U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program

Adult Male Arrestees
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft

Attorney General

Deborah J. Daniels

Assistant Attorney General

Sarah V. Hart

Director, National Institute of Justice

Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice

World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings on 

Drug Use and Drug Markets—

Adult Male Arrestees

Bruce G. Taylor, National Institute of Justice

Nora Fitzgerald, National Institute of Justice

Dana Hunt, Abt Associates Inc.

Judy A. Reardon, National Institute of Justice

Henry H. Brownstein, National Institute of Justice

December 2001

NCJ 189101
National Institute of Justice

Sarah V. Hart

Director

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the

Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

For their forthright and insightful comments on the draft, we are indebted to our colleagues at the National Institute

on Drug Abuse, particularly Lynda Erinoff, and at the Office of National Drug Control Policy, particularly Robert Eiss. We

also extend special thanks to Marianne Zawitz of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, who offered numerous suggestions to

make the tabular matter more reader friendly.
iii

Contents

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

CONTENTS

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The ADAM redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

ADAM data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Benefits of the redesign. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

II. Overall Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Illegal drug use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

III. The Drugs of Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Cocaine (crack and powder) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Methamphetamine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Opiates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Marijuana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

IV. Heavy Use and Need for Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Drugs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

V. Drug Markets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Extent of drug-market participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

How drugs are acquired (cash or noncash). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Place of purchase (open-air or indoor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Outside or inside the neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Problems obtaining drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

VI. Prospects and Possibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Appendix A: The New ADAM Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Appendix B: ADAM Staff—National Institute of Justice and 

Abt Associates Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Appendix C: Appendix Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
iv

Contents

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

Map and Tables

Map

Map: Cocaine and Methamphetamine Use, Detected by Urinalysis, by 

Region—Adult Male Arrestees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Tables

Table 1: Drug Test Results—Any NIDA–5 Drug, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees . . . . . . 5

Table 2: Drug Test Results—Cocaine, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 3: Crack and Powder Cocaine Use, Past 7 Days, by Site—Adult

Male Arrestees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 4: Drug Test Results—Methamphetamine, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees. . . . . 10

Table 5: Drug Test Results—Opiates, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 6: Drug Test Results—Marijuana, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 7: Heavy Use of Alcohol, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 8: Heavy Use of Drugs, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 9: Drug Treatment Status, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 10: Health Insurance Status, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 11: Reasons Attempts to Purchase Drugs Failed (Medians), by Drug—Adult

Male Arrestees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1

Introduction

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

I. INTRODUCTION

The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring

(ADAM) program measures the extent

of drug use in the high-risk population

of people who have been arrested. This

preliminary report presents the first highly

reliable, probability-based findings from

the ADAM program. These new findings

will be useful to policymakers and practitioners who are shaping their drug policies

to meet local needs. Of the 38 sites that

participate in the ADAM program, data

about male arrestees were available from

27 and are being released early. The forthcoming annual report will present data

for men, women, and juvenile arrestees

from all 38 sites. 

ADAM has its roots in the Drug Use

Forecasting (DUF) program, established in

1987 by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)

to provide participating communities with

information for developing drug-control

strategies and related public-policy responses. 

In 1993, the U.S. General Accounting

Office (GAO) issued a report called Drug

Use Measurement—Strengths, Limitations,

and Recommendations for Improvement.

The report criticized DUF for producing

data that were not generalizable. It did

note, however, that “if DUF data are

now handicapped by the sampling procedures, improvements are possible.” That

report was a call to action for NIJ. Since

then, many people committed themselves

to work together to make possible the

improvements suggested by GAO. ADAM

is the product.

The ADAM redesign

Two major, recent changes in ADAM

were the adoption of a sampling strategy

designed to improve the reliability of

the findings and inclusion in the survey

instrument of new questions that permit

more in-depth examination of issues

related to drug use. 

Several years of consultation, methods

testing, and pilot implementation were

required to finalize the redesign. The steps

included developing the sampling method,

training interviewers, developing and testing

the questionnaire, collecting pilot data, and

testing the reliability of these data. The

changes also included the addition of more

sites, so that as of 2000 there were 38 ADAM

sites, most of them in large urban areas.1

With ADAM fully implemented in 2000, it

was possible for the first time to present

findings based on the redesigned program. 

ADAM data collection

In some respects, the procedure for collecting information about arrestees’

drug use remains the same as in the past.

Information comes from interviews and

urinalyses obtained voluntarily and

recorded confidentially. Four times a year

(quarterly), local research teams in the

participating counties interview arrestees

at booking facilities. After the interview,

each respondent is asked to provide a

urine sample, which is analyzed to detect

drug use. 

1. If St. Louis (currently in hiatus status) is included, the total number of ADAM sites is 39.
In the interviews, demographic data are

collected and arrestees are asked about

such matters as what drugs they use and

how often they use them. The new questions added in the redesign were intended

to shed more light on drug-use behavior

and issues related to it. Thus, arrestees

are asked about their housing situation

during the past year, how they supported

themselves, whether they have health

insurance, and how and where they 

purchased illicit drugs. 

Questions about heavy use of drugs and

alcohol are intended to measure dependence and need for treatment, and arrestees

are also asked about their experiences with

treatment for drugs and mental health

problems. A further series of questions

explores arrestees’ participation in drug

markets, including place and method of

purchase and difficulties encountered in

trying to obtain drugs.2

Benefits of the redesign

The new interview questions and

probability-based sample have produced, for the first time, systematically

generated information that can track

trend data from year to year on such topics

as drug market participation by arrestees.

This means that law enforcement agencies will have access to more information

on which to base drug-control strategies.

With the data expanded in scope, ADAM

also becomes more powerful as a platform

on which to conduct research that examines the correlates of substance abuse

and crime.

