The Sins of
ADAM:
Toward a New
National Criminal Justice Drug Use Surveillance System
George S.
Yacoubian, Jr.[1]
Pacific
Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE)
Abstract
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring
(ADAM) Program – formerly the Drug Use Forecasting Program – was established in
1987. In 1998, a refined sampling
methodology was introduced, followed by a new survey instrument in 2000. In January 2004, the Federal government
issued a Stop Work Order for the ADAM Program, effectively ending its
existence. Although ADAM suffered from
several major limitations that, ultimately, may have proven too challenging to
overcome, drug use research would greatly benefit from a new national criminal
justice-based drug use surveillance system.
This essay, first, reviews the current state of drug use monitoring
systems in the
Previous
studies have established that arrestees underreport their recent use of illegal
drugs, particularly cocaine (Yacoubian, 2000a; Lu et al., 2000; Hser, 1997;
Harrison, 1995; Fendrich and Xu, 1994; Mieczkowski et al., 1991; Wish and
Gropper, 1990). Mieczkowski et al.
(1991), for example, compared self-reports of cocaine use with urinalysis
results from a sample of adult arrestees in
Underreporting
of recent drug use has also been identified in other high-risk populations
(Morral et al., 2000; Fendrich et al., 1999; Magura and Kang, 1997; Wish et
al., 1997; Hubbard et al., 1984).
Fendrich et al. (1999) used the NHSDA methodology and collected
self-report survey data and hair specimens from a high-risk sample of household
respondents in
While no
single data set is capable of providing precise national estimates of casual or
heavy drug use, or an accurate demographic breakdown of drug users, the NSDUH,
MTF, DAWN, and ADAM systems, taken collectively, provide a comprehensive view
of drug use within the
NSDUH
The NSDUH
is designed to estimate the prevalence of drug use in the
Respondents are first asked if they
have ever used drugs in the following
classes: alcohol, cocaine, hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, marijuana,
tobacco, and non-medical prescription drugs.
If respondents report having used any drugs within these classes,
questions are posed about specific drugs of abuse. For example, if respondents report having
ever used any hallucinogens, questions are asked for specific types of this class,
including mescaline, peyote, and ecstasy.
For those drug classes respondents report having ever tried, they
are asked to indicate age of first use and whether they have used the class
within the past 12 months and the past 30 days.
Respondents are also asked about criminal history, alcohol and other
drug (AOD) treatment history, problems resulting from the use of AOD, need for
AOD treatment, and needle sharing.
Finally, demographic data, including gender, race, age, marital status,
and educational levels, are collected.
While the NHSDA sample is designed to
be representative of household members aged 12 and older in the
MTF
MTF
began in 1975 as a way to study the drug-using beliefs, attitudes, and
behaviors of high school students across the
A
multi-stage sampling design is utilized (
In
addition to basic demographic information, the questionnaire covers areas on
criminal behavior, AOD use, education, health, politics, religion, social
change, and social problems (Johnston et al., 2003). Respondents are asked to report whether they
have ever used alcohol, amphetamines,
barbiturates, cigarettes, crack cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, inhalants, lysergic
acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana, powder cocaine, other psychedelic drugs
(e.g., phencyclidine (PCP) and mushrooms), and tranquilizers. For those drugs respondents report having ever tried, they are asked to indicate
whether they have used the drug within the past 12 months and the number of
times used within the past 30 days. They
are also asked about their perceived ability to reduce or stop using drugs and
the personal, familial, and occupational consequences of their drug use.
