 |
|||
| A
publication of the Justice Center |
Alaska Justice Statistical Analysis Center |
||
 |
|||
|
Since the late 1990s, researchers
from a number of other countries have sought to implement the
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) research program within
their own systems. Under the auspices of the National Institute
of Justice, a loosely-organized network of justice researchers
and administrators have worked to adapt the standardized methodology
developed in the United States (see “Drug
Use Trends Among Anchorage Arrestees: 1999-2001”) to
the needs of different systems. While, in general, participating
countries must provide their own funding for implementing the
research, NIJ has facilitated this international effort—I-ADAM—by
holding several conferences focused on the exchange of information
among those interested in the research platform. While the primary
goal of the participating countries has been to use ADAM to learn
more about the drug picture in their own countries, another objective
has been to broaden the international basis of information on
drug use.
The first comprehensive look at
this cross-cultural effort, a compendium of reports from eight
countries, including the U.S., was released in May 2002. The
document, “I-ADAM
in Eight Countries—Approaches and Challenges,”
describes the genesis of the international project in the participating
countries—Chile, Great Britain, Scotland, the Netherlands,
Malaysia, South Africa, Australia and the United States.
Such formally structured quantitative
justice research in an international context has been relatively
rare. In the forward to this document, James Finckenauer, who
was then director of the International Center of the National
Institute of Justice, points out some of the obstacles and pitfalls
encountered in comparative justice research—the administrative
complexities; the difficulties posed by translating a survey
instrument into multiple languages; the varied cultural traditions;
and the effect of different criminal justice systems on the implementation
of projects. Finckenauer notes, however, that there are
compelling reasons for trying to discern patterns of drug use
on an international basis: drug use devastates families and community
life; the drug market is an international market; and drug money
corrupts governments and feeds disorder and war. Monitoring drug
usage among arrestees over time, as done with the I-ADAM effort,
can inform policy development.
Because not every question on the
U.S.-developed interview instrument was applicable or useable
in every locale, the country research teams addressed this barrier
to gathering comparable data by retaining a set of core questions.
Individual countries tailored additional items to fit their own
needs. Because urinalysis for drug usage is more easily kept
standard from location to location, results from this component
of the study presented fewer problems of comparability.
The NIJ report is primarily descriptive,
providing an overview of the development and implementation of
the project in each country. It also presents limited summary
results. Little comparative analysis is done, although one clear
finding is noted: marijuana is the drug most commonly used by
arrestees in all eight countries.
In most cases project administrators
for each country authored the section devoted to that country,
with the report forward written by James Finckenauer and a concluding
discussion by Henry Brownstein, also with NIJ. The contents of
the country sections are somewhat standardized; that is, the
same issues are discussed for each country.
The eight countries had different
purposes in undertaking the I-ADAM research. This, in fact, is
one of the benefits of I-ADAM—that it can provide insights
for a range of goals. Most countries, of course, were interested
in further understanding the connection between drugs and arrestees
in order to better develop their law enforcement programs, but
most—some to a greater degree than others—also emphasized
the implications of the research for treatment approaches.
The countries have differing research
traditions. Some, like the U.S., Britain and the Netherlands
have strong, established research programs with regular interaction
between government and researchers and with some history of policy
makers using research, while others, like Chile and Malaysia,
seem to have a more limited history of collecting justice research
data for policy purposes.
The descriptions of project implementation
hint at widely different histories and cultural attitudes toward
policing and law enforcement as well as varying degrees of trust
in government agencies. In Chile, for example, where distrust
of the police was considered to be a barrier to the project,
it was decided that uniformed nurses from the Ministry of Health,
which sponsored the program, would collect the urine samples
to convince arrestees that the information would not be used
against them. In the discussion of Malaysia’s project, it
was noted that because the police collected urine samples, participation
of arrestees might not be voluntary.
Other differences with implications
for the research project also emerged. For example, countries
made varying arrangements to protect the confidentiality of research
results. Australia and England, lacking the statutory provisions
ensuring the confidentiality demanded by this type of research,
found it necessary to negotiate special assurances for this project.
In the Netherlands, the Bar Association required that each participant
sign an informed consent form, introducing an element that might
have an effect on the response rate.
As mentioned above, the NIJ report
does not emphasize the specific data findings of these first
I-ADAM efforts, and it warns against making rigid comparisons.
Some valid points do emerge, however. An initial overview reveals
that marijuana, in one form or another, may be the drug most
commonly used by arrestees throughout the world. All countries
reporting results, including the U.S., found a high usage of
marijuana among arrestees.
Usage patterns particular to individual
countries and regions also emerged from these limited results.
The South African research showed a sizeable percentage of arrestees
testing positive for mandrax—a blend of methaqualone and
antihistamine rarely seen in other countries. England noted frequent
usage of opiates and Scotland found drug use by injection was
prevalent.
One of the major benefits of the
NIJ report is that in addition to the presentation of the results
from the first I-ADAM efforts, it also contains a rich mine of
information on the widely differing law enforcement, legal and
judicial systems of the participating countries. The formal structures
of individual systems are outlined and, for some countries, background
crime and arrest data presented. The individual country drug
policies, extent of participation in international drug agreements
and legislative histories of drug laws are also presented. Absent
from the report—beyond its scope but necessary for a full
understanding of the research findings—is a discussion of
how political, social and historical realities impact the day-to-day
operation of the justice system in the drug arena.
NIJ reports that the number of
countries expressing an interest in the ADAM project has grown,
but in many cases, even for the eight countries contributing
to this initial report, lack of funding is a major barrier to
the research.
The report I-ADAM in Eight Countries, NCJ-189768, is available from the National Institute of Justice.