Perhaps the most significant change is

the adoption of probability-based sampling. Findings from arrestees who are

tested and interviewed in each county

can be extrapolated to all arrestees in

the county.3 The method permits greater

confidence in study findings, making

them a good estimate of drug use among

all arrestees countywide. It will now be

possible to track trends in a given county

from year to year. Probability-based sampling also helps ensure the ADAM data

are more reliable as the basis for research. 

For a fuller discussion of the sampling

strategy and the redesigned survey

instrument, see “The New ADAM

Method” (Appendix A).

2

Introduction

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

2. A complete list of the new questions is in the Methodology Guide for ADAM, released in May 2001, which can 

be downloaded from the ADAM Web page (http://www.adam-nij.net) on the National Institute of Justice Web site

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij). 

3. As currently designed, ADAM data do not reflect drug use by arrestees nationwide, because the selection of the sites

is nonrandom. It is at the county level—in each participating county—that the data are collected through probabilitybased sampling. Synthetic estimation techniques could be used to generate figures on nationwide drug use by arrestees,

but such techniques are beyond the scope of this report. See Rhodes (1993) and Wish (1990) for examples of the use of

these techniques. 
3Overall Findings

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

II. OVERALL FINDINGS

1. Although the ADAM annual report will present data on adult females and juveniles, the new sampling procedure is

not used to collect data on adult females, and neither the new sampling procedure nor the new survey instrument is

used to collect data on juveniles. Program resources are not yet sufficient to develop a sampling strategy that would provide countywide, representative samples of adult female arrestees and, in some sites, male and female juvenile arrestees.

2. One reason not all sites are represented is that some had more difficulty than others in implementing the changes in

ADAM. Another reason is that not all 38 sites are currently operating. Weighted data from at least two quarters were not

available from the two affiliate sites (so called because they use all standard ADAM conventions and procedures but are

funded by other sources), Charlotte/Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; and Albany/Capital Area, New York. A third

affiliate site, Kansas City/Jackson County, Missouri, was added only in 2001. Of the 27 sites reporting, 23 produced data

from three calendar quarters, and 4 produced data from two quarters. All data submitted as of March 22, 2001, were

included in this report. 

3. Fewer than 150 interviews were conducted during the first quarter of the year by 8 sites; during the second quarter,

by 9 sites; and during the third quarter, by 8 sites. 

4. The 10 drugs tested in the ADAM program are cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamines, opiates, phencyclidine

(PCP), methadone, benzodiazepines, methaqualone, propoxyphene, and barbiturates. The first five are the “NIDA–5,”

drugs named by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) as a standard panel of commonly used illegal drugs. 

This preliminary report presents findings

for adult male arrestees only, because

data from the new methods of the ADAM

redesign are now available for this group.1

Of the 38 ADAM sites, preliminary findings are reported from 27—the ones where

data were collected during at least 2 quarters of calendar year 2000.2 Most sites

conducted about 160 interviews quarterly

and accumulated about 500 for analysis.3

(The names of all the sites, the number

of interviews conducted each quarter,

and related information are in Appendix

Table 1.)

Illegal drug use

As in previous years, in 2000 the levels of

drug use detected were high. Although

urinalysis can detect 10 different drugs,

the preliminary findings presented here

focus on marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, opiates, and PCP—the “NIDA–5”

drugs.4 (See “ADAM’s Use of Urinalysis

to Detect Illicit Drugs.”)

In more than half the ADAM sites that

reported data, 65 percent or more of the

arrestees had recently used at least one of

the NIDA–5 drugs. Use of at least one of

these drugs ranged from 51 percent of

arrestees (Des Moines) to 79 percent

(New York City). (See Appendix Table 2.)

The data from self-reports are probably

conservative estimates of drug use. As

demonstrated in previous studies that

used DUF and ADAM data, arrestees’

self-reports underestimated drug use

detected by urinalysis by magnitudes of

40 to 60 percent, depending on the drug

and site examined. (Lu, Taylor, and Riley

2001; and Johnson, Taylor, Golub, and

Eterno 2001).

The findings about use of the NIDA–5

drugs are dramatic evidence of the extent

of drug use in the arrestee population,

but like other averages, they obscure the

nuances of the data. They do not reveal,

for example, that arrestees may use different
4

Overall Findings

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

types of drugs and that drug use varies by

demographic characteristics and geographic location. They also do not reveal

whether polydrug use or use of a single

drug is the norm. 

Whether the use of multiple or single

drugs dominates is a question that highlights the potential of the ADAM redesign.

Urinalysis revealed that some arrestees

had used more than one drug: In half

the sites, 20 percent or more of the

arrestees had done so, with polydrug use

among the sites ranging from 10 percent

of arrestees (Anchorage) to 30 percent

(Tucson). The type of drugs used this

way also varied by site and region of the

country. In most sites, however, among

arrestees testing positive by urinalysis,

only a single drug was detected. (See

Appendix Table 2.) This evidence needs

to be interpreted cautiously, however,

because studies have consistently shown

that polydrug use is the norm (U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services

1998), with users substituting one drug

for another when the drug of choice is

scarce or mixing drugs to counter or

moderate the effects of one or the other.

By examining data from the ADAM

interviews, it is possible to determine

whether arrestees are using different

types of drugs in the period of a month

or a year, and how frequently they are

used. 

Demographics

In most of the sites reported here, the

adult5 male arrestees were over the age

of 32, with the mean age between 30 

(in Minneapolis) and 35 (in Atlanta).