While
the students sampled are designed to be representative of high school seniors
within the 48 contiguous states, there are several ways in which the survey
data might fall short of full representativeness (Johnston et al., 2003). First, some schools may decline
participation. Second, survey data may
not be obtained from all of the students sampled. Both of these limitations could introduce
bias to the sample. Third, questions on
sensitive issues, such as sexuality and drug use, could lead to distortions and
thus reduce validity. Finally,
limitations in sample size could place limits on the accuracy of the
estimates. These caveats aside, the MTF
data are generally considered to be the most reliable source of drug-using
behaviors among youth in the
DAWN
Since 1988, ED and
mortality data have been collected from a representative sample of hospitals
and coroners’ offices within the 48 contiguous states, with oversampling in 21
metropolitan areas (SAMHSA, 2003c, b).
Within each hospital, a DAWN reporter is identified. This person is usually a member of the ED or
medical records staff and is responsible for reviewing medical charts to
identify drug abuse episodes eligible for inclusion. Because DAWN reports rely exclusively on
information taken directly from medical charts, the accuracy of the reports is
entirely dependent on the completeness of the information provided by the
patient (SAMHSA, 2003b).
The reporter submits an episode report to the DAWN system for each substance abuse patient who visits an ED. Five criteria must be met (SAMHSA, 2003b). First, the person must be between six and 97 years old. Second, the patient must have been treated in the hospital ED. Third, the patient’s problem must be directly related to substance abuse. Fourth, the problem must involve the use of an illegal drug or the illegal use of a licit drug. Fifth, the patient’s reason for ingestion must be related to abuse/dependence, suicide, and/or psychological or physiological effects. Thus, DAWN cases do not include accidental ingestion, the use of a substance with no intent of abuse/dependence, and adverse reactions to over-the-counter (OTC) medication (SAMHSA, 2003b).
Within each drug episode, up to four specific drugs (mentions) can be identified (SAMHSA, 2003b). However, not every mention is, in and of itself, a cause of the medical emergency. Inversely, because only four specific drugs can be identified by the reporter, a drug abuse mention may go unreported. Alcohol use is recorded by the DAWN reporter only when ingested with an illicit drug (SAMHSA, 2003b). In addition to the specific information on the drugs ingested, the DAWN reporter collects demographic data (e.g., sex and race) about the patient and information related to the circumstances of the episode (e.g., the date and time of the visit). Data are also collected on the form of the drugs ingested (e.g., liquid or powder), route of administration (e.g., injection or snorting), and its source (e.g., street buy) (SAMHSA, 2003b).
There are three limitations to the DAWN data (SAMHSA,
2003b). First, DAWN data do not measure
prevalence, but health consequences of drug use that are reflected in visits to
hospital emergency rooms. Second, the
number of ED episodes reported to DAWN is not equivalent to the number of
individual patients. That is, the
estimates reflect total ED episodes, not the number of patients involved. Third, DAWN data may be affected by varying
collection procedures across the
The
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) established the DUF Program in 1987 (NIJ, 2003). In 1997, a decade after its inception, NIJ
announced the expansion and reengineering of DUF into ADAM (NIJ, 1998). There were three primary components to the
redesign. The first involved program
expansion. Throughout the latter half of
1997 and the beginning of 1998, the Program worked to add 12 Western and
Midwestern sites – Albuquerque, Anchorage, Des Moines, Laredo, Las Vegas,
Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Spokane, and
Tucson. This expansion increased the
number of existing sites from 23 to 35.
The second component, discussed in more detail below, involved sampling
(NIJ, 1998). The goal of the new
sampling strategy was to provide representative samples at the site (county)
levels. The third component, discussed
in more detail below, was redesigning the data collection instrument to make it
more valuable to policymakers and practitioners (NIJ, 1998). The underlying purpose of these three
components was, “to build an infrastructure that ensured standard data
collection protocols; an unbiased, probability-based sample of arrestees; and a
data management system that generated standardized data for use by the sites”
(NIJ, 2003: 177).
