 |
|||
| A
publication of the Justice Center |
Alaska Justice Statistical Analysis Center |
||
 |
|||
|
Matthew Giblin
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) project is a national study that generates extensive and timely data on drug use within the arrestee population. Anchorage has participated in the program for several years. Changes to the research instrument in 2000 have greatly expanded the scope of the information collected. It is anticipated that the redesign and the additional data collected will be more relevant to local communities. This article compares drug use prevalence from 1999 and 2000 and examines the spatial distribution of drug use among the arrested population from 2000.
The Sample and 1999/2000 Comparisons
Arrestee participation in the
ADAM study is strictly voluntary. Four times a year (once every
quarter) the Justice Center collects data for a two-week period
in both Anchorage booking facilities, Cook Inlet Pretrial and
Sixth Avenue Correctional Center. The Justice Center and the
Alaska Department of Corrections have worked together to administer
a secure confidential collection procedure. The only criteria
for inclusion in the study are that inmates must not have been
in custody for more than forty-eight hours and that they are
not federal prisoners, Immigration and Naturalization Service
detainees, or transfers from another facility. Once identified
as eligible, the inmate is asked to participate in a two-pronged
study protocol. The first part is an interview with a professionally
trained interviewer. The main content of the interview focuses
on current and prior drug use, and additional questions deal
with criminal histories, drug treatment, educational background,
desire for treatment, and demographics. The second part of the
ADAM protocol involves the collection of an interviewee urine
sample to corroborate the information given in the interview.
The specimen is shipped to a lab where it undergoes testing for
the presence of ten different drugs.
The inmate has the right to refuse
to answer any question asked or terminate the interview at any
time. The urine sample is also voluntary, and the interviewee
may refuse to provide a specimen despite participating in the
self-report interview. The sample is only collected if the inmate
has completed the interview. All of the information obtained
during the interview process is confidential; individual results
cannot be made available to any law enforcement, prosecutorial,
or correctional agency. Strict measures are taken to ensure that
the interviewer does not know the names of the persons being
interviewed, and the survey instrument and urine sample are not
marked in any way that could be traced back to the individual.
At the end of data collection
the questionnaires are sent to Washington, D.C. for analysis;
aggregate data are later returned for further study.
During the 2000 data collection
period, 225 adult females were approached for participation in
the study. Sixty-four percent (N=144) agreed to participate in
the study and, of that number, 83 percent (N=119) provided a
urine specimen. The male response rate was even higher. ADAM
staff approached 810 male arrestees; 3 out of every 4 of those
approached agreed to be interviewed (N=607), although 6 of these
cases were later deemed ineligible because they were arrested
more than 48 hours prior to being interviewed. Of those male
arrestees interviewed, 81 percent (N=492) provided a urine sample.
One of the benefits of the ADAM
data collection effort is its ability to provide objective measures
of drug use among the arrested population through the collection
of urine specimens from study participants. The statistics presented
in this section reflect results based only on those arrestees
participating in the survey and providing a urine specimen. The
results for adult ADAM males presented in Table 1 show a decrease
in the percentage of arrestees testing positive for cocaine from
1999 to 2000. With the exception of the one arrestee classified
in the other/multiracial category, the pattern persists across
most age and racial groupings. A similar pattern appears for
females. The percentage of adult female arrestees testing positive
for cocaine use drops, although the decrease is not uniform across
all age and racial groups. The results of the testing also reaffirm
what was already known about drug use in Anchorage—marijuana
and cocaine are the most commonly used drugs among arrestees
while opiates and methamphetamine use are much less common.
Spatial Distribution of Drug Use
As part of the ADAM protocol, data on area of residence are collected. Because of privacy guarantees, precise addresses are not collected; however, the zip code of residence is collected for each arrestee. This residence location allows researchers to conduct various types of descriptive analyses involving the spatial location of arrestees and drug markets. An orienting map of Anchorage zip codes is depicted in Figure 1, and other maps produced using the zip code variable are included.
For several reasons, caution
must be taken when examining both Figures 2 and 3. First, the
maps are based on the zip code of residence. They do not represent
where the crime was committed nor do they represent where the
individual was arrested. Likewise, they do not illustrate where
drugs were purchased or used. Second, no information is available
which allows ADAM staff to determine how much time a resident
spends in the given zip code. Many arrestees were homeless or
otherwise transient. For example, some arrestees listed Brother
Francis Shelter as their home residence, yet they may or may
not spend a majority of their time within that zip code. Further,
a zip code might have been listed as the place of residence despite
the fact that the arrestee regularly resided elsewhere. Third,
the spatial distribution depicted is limited to those arrestees
indicating an Anchorage home zip code — the vast majority
of all arrestees in the ADAM sample. Finally, the number of arrestees
for several of the zip codes is relatively small. Consider the
Elmendorf and Fort Richardson areas: depending upon the nature
of the analyses being conducted, each zip code included four
or fewer arrestees. In sum, these maps are only for descriptive
purposes and should be assessed with some degree of caution.
