The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) established the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program—formerly the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program—in 1987. Within the past two years the ADAM Program has changed considerably, and as a result its potential contributions to drug research have increased. Despite this progress, however, a number of methodological issues may limit the scope of the ADAM domain. This essay examines the six program goals to identify the most appropriate uses of the ADAM reporting system. The findings are then discussed in light of ADAM's potential contributions to future drug scholarship.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CaulkinsJ.P.EbenerP.A., and McCaffreyD.F. (1995). Describing DAWN's Dominion. Contemporary Drug Problems, 22, 547–567.
2.
CuomoM.J.DymentP.G., and GamminoV.M. (1994). Increasing Use of “Ecstasy” (MDMA) and Other Hallucinogens on a College Campus. Journal of American College Health, 42(6), 271–274.
3.
DeckerS.PennellS., and CaldwellA. (1997). Illegal Firearms: Access and Use by Arrestees (National Institute of Justice Research in Brief). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.
4.
DuPontR.L. and WishE.D. (1992). Operation Tripwire Revisited. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 521, 91–111.
5.
FeuchtT.E. and KyleG.M. (1996). Methamphetamine Use Among Adult Arrestees: Findings From the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.
6.
Government Accounting Office (1993). Drug Use Measurement: Strengths, Limitations, and Recommendations for Improvement. Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office.
7.
HarrisonL.D. (1995). The Validity of Self-Reported Data on Drug Use. Journal of Drug Issues, 25, 91–111.
8.
JohnsonB.D.ThomasG., and GolubA.L. (1998). Trends in Heroin Use Among Manhattan Arrestees from the Heroin and Crack Eras. In InciardiJ. and HarrisonL. (eds.), Heroin in the Age of Crack Cocaine (pp. 109–130). California: Sage Publications.
9.
KaneR. and YacoubianG. (1999). Patterns of Drug Escalation Among Philadelphia Arrestees: An Assessment of the Gateway Theory. Journal of Drug Issues, 29(1), 107–120.
10.
MieczkowskiT. (1996). The Prevalence of Drug Use in the United States. In MorrisN. and TonryM. (eds.), Crime and Justice (pp. 349–414). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
MieczkowskiT.BarzelayD.GropperB., and WishE. (1991). Concordance of Three Measures of Cocaine Use in an Arrestee Population: Hair, Urine, and Self-Report. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 23, 241–246.
12.
National Institute of Justice (2000). Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Home Page. Internet availability: http://adam-nij.net.
13.
National Institute of Justice (1999a. 1998 Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Annual Report. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.
14.
National Institute of Justice (1999b). 1998 Annual Report on Opiate Use Among Arrestees. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.
15.
National Institute of Justice (1999c). Comparing Drug Use Rates of Detained Arrestees in the United States and England. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.
16.
National Institute of Justice (1998). 1997 Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Annual Report. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.
17.
National Institute of Justice (1997). 1996 Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Annual Report. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.
18.
National Institute of Justice (1996). 1995 Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Annual Report. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.
19.
National Institute of Justice (1993). NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting Program. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.
20.
National Institute of Justice (1992). 1991 Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program Annual Report. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.
21.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (1999). National Survey on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975–1998. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
22.
RosenfeldR. and DeckerS. (1993). Discrepant Values, Correlated Measures: Cross-Cities and Longitudinal Comparisons of Self-Reports and Urine Tests of Cocaine Use Among Arrestees. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 223–230.
23.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (1999a). Mid-Year 1998 Preliminary Emergency Department Data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
24.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (1999b). National Household Survey on Drug Abuse Population Estimates 1998. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
25.
WellischJ.AnglinM.D., and PrendergastM.L. (1993). Numbers and Characteristics of Drug-Using Women in the Criminal Justice System: Implications for Treatment. Journal of Drug Issues, 23, 7–30.
26.
WishE.D. (1997). The Crack Epidemic of the 1980's and the Birth of a New Drug Monitoring System in the United States. Paper presented at the conference on “The Crack Decade: Research Perspectives and Lessons Learned.” Baltimore, MD: National Institute of Justice and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
27.
WishE.D. (1995). The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program. In JaffeJ.H. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Drugs and Alcohol (pp. 432–434). New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
28.
WishE.D. (1990). U.S. Drug Policy in the 1990s: Insights from New Data from Arrestees. The International Journal of the Addictions, 25, 377–409.
29.
WishE.D. (1987). Drug Use Forecasting: New York 1984 to 1986. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
30.
YacoubianG. (1999). A Drug Use Typology for Treatment Intervention. Western Criminology Review, 1(2). Internet availability: http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v1n2/yacoubian.html.
31.
YacoubianG. and KaneR. (1998). Identifying a Drug Use Typology of Philadelphia Arrestees: A Cluster Analysis. Journal of Drug Issues, 28(2), 559–574.