ADAM had six primary goals:
identifying the levels of drug use among arrestees; tracking changing drug-use
patterns; determining what drugs are being used in specific jurisdictions;
alerting local officials to trends in drug use and the availability of new
drugs; providing data to help understand the drug-crime connection; and serving
as a research platform upon which a wide variety of drug-related initiatives
can be based (Decker et al., 1997; Wish, 1995; NIJ, 1996, 1993, 1992). While these objectives were all reasonable in
theory, some may have ultimately proven too difficult to achieve. As with any surveillance system of such
magnitude, certain objectives are more easily achieved and sustained than
others.
ADAM’s first
objective was to identify the levels of drug use among arrestees (NIJ, 1993,
1992). ADAM data, through both
self-report data and urinalysis, were able to identify levels of drug use among
arrestees. Unlike MTF and NSDUH,
however, ADAM findings were not representative of the national arrestee
population. At best, the findings were
generalizable to the jurisdictions in which the data were collected. Many ADAM sites (e.g.,
ADAM’s second objective was to track changing drug-use
patterns (NIJ, 1993). It is reasonable
to believe that ADAM could have provided information on changing patterns of
drug use among arrestee populations. NIJ (1998: 3) reported, for example, that
“between 1991 and 1994, positive rates for methamphetamine among adult
arrestees rose steadily in eight sites (San Diego, Phoenix, San Jose, Portland,
Los Angeles, Omaha, Dallas, and Denver), reaching as high as 44% in San Diego
in 1994 . . . . ” Between 1994 and 1996,
methamphetamine-positive rates in
ADAM’s third objective was to determine what drugs are being used in specific jurisdictions (NIJ, 1993, 1992). This objective assumed that arrestee populations and all other non-ADAM populations using illegal drugs chose similar substances for ingestion. While there may be a finite number of illegal drugs, it is conceivable that a particular illegal substance can be used in a jurisdiction even if it is never identified through an arrestee population. Data collection efforts in any one facility were typically no more than 14 days every calendar quarter. Thus, data were usually collected in each facility for a maximum of 56 days each calendar year. It is reasonable to suspect that a specific substance could have been used jurisdictionally, but not detected during the relatively short 56-day annual data collection window. Furthermore, if we concede that all illegal drugs were accounted for by virtue of their detection in a jurisdiction’s arrestee population, measuring the magnitude of a particular drug’s representation within a jurisdiction was problematic. That is, ADAM may indeed have allowed us to conclude that a certain number of, or all, drugs are present within a particular jurisdiction, but the scope of that drug’s jurisdictional presence may have been beyond ADAM’s domain.
ADAM’s fourth objective was to alert local officials to trends in drug use and the availability of new drugs (NIJ, 1993). ADAM was capable of alerting local officials to trends in drug use among arrestee populations. Trends among arrestees, however, may not necessarily be indicative of drug use trends within society as a whole. More importantly, however, the revised sampling methodology may have rendered trend analyses meaningless. That is, while the Program has existed since 1987, the new sampling protocol may have diminished the value of all data collected before its implementation.
An underlying assumption of ADAM was that deviant populations experiment with new drugs before members of non-criminal populations. It was assumed, therefore, that if a new drug emerged on the streets, it would take root in a criminal population before diffusing to the general population (Wish, 1997; DuPont and Wish, 1992). The extent to which one accepts this presumption is the degree to which ADAM can alert local officials to the availability of new drugs. It is also plausible, however, that members of a non-criminal population can use a new drug initially, particularly with designer drugs such as ecstasy. It is certainly within the realm of possibility, therefore, that a drug’s detection within the criminal population will occur after its emergence within the general population, if at all.
ADAM’s fifth objective is to help understand the drug-crime connection (NIJ, 1996; Wish, 1995). Given that the program is one whose subjects are under criminal justice supervision, this goal is a rational one. The extent to which a drug/crime nexus can be ascertained, however, is a complicated assignment. While a majority of national arrestees traditionally test positive for at least one illegal substance (NIJ, 2003), the relationship between drug use and crime commission remains a nebulous one.