Generalizations about the arrestees in the area may be unwarranted
and/or incorrect.
The ADAM lab tests urine specimens
for the presence of ten drugs including marijuana, cocaine, and
heroin. Figure 2 presents the number of all year 2000 adult male
arrestees providing urine specimens who tested positive for any
drug. Once again, the data are depicted according to the zip
code of residence of the arrestee, and only those respondents
who reported an Anchorage zip code are included in the map. The
map shows that the area east of downtown (N=46) and the downtown
area (N=48) itself have the highest number of arrestees testing
positive for any drug. In contrast, the C Street/Arctic Boulevard
area south of midtown, Eagle River, Chugiak, Elmendorf, Fort
Richardson, and south Anchorage have a low incidence of drug
use among the arrested population. Again, the sample sizes need
to be taken into account. Only four arrestees came from the Elmendorf
area while only eight resided in the C Street/Arctic area between
the Tudor Road and Dimond Boulevard areas.
Figure 3 examines the prevalence of drug use among the arrested population. The results exhibit a different spatial pattern. For example, although the Turnagain area had a low volume of arrestees testing positive for drug use, four out of five arrestees from the area did test positive (80% prevalence). Similarly, 15 of 21 arrestees from south Anchorage (99515 zip code) tested positive for any drug (71.4%). Therefore, it appears likely that the high volume of positive test results in the areas depicted in Figure 2 are partially a product of the volume of arrests; prevalence rate maps do not produce the same spatial pattern.
Figures 2 and 3 present the
spatial distribution of drug use incidence and prevalence but
do not distinguish between the type of drugs used. Table 2 presents
the prevalence of drug use among the adult male arrested population
for each of the ten drugs for which the ADAM program tests. The
results are displayed according the zip code of residence of
the arrestee. Clearly, marijuana and cocaine use are the most
prevalent across each of the fourteen Anchorage zip codes. However,
prevalence varies across zip codes when examining specific drugs.
For example, marijuana use is most prevalent among arrestees
residing in south Anchorage (57.1%) and Eagle River (45.5%) while
least prevalent in west Anchorage (27.3%) and Chugiak (28.6%).
Once again, caution is advised
in examining drug use prevalence; the distinction between incidence
and prevalence must be stressed. Several examples illustrate
this distinction. First, the prevalence of marijuana use among
arrestees in south Anchorage is nearly double that of arrestees
residing in downtown. However, the incidence, or volume, of arrestees
testing positive in downtown (N=28) is nearly three times that
of south Anchorage (N=11). Second, zero percent of the arrestees
from Fort Richardson tested positive for marijuana, but only
one arrestee was tested. Compare this sample size to the Rogers
Park/University and downtown areas where 87 and 89 arrestees
were tested, respectively. The ability of these numbers to accurately
describe drug use prevalence in a zip code must be examined in
light of the sample size. Obviously, the accuracy of the statistics
is enhanced with a larger sample size.
The Future
The expanded ADAM instrument
now produces data on drug markets, dependence and abuse, and
other areas. Two new sections, in particular, are potentially
valuable to local practitioners—those concerning dependence/abuse
and drug markets. Each of these sections will be briefly described
below.
While earlier versions of the
ADAM survey examined the presence of illicit substances in the
urine and included self-report measures of drug use, researchers
have indicated that frequency of use alone is not entirely accurate
as an indicator of abuse and dependence. In light of this, the
redesigned ADAM instrument includes measures of abuse and dependence
constructed from responses to six items. These items ask respondents
to indicate whether, during the past year, they drank more than
they intended; neglected some of their responsibilities because
of alcohol or drug use; tried to cut down on their alcohol or
drug use; had others object to their alcohol or drug use; frequently
thought about drinking; or used alcohol to relieve feelings such
as sadness, anger, or boredom.
The drug market section is another
major addition to the ADAM instrument. The information is intended
to provide local law enforcement with an understanding of drug
markets, including their type and circumstances. This section
generates information on price and quantity of drugs purchased,
location of purchase, contacting methods, methods of use, and
other local market conditions.
The Justice Center plans to conduct
additional analyses on these data over the next several months,
focusing in particular on the new sections of the ADAM instrument.
Year 2001 data, which will be available early in the new year,
will be examined and compared with year 2000 data. The Center
will examine a variety of issues including whether the nature
of drug markets varies depending upon the drug examined. The
Center will continue to monitor changes in other areas such as
drug cost, drug use, and dependence and abuse. The potential
of this information is just beginning to be realized.
Matthew Giblin is a research associate with the Justice Center.