem indicators over time, (2) examine the correlations among indicators at different stages in the spread of new forms of drug abuse, and (3) estimate lagged models in which arrestee urinalysis results were used to predict subsequent community drug problems. Variables included arrestee drug test results, drug-overdose deaths, crimes reported to the local police department, and child maltreatment incidents. Washington variables also included drug-related emergency room episodes. The unit of analysis was months covered by the study. The Washington, DC, data consist of 78 records, one for each month from April 1984 through September 1990. The Portland, Oregon, data contain 33 records, one for each month from January 1988 through September 1990.

Abstract The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) and the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program provide information on alcohol and drug use by individuals who have recently been arrested. The studies differ in their target populations (civilian, noninstitutionalized individuals vs. arrestees in 39 sites recently booked into jails) and data collection methods. This study uses 2003 ADAM and 2002–2008 NSDUH data for adult males living in the 39 ADAM sites who reported a past year arrest and 2002–2008 Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) data to examine how well NSDUH covers the arrestee population and to compare estimates of drug and alcohol use and substance abuse or dependence. In general, ADAM estimates of rates of self-reported drug use were higher. The magnitude of these differences cannot be accounted for by undercoverage in NSDUH. Other possible reasons for these differences and their implications for interpreting NSDUH and ADAM data are discussed.

This data collection compares a sample of persons arrested for offenses related to crack cocaine with a sample arrested for offenses related to powdered cocaine. The collection is one of two parts of a study designed to examine the characteristics of crack users and sellers, the impact of large numbers of crack-related offenders on the criminal justice system, and their effects on drug treatment and community programs. Official arrest records and supplementary data bases are used to analyze the official arrest, conviction, and incarceration histories of powdered cocaine and crack defendants. Questions addressed by the collection include: (1) How are defendants charged with crack-related offenses different from defendants charged with offenses related to powdered cocaine? (2) Is there a difference between the ways the criminal justice system handles crack offenders and powdered cocaine offenders in pretrial detention, charges filed, case dispositions, and sentencing? (3) How do the criminal careers of crack offenders compare with the criminal careers of powdered cocaine offenders, especially in terms of total arrest rates, frequencies of nondrug crimes, and frequencies of violent crimes? (4) Is violence more strongly associated with crack dealing than with powdered cocaine dealing? and (5) How does the developmental history of powdered cocaine sales and possession compare with the history of crack sales and possession? Variables include demographic information such as gender, residence, and race, arrest, conviction, and incarceration histories, prior criminal record, community ties, and court outcomes of the arrests.

2022년 전라남도 경찰청 관내에서 발생한 마약류 사범에 대한 검거 현황을 각 경찰서별로 정리하여 산출한 통계 자료입니다.

This table provides information on the short (2 year), medium (5 year) and long (10 year) term trends in the number of incidents of use/possess amphetamines and cocaine offences recorded by the NSW Police Force by region (Statistical Area).

This collection examines the characteristics of users and sellers of crack cocaine and the impact of users and sellers on the criminal justice system and on drug treatment and community programs. Information was also collected concerning users of drugs other than crack cocaine and the attributes of those users. Topics covered include initiation into substance use and sales, expenses for drug use, involvement with crime, sources of income, and primary substance of abuse. Demographic information includes subject's race, educational level, living area, social setting, employment status, occupation, marital status, number of children, place of birth, and date of birth. Information was also collected about the subject's parents: education level, occupation, and place of birth.

This study investigated changes in the geographic concentration of drug crimes in Cleveland from 1990 to 2001. The study looked at both the locations of drug incidents and where drug offenders lived in order to explore factors that bring residents from one neighborhood into other neighborhoods to engage in drug-related activities. This study was based on data collected for the 224 census tracts in Cleveland, Ohio, in the 1990 decennial Census for the years 1990 to 1997 and 1999 to 2001. Data on drug crimes for 1990 to 1997 and 1999 to 2001 were obtained from Cleveland Police Department (CPD) arrest records and used to produce counts of the number of drug offenses that occurred in each tract in each year and the number of arrestees for drug offenses who lived in each tract. Other variables include counts and rates of other crimes committed in each census tract in each year, the social characteristics and housing conditions of each census tract, and net migration for each census tract.