Proportionately more arrestees were in

the oldest age category (36 and over)

than any other. In half the sites, more

than 37 percent of the arrestees were in

ADAM’s Use of Urinalysis to Detect Illicit Drugs

The ADAM urinalysis protocol can detect 10 different drugs, but the focus is the “NIDA–5”

drugs—marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines, opiates, and phencyclidine (PCP). They were

established by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) as a standard list of commonly

used illegal drugs. PCP is the one NIDA–5 drug not discussed in this report because urinalysis

shows recent use of this drug at very low levels in the ADAM sites (measuring zero in 17 sites

and between 1 and 8 percent of arrestees in the rest). (See Appendix Table 2.) 

Urinalysis, used to confirm the information self-reported in the interviews, offers an objective

assessment of recent drug use. Cocaine, PCP, methamphetamines, and opiates can be detected in the urine for up to 2 to 3 days after ingestion. Marijuana remains in the body as long

as 30 days after use, so it is more likely than the other drugs to be detected at the time the

urine specimen is collected. Special, confirmatory tests are used to detect methamphetamines. 

Adding to the reliability of the findings is the high proportion of arrestees at all the sites who

agreed to give a urine sample. Urinalysis completion rates were above 85 percent in 20 of

the 27 reporting sites in 2000. The median was 88 percent, with the range from 79 percent

(Cleveland) to 96 percent (Atlanta, New Orleans, and New York).*

* The number of samples available for urinalysis (reflected in the data in Appendix Table 1) is slightly smaller than

the number of interviews. Approximately 500 interviews were available for analysis in most of the sites. In about

90 percent of these cases, the arrestees agreed to provide a specimen. The result was about 450 specimens

available for analysis at each site.

5. An “adult” is defined here as anyone brought to an adult lockup facility.
5Overall Findings

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

this category, while the medians for the

other age categories were lower.6 (All

demographic and sociodemographic data

are in Appendix Table 3.) 

In half the sites, 30 percent or more of

the arrestees did not have a high school

diploma. (The range was 20 percent, in

San Jose and Anchorage, to 55 percent,

in Laredo.) A substantial proportion of

arrestees in many sites lived in a shelter

or otherwise had no fixed address: In

half the sites, at least 14 percent said

their living situation was unstable in the

month before they were interviewed.7 (The

range was 5 percent, in Laredo, to 27 percent, in Portland and Denver.) 

Table 1: Drug Test Results—Any NIDA–5

Drug,* by Site—Adult Male Arrestees

Percent of Arrestees

Primary City Who Tested Positive 

New York, NY 79%

Philadelphia, PA 74

Sacramento, CA 73

Cleveland, OH 72

Oklahoma City, OK 72

Atlanta, GA 70

New Orleans, LA 69

Tucson, AZ 69

Birmingham, AL 67

Indianapolis, IN 66

Minneapolis, MN 66

Albuquerque, NM 65

San Diego, CA 65

Seattle, WA 65

Denver, CO 63

Miami, FL 63

Phoenix, AZ 63

Portland, OR 61

Omaha, NE 60

Laredo, TX 57

Las Vegas, NV 56

Spokane, WA 56

San Antonio, TX 55

Salt Lake City, UT 54

Anchorage, AK 53

San Jose, CA 52

Des Moines, IA 51

Median 65%

* The NIDA–5 drugs are cocaine, opiates, marijuana, methamphetamines, and PCP. NIDA established this list as a standard

panel of commonly used illegal drugs. They are the drugs analyzed in this report.

Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000.

6. Throughout this report, the median is used as the average of any measure for all sites unless otherwise indicated.

A median is the number that falls at the 50th percentile of any measure.

7. Throughout this report, “month” and “30 days” are used interchangeably to refer to the 30 days before the interview.
7The Drugs of Abuse

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

III. THE DRUGS OF ABUSE

Of the ten drugs analyzed by ADAM,

four—cocaine (both crack and powder),

marijuana, methamphetamines, and

heroin—are used most often by arrestees.

Overall, as measured by urinalysis, marijuana is the drug most commonly used by

adult male arrestees, followed by cocaine,

opiates, and methamphetamines. For each

drug there are major variations among

the sites, as well as age and regional patterns. Any analysis that combines data

from many regions of the country would

mask these differences. The differences

suggest a one-size-fits-all approach to

controlling drug use may not be the optimal one, and policies and strategies for

enforcement and treatment are best tailored

to specific user groups and locations.

Cocaine (crack and powder)

Urinalysis revealed that high percentages

of ADAM arrestees had recently used

cocaine (undistinguished here between

crack and powder). On average, 30 percent

of arrestees tested positive for cocaine.

Only marijuana, for which the average

was 40 percent, was higher. Cocaine use

among the 27 sites ranged from 8 percent

(Des Moines) to 49 percent (Atlanta).

(See Appendix Table 3.) The sites where

cocaine-positives among adult male

arrestees were highest were, in addition

to Atlanta, New York City (46 percent),

Laredo (44 percent), Miami (43 percent),

and Tucson (40 percent).

Many of the lowest cocaine-positive

rates detected by urinalysis were among

arrestees on the west coast and in the

Table 2: Drug Test Results—Cocaine, by

Site—Adult Male Arrestees

Percent of Arrestees

Primary City Who Tested Positive 

Atlanta, GA 49%

New York, NY 46

Laredo, TX 44

Miami, FL 43

Tucson, AZ 40

Cleveland, OH 37

Albuquerque, NM 35

Birmingham, AL 35

Denver, CO 34

Indianapolis, IN 32

New Orleans, LA 32

Philadelphia, PA 31

Phoenix, AZ 31

Seattle, WA 30

Minneapolis, MN 25

Oklahoma City, OK 24

Anchorage, AK 21

Las Vegas, NV 21

San Antonio, TX 21

Portland, OR 20

Sacramento, CA 18

Salt Lake City, UT 18

Omaha, NE 17

San Diego, CA 17

Spokane, WA 14

San Jose, CA 11

Des Moines, IA 8

Median 30%

Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000.
8

The Drugs of Abuse

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

use among arrestees continues at high

levels. (For information about the crack

epidemic, see Golub and Johnson 1997.)