The final ADAM objective is to serve as a research
platform upon which drug-related initiatives can be initiated (Decker et al.,
1997). In 1998, NIJ built several new
components into ADAM: Local Coordinating Councils (LCCs), Outreach, and the
International ADAM (I-ADAM) Program. The
LCCs, for example, were designed “. . . to assist in integrating ADAM data into
local planning and policymaking contexts (NIJ, 1999a: 11).” The LCCs allow sites to work with local
policymakers to identify those drug-related issues most pressing within their
jurisdictions. Outreach was a supplementary
data collection effort directed at special arrestee populations (NIJ, 2001). Sites were encouraged to collect data within,
for example, Native American or suburban communities, populations often missed
within the traditional ADAM framework. Finally,
I-ADAM was the first international drug use monitoring system (NIJ, 1999c). To date, eight countries (
The ultimate objectives of ADAM remained fairly consistent during the past 15 years. To make ADAM more scientifically defensible, however, two major methodological changes were made in the late 1990s: sampling and instrumentation. They are each explored below.
Sampling
Every calendar
quarter, research personnel obtained voluntary and confidential interviews and
urine specimens from a sample of arrestees who have been in custody for no more
than 48 hours (NIJ, 1999a, 1997). Through
the 2nd quarter of 1998, several methodological requirements
influenced the ADAM protocol. First, all
sites operated according to a charge priority system, where non-drug felons,
drug felons, non-drug misdemeanants, and drug misdemeanants were prioritized hierarchically
(NIJ, 1997; Wish, 1995). That is, the
program emphasized non-drug serious offenders.
Second, the number of drug offenders surveyed during a data collection
period could not exceed 20% of the total sample (NIJ, 1999b; GAO, 1993). This
prevented the oversampling of drug offenders, who, presumably, would report
more frequent drug use than their non-drug-offending counterparts. Third, all arrestees were eligible to be
interviewed except for those whose primary charges involved vagrancy, loitering,
or traffic offenses (NIJ, 1999b, 1997).
These arrestees were excluded from the sample a priori. Since the 3rd
quarter of 1998, however, all arrestees, regardless of charge, became eligible
for inclusion (NIJ, 1999b).
Two significant methodological changes were implemented in 1999 (NIJ, 1999b, 1998). The first and most important change was related to sampling. Data collection after the 2nd quarter of 1999 was standardized across the ADAM sites. This process involved, first, defining the “catchment areas,” or geographical regions within which arrestees were drawn, consistently across sites, and second, implementing probability-based sampling plans (NIJ, 1999b). ADAM’s catchment areas were counties, and the probability-based sampling plans allowed the attachment of confidence intervals to estimates derived from ADAM data (NIJ, 2003). To allow for probability-based sampling plans, ADAM determined the probability of an adult, male arrestee being selected for the sample (NIJ, 2003). This was accomplished by splitting the 24-hour day into two periods: “flow” and “stock” (NIJ, 2003). The flow period covered arrestees booked during the eight-hour shift in which ADAM data were actually collected. Stock arrestees were those processed in the 16-hour period during which ADAM data were not collected. Using systematic sampling procedures, interviewers sampled from both the flow and stock, resulting in an arrestee sample that represented each 24-hour shift within the data collection period (NIJ, 2003).
The second change related to data weighting (NIJ, 1999b). Each collected case represented a sample of similar respondents (e.g., by race or booking charge) that were not interviewed (NIJ, 1999b). If a certain category of offender was represented out of proportion to the actual occurrence in the arrestee population, weighting could correct the disproportionality. This process attempted to ensure that certain types of offenders were not overrepresented in the ADAM sample relative to the entire jurisdictional arrestee population (NIJ, 1998). While this weighting process was designed to assist with data quantification, it could not substitute for the real world problem that exists when data are collected from certain arrestees who spend more time in the facilities than others. If indigent or serious offenders spend more time in the booking facilities than other non-serious or financially stable offenders, the ADAM sample may not have been representative even if it is adjusted by weights for variables like age, race, and charge.