Evidence about how much cocaine is consumed in the form of crack comes from

research conducted in 1999. In the six

ADAM sites studied, the overwhelming

majority of cocaine-positive arrestees 

(88 percent) were using crack, not powder

Pacific Northwest. These included San

Jose (11 percent), Spokane (14 percent),

San Diego (17 percent), Sacramento (18

percent), Salt Lake City (18 percent),

Portland (20 percent), and Las Vegas

and Anchorage (both 21 percent).

Research suggests the worst of the crack

epidemic is behind us (Johnson, Golub,

and Dunlap 2000), but ADAM data indicate

Table 3: Crack and Powder Cocaine Use, Past 7 Days, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees

Percent of Arrestees Ratio of Percent of 

Who Reported: Crack Arrestees

Cocaine to Who Said

Powder They Used

Cocaine Both Drugs

Atlanta, GA 25.1% 7.5% 3.3 3.2%

Cleveland, OH 20.3 5.0 4.1 3.1

Tucson, AZ 20.0 21.4 0.9 7.8

Phoenix, AZ 18.7 10.7 1.7 5.6

Albuquerque, NM 18.3 11.6 1.6 5.9

New York, NY 18.2 14.6 1.2 3.0

Philadelphia, PA 16.3 4.9 3.3 2.1

Birmingham, AL 16.1 3.8 4.2 2.5

Seattle, WA 16.0 9.7 1.7 4.8

Denver, CO 15.2 9.4 1.6 4.2

Indianapolis, IN 14.6 3.8 3.9 2.0

Miami, FL 14.0 15.4 0.9 3.9

Anchorage, AK 13.4 6.0 2.2 4.5

Minneapolis, MN 13.0 5.2 2.5 2.3

New Orleans, LA 12.8 6.2 2.1 1.8

Sacramento, CA 11.7 1.8 6.6 1.0

Oklahoma City, OK 11.2 4.9 2.3 1.6

Las Vegas, NV 10.7 5.6 1.9 1.1

San Diego, CA 10.2 3.4 3.0 0.1

Portland, OR 9.6 5.3 1.8 1.0

Spokane, WA 9.4 7.3 1.3 4.7

Laredo, TX 8.0 29.0 0.3 6.2

Omaha, NE 7.4 2.5 3.0 0.6

Des Moines, IA 7.1 2.4 3.0 1.0

Salt Lake City, UT 6.7 10.2 0.7 4.6

San Jose, CA 4.9 2.8 1.7 0.6

San Antonio, TX 2.3 9.7 0.2 1.9

Median 13.0% 6.0% 2.2 2.5%

Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000.

Using Crack Using Powder

Primary City Cocaine Cocaine
9The Drugs of Abuse

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

(Riley et al. 2001).1 In view of this finding,

it is reasonable to conclude that most

cocaine-positives revealed by urinalysis

indicate the use of crack. 

Data from the interviews also offer evidence that the crack epidemic is far from

over in many cities. In Atlanta, 25 percent of the adult male arrestees said they

had used crack during the 7 days before

the interview. In Tucson and Phoenix,

the rates were 20 percent and 19 percent,

respectively. (See Appendix Table 4.)

The interviews revealed differences

among the sites in method of ingesting

cocaine (i.e., whether crack or powder).

Crack stands out. In 22 of the 27 sites,

more arrestees reported recent crack

use than recent powder cocaine use. In

Atlanta, the difference was dramatic: In

contrast to the 25 percent who said they

had used crack during the 7 days before

the interview, only 8 percent said they

had used powder.

The interviews indicate that on the west

coast and in the Pacific Northwest, where

cocaine use is the lowest among arrestees,

it is ingested primarily as crack. The

exception is Salt Lake City. In every site

in these regions except this one, the percentage of arrestees who said they had

used crack in the past 7 days was higher

than the percentage who had used powder

cocaine. The range for powder cocaine

was very low—from 2 percent (Sacramento)

to 7 percent (Spokane)—while in Salt

Lake City the proportion using powder

cocaine was 10 percent. 

Amid the overwhelming evidence from

ADAM of enduringly high rates of crack

cocaine use among adult male arrestees,

there is reason to believe that in a few

sites a significant proportion of the

cocaine-positive urinalysis results reflect

powder cocaine use. Again, the evidence

comes from arrestees’ self-reports on crack

and powder cocaine use. High proportions

of arrestees in areas as geographically

diverse as Laredo, San Antonio, Miami,

and New York reported using powder

cocaine. In several sites, the rates for 7-day

powder cocaine use were similar to or

much higher than those for crack. In

Laredo, the percentage of arrestees who

said they had used powder was higher

than the percentage who said they had

used crack (29 percent and 8 percent,

respectively). (See Appendix Tables 4 and

5.) The same distinctions can be seen in

San Antonio, Salt Lake City, and Miami.

It is worth noting that even New York

City, where a very high percentage of

arrestees said they had used crack during the previous 7 days (18 percent), the

percentage who had used powder was

not that different (15 percent).

Methamphetamine

The West is the region where methamphetamine use among adult male arrestees is

most prevalent. Several Midwestern States

also show substantial proportions of

arrestees using this substance. (See

Appendix Table 3 and map.) Urinalysis

confirmatory tests2 indicated the highest

methamphetamine use was in Sacramento

(27 percent), San Diego (25 percent), San

Jose (22 percent), Spokane (21 percent),

Portland (20 percent), and Las Vegas (19

percent). Double-digit rates also showed

up in Des Moines (17 percent), Phoenix

(17 percent), Salt Lake City (17 percent),

Oklahoma City (12 percent), and Seattle

(10 percent). 

1. The study by Riley et al. (2001) demonstrated the use of gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) to distinguish crack from other forms of cocaine. The screening test used by the ADAM program to detect cocaine cannot

make this distinction. However, GC/MS can detect compounds specific to crack—anhydroecgonine methyl ester (AEME)

and ecgonine. The presence of one or both in urine is evidence of crack. These metabolites are largely specific to the

process of heating cocaine; insufflating (snorting) or injecting cocaine produces only trace amounts of AEME.

2. When urinalysis detects one or more drugs in the amphetamine group, a confirmatory test is conducted to

determine whether the drug is a methamphetamine. The confirmation is necessary because several cold medications

contain amphetamines. 
10The Drugs of Abuse

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

Atlanta). The site closest to the east

coast that recorded methamphetamine

positives was Indianapolis, although

there the rate was only 1 percent. 

Methamphetamine is clearly a regional

phenomenon, popular among urban area

arrestees in one part of the country and

not in others. The reason is unknown.

Aside from concentration in the West,

ADAM has shown that methamphetamine tends to be more widely used by

white and Hispanic arrestees than black

arrestees. Because ADAM will now collect

data outside urban areas, the program

should be better able to analyze use

patterns for this type of drug. 

Where methamphetamine use tends to

be highest, cocaine use is fairly low. (See

the map.) Thus, in the West, proportionately fewer arrestees use cocaine. The low

rates would be encouraging except that

self-reported data indicate it is ingested

largely as crack, the more potent form of

the drug, in this part of the country. Further

analyses comparing users of methamphetamine and cocaine should aid in

the understanding of use patterns for

these two drug types. 

Opiates

Opiates seem to be used by relatively

few arrestees. In most of the sites

reported here, urinalysis revealed that

the proportion of adult male arrestees

who had used opiates was much lower

than for marijuana, cocaine, and in

many instances, methamphetamine.

Opiate use ranged from 1 percent of

arrestees (Omaha) to 22 percent (New

York). In addition to New York, sites

with relatively high opiate use include

New Orleans (15 percent of arrestees),

San Antonio (14 percent), Portland (13

percent), Philadelphia (12 percent),

Albuquerque (12 percent), and Seattle

(11 percent). These rates suggest no geographic pattern. (See Appendix Table 3.)

Lower rates of methamphetamine use

(from 1 to 9 percent of arrestees) were

recorded in a number of sites in the

Southwest and Midwest. In 10 sites,

however, no recent methamphetamine

use among adult male arrestees was

detected by urinalysis, including all

sites in the eastern part of the country

(Birmingham, Miami, New York, New

Orleans, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and

Table 4: Drug Test Results—Methamphetamine, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees

Percent of Arrestees

Primary City Who Tested Positive 

Sacramento, CA 27%

San Diego, CA 25

San Jose, CA 22

Spokane, WA 21

Portland. OR 20

Las Vegas, NV 19

Des Moines, IA 17

Phoenix, AZ 17

Salt Lake City, UT 17

Oklahoma City, OK 12

Seattle, WA 10

Omaha, NE 9

Tucson, AZ 7

Albuquerque, NM 5

Denver, CO 3

Minneapolis, MN 2

Indianapolis, IN 1

Anchorage, AK 0

Atlanta, GA 0

Birmingham, AL 0

Cleveland, OH 0

Laredo, TX 0

Miami, FL 0

New Orleans, LA 0

New York, NY 0

Philadelphia, PA 0

San Antonio, TX 0

Median 5%

Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000.
Laredo, TX

Source: ADAM data provided by the ADAM program office of NIJ. 

All geographic layers are from ESRI Data and Maps. Map created by 

Elizabeth Groff, NIJ's Crime Mapping Research Center, 202–305–3301.

Anchorage

Not to scale Not to scale

Miami, FL

Anchorage, AK

New Orleans, LA

Indianapolis, IN

Cleveland, OH

Oklahoma City, OK

Omaha, NE

Des Moines, IA

Minneapolis, MN

San Antonio, TX

Albuquerque, NM

Denver, CO

Tucson, AZ

Phoenix, AZ

Salt Lake City, UT

San Diego, CA

Las Vegas, NV

Sacramento, CA

San Jose, CA

Seattle, WA

Spokane, WA

Portland, OR

0 50

0 50

0 50

Seattle

Spokane

Portland

Sacramento

San Jose

San Diego

Las

Vegas

Salt Lake City

Tucson

Phoenix

Denver

Albuquerque

Laredo

San Antonio

Oklahoma City

Miami

New Orleans

Atlanta Birmingham

Omaha

Minneapolis

Cocaine

ADAM Site

Methamphetamine

Des Moines

Indianapolis

Cleveland Philadelphia

New York

Atlanta, GA

Birmingham, AL

Eastern States

Philadelphia, PA

New York, NY

Western States Central States

Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000. 

11

The Drugs of Abuse

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

Map: Cocaine and Methamphetamine Use, Detected by Urinalysis, by Region—

Adult Male Arrestees
12The Drugs of Abuse

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

Arrestees who tested positive for opiates

are believed to be primarily users of

heroin.3 Urinalysis confirmatory tests can

distinguish among the various opiates—

heroin, morphine, codeine, and some

synthetic forms—but the test used by

ADAM cannot make these distinctions.

Thus, it does not reveal which opiate

has been used. In the interviews, arrestees

were asked about heroin use specifically,

but not about use of other opiates. Their

responses indicated that heroin use in

the sites was intense, with a very high

average number of days per month of

use in the year before the interview.