Instrumentation
Through the end of 1999, the type of
data collected by ADAM was relatively limited. Arrestees were first asked
several demographic questions, including education level, marital and
employment status, and income level.
Participants were then asked to report whether they had ever used a number of specific
drugs. For those drugs the arrestees
reported having ever tried, they were
asked to indicate age of first use, whether they had used the drug within the
past 12 months, the number of times used within the past 30 days, and whether
they had used the drug within the past three days. Participants who admitted to drug use were also asked whether or not they
considered themselves drug-dependent, and whether they were under the influence
or in need of drugs at the time of arrest. Several questions also focused on
treatment – whether the person had ever received treatment, was currently in a
treatment program, or perceived a need for treatment.
In 2000, a new data collection
instrument was fielded. The five primary
sections of this instrument were: face sheet, demographics, calendar, abuse and
dependence, and market and use. Face sheets were completed on all selected
arrestees with information collected solely from official records. These data included arrest and booking dates,
arrest location, date of birth, gender, primary criminal charges, race, and
residence zip code. If respondents consented to the interview, demographic data – ethnicity,
citizenship, education, employment, health insurance, marital status, and living
arrangements – were collected via self-report.
In the calendar section,
arrestees first identified a number of significant events (e.g., holidays and
birthdays) that occurred during the past year.
These anchors were intended to assist respondents with the recall of
12-month criminal activity, drug-use episodes, and treatment experiences. The dependence
and abuse section clinically diagnosed AOD abuse and dependence. The Substance Use Disorders Diagnostic
Schedule (SUDDS) contained six items, asked separately for alcohol and
drugs. Finally, the market and use section inquired about transactions for five drugs:
marijuana, crack and powder cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. Topics included the type of transaction (cash
vs. non-cash), location of purchase, quantity purchased, amount paid, and
market availability.
Discussion
A review of
the ADAM Program reveals practical and empirical characteristics that
ultimately may have proven too challenging to overcome. The Program began in 1987 with a relatively
modest survey of personal drug use and the collection of urine specimens in 23
sites across the
There
is unquestionably a need for a drug use monitoring system that targets members
of a criminal justice population. Given
the nexus between illicit drug use and involvement in criminal behavior, surveillance
systems that are directed at only high school students or household
respondents, while valuable, miss members of the population at greatest risk
for illicit drug use. Without an
ADAM-like system, the ability of policymakers to track the proliferation of
methamphetamine use in the
A
new criminal justice drug use surveillance system should have the following characteristics. First, the program should serve more than just
arrestees. While entrance to the
criminal justice system is a critical point for data collection, a monitoring
system that also includes probationers, parolees, and prisoners would be
extremely valuable. Current drug use
data for members of these populations are fragmented, and national estimates
are non-existent.
Second,
the program should revisit the issue of juvenile data collection. Through 2001, juvenile ADAM data were
collected in eight sites (NIJ, 2001). In
2002, however, the juvenile collections were discontinued. Given the high prevalence of marijuana use among
juvenile arrestees (CESAR 2002; NIJ, 2001), tracking levels of drug use among
juvenile criminal justice populations would seem to be worthwhile.
Third, the program should be
representative of the national population it serves. It is reasonable to design and implement a
surveillance system comparable to MTF or the NSDUH. Rather than having a site- or county-based
program, the universe would be the national population. Just as high school students are sampled from
and surveyed within schools, arrestees, for example, could be sampled and
surveyed within booking facilities.
Third, self-report data need not be
collected. While more information
increases analytical capabilities, of principal concern to policymakers and
researchers should be the accurate and efficient measurement of illicit drug use. It would not be unreasonable, for example, to
only collect urine specimens, or some other objective measure of illicit drug
use. Moreover, while urinalysis is
generally recognized as the criterion measure for detecting recent drug use, a
variety of alternative drug testing technologies have been developed within the
past few years. One of these innovations
– OF testing – may offer an acceptable alternative to urinalysis because the
detection period for both is approximately 48 hours (Cone, 1993). Moreover, studies (Yacoubian and Wish, 2004;
Wish and Yacoubian, 2002; Yacoubian et al., 2001; Niedbala et al., 2001) have
shown high concordance between urinalysis and OF analysis for a panel of
illicit drugs.