In Des Moines, for example, arrestees

who had used heroin during the year

before the interview said that during the

past 30 days they used it an average of

20 days. The number of days was 19 in

San Jose, 18 in San Antonio, and 16 in

New York. Not surprisingly, even in sites

where the percentage of arrestees who

had used opiates was relatively low, the

average number of days they used these

drugs was high. In San Jose, where 3 percent of arrestees said that they had used

heroin during the past year, the average

number of days per month they used it

(19) indicated an almost daily use characteristic of addiction. In half the sites,

arrestees used heroin 12 days or more

during the past month. For crack use,

the median number of days was 9; for

methamphetamines, 9; for powder cocaine,

7; and for marijuana, 11. Researchers are

likely to find heroin users’ drug patterns

distinctive enough to warrant separate

analysis.

Marijuana

Marijuana is the drug used most commonly by adult male arrestees. Urinalysis

revealed that an average of 40 percent of

arrestees had used marijuana recently. Use

was lowest in Laredo (30 percent), with

Oklahoma City at the top of the range

(57 percent). (See Appendix Table 3.)

Interview-based information confirms

the ubiquitous pattern of high marijuana

rates. Again, Laredo and Oklahoma City

represent the bottom and top of the

range. In these two sites, 35 percent and

61 percent of arrestees, respectively, said

they had used marijuana during the past

year. (See Appendix Table 6.)

3. Source: Confirmatory GC/MS tests conducted by Dr. Natalie Lu of the National Institute of Justice in 1999.

Table 5: Drug Test Results—Opiates,

by Site—Adult Male Arrestees

Percent of Arrestees

Primary City Who Tested Positive 

New York, NY 22%

New Orleans, LA 15

San Antonio, TX 14

Portland, OR 13

Albuquerque, NM 12

Philadelphia, PA 12

Birmingham, AL 11

Seattle, WA 11

Tucson, AZ 9

Spokane, WA 8

Salt Lake City, UT 7

San Jose, CA 7

Laredo, TX 6

Phoenix, AZ 6

San Diego, CA 6

Las Vegas, NV 4

Miami, FL 4

Minneapolis, MN 4

Anchorage, AK 3

Cleveland, OH 3

Denver, CO 3

Indianapolis, IN 3

Oklahoma City, OK 3

Atlanta, GA 2

Des Moines, IA 2

Sacramento, CA 2

Omaha, NE 1

Median 6%

Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000.
13The Drugs of Abuse

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

The overall rates, however high, are modest compared with those among younger

male arrestees.4 In this age group (18 to

20), urinalysis showed marijuana-positives

starting at 49 percent of arrestees (Portland)

and rising to 81 percent (Albuquerque)

(see Appendix Table 7). These numbers

are troubling and warrant closer scrutiny.

Heavy marijuana use is defined as 13 or

more days of self-reported use in a 30-day

period in the year before the interview.5

By that definition, in half the sites 29

percent or more of younger adult male

arrestees used marijuana heavily. By contrast, among arrestees over 20 years old

the median was 18 percent. The highest

self-reported rates of heavy marijuana

use among younger arrestees were in

New York City (57 percent), Sacramento

(48 percent), Indianapolis (39 percent),

and Birmingham and Philadelphia (both

38 percent). The sites where heavy use

was lowest among this age group were

Des Moines (5 percent), Las Vegas (14

percent), San Jose (15 percent), and

Denver and Portland (both 16 percent).

Another measure of very heavy use is

the average number of days a drug was

ingested in the past year. On this measure also, age makes a difference. The

average number of days per month in

which younger arrestees said they used

marijuana was 14. Among arrestees over

20 years old, the average was lower: 10

days per month. (See Appendix Table 7.)

Marijuana exemplifies the difficulty of

predicting use patterns on the basis of a

drug’s psychopharmacological effects.

Because the effects of marijuana are

quite different from those of heroin,

cocaine, and methamphetamines, the

level of use might be expected to be different. Yet the average number of days

per month the younger arrestees used

marijuana was as high as the number of

days they used heroin and cocaine, which

are generally considered to have graver

effects. The reason is unknown and

open to investigation.

Table 6: Drug Test Results—Marijuana,

by Site—Adult Male Arrestees

Percent of Arrestees

Primary City Who Tested Positive 

Oklahoma City, OK 57%

Minneapolis, MN 54

Cleveland, OH 51

Philadelphia, PA 51

Indianapolis, IN 50

Sacramento, CA 50

Albuquerque, NE 47

New Orleans, LA 47

Omaha, NE 46

Tucson, AZ 46

Birmingham, AL 44

Denver, CO 43

Anchorage, AK 40

New York, NY 40

San Antonio, TX 40

San Diego, CA 39

Spokane, WA 39

Atlanta, GA 38

Des Moines, IA 38

Miami, FL 38

Seattle, WA 38

Portland, OR 35

San Jose, CA 35

Phoenix, AZ 33

Salt Lake City, UT 33

Las Vegas, NV 31

Laredo, TX 30

Median 40%

Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000.

4. See Golub and Johnson (2001) for a fuller discussion of the recent upsurge in marijuana rates among younger male

arrestees. 

5. This is the definition of heavy drug use established by the NHSDA. 
15Heavy Use and Need For Treatment

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

IV. HEAVY USE AND NEED

FOR TREATMENT

The redesigned ADAM includes new

questions about heavy use of drugs and

alcohol as well as several other issues

related to substance abuse, including

need for treatment. One way treatment

need can be measured is through a

clinically based dependency screen. The

screen consists of a DSM-IV-based1 set of

questions that calculate the risk for alcohol

and drug dependence. Answering “yes”

to a specific set of three among the six

items in the screen indicates dependence.

Because the type of drug or drugs ingested

varies and use patterns also vary, some

users are more vulnerable than others to

addiction. This means the screening questions are only one indicator of need for

treatment. The self-reports of arrestees

are just as essential a measure. When the

two measures are combined they create

a powerful tool for identifying treatment needs.

Alcohol

Alcohol use is common among arrestees,

as it is in the general population. According to the National Household Survey on

Drug Abuse (NHSDA) (U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services 1998), 68

percent of all male household members

12 years and older used alcohol in the

year before the survey. Binge drinking is

defined by the NHSDA as five or more

drinks on at least one occasion in a

month. Heavy drinking is defined as

five or more drinks on five or more occasions in a month. The NHSDA found

that 22 percent of the men in the survey

reported past month binge drinking, and 9

percent reported past month heavy drinking (U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Office of Applied Studies 1998).

Because ADAM includes measures of

alcohol use similar to those employed

by the NHSDA, it is possible to compare

arrestees and the general population. To

some degree, the ADAM and NHSDA studies

cover some of the same individuals, since

arrestees may be included in the household

survey. Despite this overlap, a relatively

large number of people interviewed

through ADAM may not be represented in

the NHSDA. These are the people without

fixed addresses, which includes a number

who use illicit drugs and are arrested.

The newly redesigned ADAM measures

past month binge drinking and past month

heavy drinking, as well as risk for alcohol

dependence during the past year. In more

than half the sites, over 50 percent of all

adult arrestees reported binge drinking in

the 30 days before they were interviewed.

Binge-drinking rates ranged from 41 percent (Miami) to 70 percent (Albuquerque).

Reported past month heavy drinking

ranged from 17 percent (Miami) to 39

percent (Albuquerque), with the average at 36 percent. The levels of heavy

1. DSM–IV refers to the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, compiled and

published in 1994 by the American Psychiatric Association. It is used by psychiatrists for diagnoses and is widely

used by others. 
16Heavy Use and Need For Treatment

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

Primary City

drinking were high even compared with

the rate among the household survey’s

heaviest drinking group (males ages 18 to

25), 19 percent of whom said they drank

heavily during the past month.

The findings from the dependency screen

showed large proportions of arrestees at

risk for alcohol dependence and therefore

needing treatment. In half the sites, 34 percent or more of those who said they used

Binge Drinking, Heavy Drinking,

Past 30 Daysa Past 30 Daysb

Table 7: Heavy Use of Alcohol, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees

Percent of Arrestees 

Who Reported:

Albuquerque, NM 70.1% 39.2% 47.4%

Anchorage, AK 69.8 38.1 46.9

Atlanta, GA 44.5 31.3 31.7

Birmingham, AL 52.6 32.6 29.1

Cleveland, OH 53.2 38.3 33.8

Denver, CO 64.8 38.9 38.0

Des Moines, IA 56.7 27.6 28.7

Indianapolis, IN 49.1 29.8 36.6

Laredo, TX 65.9 36.3 35.6

Las Vegas, NV 53.7 32.7 34.5

Miami, FL 41.3 16.9 24.4

Minneapolis, MN 52.0 27.9 31.5

New Orleans, LA 34.7 20.1 22.5

New York, NY 39.3 23.1 22.9

Oklahoma City, OK 62.1 36.8 40.5

Omaha, NE 52.9 27.2 24.1

Philadelphia, PA 38.8 25.3 24.2

Phoenix, AZ 54.1 31.8 35.9

Portland, OR 41.8 18.9 24.3

Sacramento, CA 53.9 30.4 36.9

Salt Lake City, UT 46.4 22.4 32.2

San Antonio, TX 41.7 19.5 22.4

San Diego, CA 56.3 31.9 35.6

San Jose, CA 60.2 33.3 43.1

Seattle, WA 49.7 27.5 34.0

Spokane, WA 57.6 31.7 40.1

Tucson, AZ 59.8 38.7 40.1

Median 56.7% 36.3% 35.6%

a. Binge drinking is defined in the NHSDA as consumption of five or more drinks on at least one occasion in a month. 

b. Heavy drinking is defined in the NHSDA as consumption of five or more drinks on five or more occasions in a month.

c. Dependence is an indication of need for treatment. One way treatment need is measured is by a clinically based dependency screen. 

The screen consists of a set of questions that calculate the risk for alcohol and drug dependence. Answering “yes” to a specific set of three

among the six questions indicates dependence.

Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000. Questions were asked of arrestees who reported consuming alcohol.

Percent of Arrestees

at Risk for Alcohol

Dependence, Past Yearc
17Heavy Use and Need For Treatment

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

alcohol were at risk, with a range of

22 percent (San Antonio) to 47 percent

(Albuquerque). The percentages of arrestees

who had used alcohol in the year before

they were interviewed and who were treated

for it were very low. This was especially

evident among those at risk for alcohol

dependence: On average, 13 percent

received treatment. The percentage was

lowest in San Antonio, where 5 percent of

arrestees at risk had received treatment,

and highest in New York, where 28 percent had received treatment. 

Drugs

The NHSDA defines heavy drug use

as consumption of any NIDA–5 drug

13 or more days a month for at least

1 month during the year before the user

is interviewed.2 On average, 34 percent or

more of arrestees said they had used

illegal drugs heavily. The range among

the sites was wide, from 27 percent

(Laredo) to 53 percent (New York City).

In 8 sites, more than 40 percent of

arrestees said they had used drugs

heavily during the past month. As with

alcohol, the need for treatment was great.

The screen revealed high percentages at

risk for drug dependence: In half the

sites, 38 percent or more of arrestees

were at risk. 

Some clinicians consider drug injection

an indicator of the need for treatment. In

the ADAM interview, arrestees who said

they used an illegal drug in the past year

were asked if they did so through injection.