Fourth, the objective drug use
measures need not be collected by research staff. Because the procedures for obtaining urine or
OF specimens are not complicated, the collections, like with DAWN, could be
entrusted to professionals working in the facility in which the data were
collected. Moreover, facility staff
would have ready access to official data, from which demographic information
(e.g., gender, race, age, and primary charge) could be extracted. While issues of response rates (i.e., gaining
respondent confidence) and informed consent would necessarily have to be
addressed before entrusting a criminal justice professional with obtaining
research data from an individual under criminal justice supervision, minimizing
programmatic infrastructure can only be beneficial.
Fifth, the management of the Program
should be entrusted to a company who can publish accurate and timely
findings. While annualized site reports
have been disseminated by NIJ, the last ADAM annual report was published with only 2000 data (NIJ, 2003). A primary advantage of MTF and NSDUH is the
judicious manner in which the results are disseminated. Any new criminal justice-based surveillance
system should disseminate the findings as expeditiously as possible.
There are, undoubtedly, other ways to
pursue a new, national criminal justice-based surveillance system. As with most research endeavors, of paramount
consideration is price. Redesigning ADAM
to include multiple populations would of course lead to an increase in
cost. By eliminating time-consuming
surveys and reducing the management infrastructure, however, data collection
expenses would diminish considerably. While
it is considerably easier to recognize the problem than it is to suggest viable
solutions, most practitioners and researchers would agree that salvaging a criminal justice-based drug use
surveillance is critical to Federal drug control policy.
References
Caulkins,
J.P., P.A. Ebener, and D.F. McCaffrey
1995 Describing DAWN’s dominion. Contemporary
Drug Problems, 22, 547-567.
Center
for Substance Abuse Research
2002 Juvenile Offender Population
Urinalysis Screening Program (OPUS) Detention Study: September-November
2001.
Cone, E.J.
1993 Saliva testing for drugs of abuse. In D. Malamud and L. Tabak (Eds.), Saliva
as a Diagnostic Fluid (Pp.
86-127).
Decker, S., S. Pennell, and A. Caldwell
1997 Illegal Firearms: Access and Use by Arrestees.
DuPont, R.L., and E.D. Wish
1992 Operation Tripwire revisited.
The Annals of the
Fendrich, M., and Y. Xu
1994 Validity of drug use reports from juvenile arrestees. International Journal of the Addictions, 29(8), 971-985.
Government Accounting Office
1993 Drug Use Measurement: Strengths, Limitations, and Recommendations for
Improvement.
1995 The validity
of self-reported data on drug use. Journal
of Drug Issues, 25, 91- 111.
Hubbard, R.L., M.E. Marsden, and M.
Allison
1984 Reliability and Validity of TOPS Data.
Hser, Y.
1997 Self-reported drug use: Results of selected empirical
investigations of validity. NIDA Research Monograph, 167, 320-343.
2003 Monitoring
the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2002, Volume I: Secondary School Students.
Lu, N.T., B.G. Taylor, and K.J.
Riley
2000 The validity of adult arrestee self-reports of crack
cocaine. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 27(3),
399-407.
Magura, S.,
and S.Y. Kang
1997 The validity of self-reported cocaine use in
two high-risk populations. In L. Harrison and A. Hughes (Eds.), The
Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use: Improving
the Accuracy of Survey Estimates (pp. 227-246).
Mieczkowski, T., D. Barzelay, B.
Gropper, and E.D. Wish
1991 Concordance of three measures of cocaine use in an arrestee
population: Hair, urine, and
self-report. Journal of Psychoactive
Drugs, 23, 241-246.
Mieczkowski, T.
1996 The prevalence of drug use in the
Morral, A.R., D. McCaffrey, and M.Y. Iguchi
2000 Hardcore drug users claim to be occasional users: Drug use frequency underreporting. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 57(3), 193-202.
National
2004 Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Home Page. Available at: www.adam-nij.net.
National
2003 2000
Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Annual Report.
National
2001 2000 Arrestee
Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Annual Report.
National
1999c Comparing Drug Use Rates of Detained Arrestees in the
National
1999b 1998 Annual Report on Opiate Use among
Arrestees.
National
1999a 1998 Arrestee Drug Abuse
Monitoring (ADAM) Annual Report.
United States Department of Justice.
National
1998 1997 Annual Report on Adult and Juvenile Arrestees.
National
1997 1996 Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Annual Report.
National
1996 1995 Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Annual Report.
National
1993 NIJ’s Drug Use Forecasting Program.
National
1992 1991 Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program Annual Report.
Niedbala, R.S., K. Kardos, J. Waga, D. Fritch, L.
Yeager, S. Doddamane, and E. Schoener
2001 Laboratory analysis of remotely collected
oral fluid specimens by immunoassay. Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 25,
310-315.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration
2003c Mortality
Data from the Drug Abuse Warning
Network, 2001.
Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
2003b Emergency Department Trends from the Drug Abuse
Warning Network, Final Estimates 1995-2002.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration
2003a Results from the 2002
National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings.
Wish, E.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.”
Wish, E.D.
1995 The Drug Use Forecasting
(DUF) Program. In J.H. Jaffe (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of Drugs and Alcohol (Pp. 432-434).
Wish, E.D.
and B.A. Gropper
1990 Drug Testing by the Criminal Justice System:
Methods, Research, and Applications. In M.J. Tonry and J.Q. Wilson (Eds.), Drugs
and Crime: A Review
of Research
(321-339).
Wish, E.D., and G. Yacoubian
2002 A comparison of the Intercept® Oral Specimen
Collection Device to laboratory urinalysis among
Wish, E.D.,
J.A. Hoffman, and S. Nemes
1997 The Validity of Self-Reports of Drug Use at
Treatment Admission and at Follow- Up:
Comparisons with Urinalysis and Hair Assays.
In L. Harrison and A. Hughes (Eds.),
The Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use: Improving the Accuracy of Survey Estimates (pp. 200-226).
Yacoubian, G.
2000b Assessing
ADAM’s domain: Past, present, and future.
Contemporary Drug Problems, 27, 121-135.
Yacoubian, G.
2000a
Reassessing the need for urinalysis as a validation technique:
Correlation estimates from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM)
Program. Journal of Drug Issues,
30(2), 323-334.
Yacoubian, G., and R. Peters
under review Exploring the prevalence and correlates of methamphetamine use: Findings from
Yacoubian, G., E.D. Wish, and D.M. Pérez
2001 A comparison of saliva testing to
urinalysis in an arrestee population. Journal
of Psychoactive Drugs, 33(3), 289-294.
Yacoubian, G., and E.D. Wish
2004 A comparison of the Intercept Oral Specimen
Collection Device (Intercept)® to laboratory urinalysis among
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/journal/volume3.html.
[1] George
S. Yacoubian, Jr., is an associate research scientist with the Pacific
Institute for Research Evaluation (PIRE) in
[2] Albany, Albuquerque, Anchorage, Atlanta, Birmingham, Boston, Charlotte-Metro, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Des Moines, Detroit, Fort Lauderdale, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, Rio Arriba, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Jose, Seattle, Spokane, St. Louis, Tampa, Tucson, Tulsa, Washington, DC, and Woodbury County.
[3] Abt
Associates, Inc., held the ADAM management contract through 2002, at which time
it was awarded to the