The percentages who injected drugs

varied widely among the sites, making

injection use only one part of the picture

of severe drug use. Whether injection rates

can be viewed as high depends on the

type of drug most often used in an area

and whether injection is the conventional method of ingesting a particular

drug. In Birmingham, Indianapolis,

Atlanta, Cleveland, and even New York

City (where heroin use is high), the proportions of arrestees who injected drugs

were low (7 percent or less at each of

these sites). This is perhaps because crack,

which is usually smoked, dominated illegal drug use among arrestees in these

sites. On the other hand, at several sites

where high percentages of arrestees used

methamphetamine, high percentages

injected drugs (a range of 9 to 18 percent). Portland, where the percentages

of arrestees who used methamphetamine

and heroin were particularly high, was

at the top of the range.

Few arrestees were treated for drug abuse.

In half the sites, about 9 percent or less

of those who had used drugs in the year

before they were interviewed received

treatment. The proportion was lowest in

New Orleans (4 percent) and highest in

Portland (16 percent). Among the subgroup

of arrestees at risk for drug dependence,

the numbers were similarly low. In half

the sites, 19 percent or less had received

treatment. Again, New Orleans and Portland

represented the lower and upper reaches

of the range, at 8 percent and 35 percent,

respectively.

The relatively high proportion of the

ADAM sample who need treatment for

substance abuse is of grave concern from

a public health perspective. Perhaps of

greater concern is that many are not

receiving treatment and many appear to

have no health insurance, either private

or public, to cover it. In half the sites, 61

percent or more of the arrestees said they

did not have health insurance. The range

was 49 percent (Portland) to 71 percent

(Salt Lake City). The figures were similar among arrestees at risk for alcohol

dependence and drug dependence. In half

the sites, at least 65 percent of those at

risk for alcohol dependence said they

lacked health insurance, with the range

2. PCP, one of the NIDA–5 drugs, is not included in this report because it is rarely detected among arrestees. 
18Heavy Use and Need For Treatment

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

from 50 percent (Portland) to 80 percent

(San Antonio). Among arrestees at risk

for drug dependence, at least 60 percent

in half the sites were without coverage.

Portland was lowest, with 46 percent

lacking coverage; San Antonio was highest at 82 percent.

Table 8: Heavy Use of Drugs, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees

Percent of Arrestees

Who Reported:

Albuquerque, NM 40.1% 16.7% 42.4%

Anchorage, AK 32.3 6.1 29.6

Atlanta, GA 35.6 2.7 38.3

Birmingham, AL 29.1 1.7 27.5

Cleveland, OH 33.7 4.2 37.2

Denver, CO 33.6 8.4 30.1

Des Moines, IA 27.7 5.6 36.0

Indianapolis, IN 33.0 2.6 34.3

Laredo, TX 26.8 8.5 29.5

Las Vegas, NV 34.5 9.1 40.0

Miami, FL 30.0 2.9 30.2

Minneapolis, MN 35.3 3.1 34.8

New Orleans, LA 33.7 8.6 37.5

New York, NY 52.8 7.3 41.0

Oklahoma City, OK 41.1 11.4 43.3

Omaha, NE 34.9 5.5 30.0

Philadelphia, PA 41.5 6.3 46.0

Phoenix, AZ 40.3 15.0 44.1

Portland, OR 33.0 18.2 36.1

Sacramento, CA 43.9 14.3 47.1

Salt Lake City, UT 31.6 12.4 40.2

San Antonio, TX 26.9 8.1 28.0

San Diego, CA 31.9 9.3 40.3

San Jose, CA 34.1 5.0 36.8

Seattle, WA 41.6 14.6 43.4

Spokane, WA 38.0 16.7 43.3

Tucson, AZ 41.7 12.6 44.9

Median 34.1% 8.4% 37.5%

a. Heavy use is defined in the NHSDA as 13 or more days of self-reported consumption of a drug in a 30-day period in the year before

the interview. The NIDA–5 drugs are cocaine, opiates, marijuana, methamphetamines, and PCP. The list was established by NIDA as a

standard panel of commonly used illegal drugs. They are the drugs analyzed in this report. 

b. Dependence is an indication of need for treatment. One way treatment need is measured is by a clinically based dependency screen. 

The screen consists of a set of questions that calculate the risk for alcohol and drug dependence. Answering “yes” to a specific set of three

among the six questions indicates dependence.

Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000. Questions were asked of arrestees who reported using drugs. 

Heavy Use of a NIDA–5 Injecting Drugs,

Drug, Past 30 Daysa Primary City Past 30 Days

Percent of Arrestees

at Risk for Alcohol

Dependence, Past Yearb
19Heavy Use and Need For Treatment

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

Table 10: Health Insurance Status, by

Site—Adult Male Arrestees

Percent Who Said 

They Had No Health

Primary City Insurance, Past Year

Salt Lake City, UT 70.6%

Laredo, TX 68.8

San Antonio, TX 68.8

Denver, CO 68.2

Anchorage, AK 66.6

Albuquerque, NM 66.0

Las Vegas, NV 65.1

Oklahoma City, OK 64.9

San Diego, CA 64.6

San Jose, CA 64.5

Phoenix, AZ 62.2

New Orleans, LA 62.1

Spokane, WA 62.0

Tucson, AZ 61.3

Miami, FL 61.0

Indianapolis, IN 60.8

Des Moines, IA 59.7

Seattle, WA 59.7

Cleveland, OH 58.5

Sacramento, CA 58.2

Atlanta, GA 57.7

New York, NY 56.6

Philadelphia, PA 54.5

Birmingham, AL 54.1

Omaha, NE 53.1

Minneapolis, MN 50.7

Portland, OR 48.7

Median 61.3%

Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000.

Table 9: Drug Treatment Status, by

Site—Adult Male Arrestees

Percent Who Said 

They Received Drug

Primary City Treatment, Past Year*

Portland, OR 16.4%

New York, NY 16.2

Seattle, WA 12.6

Albuquerque, NM 12.3

Minneapolis, MN 11.9

San Diego, CA 11.8

Anchorage, AK 10.9

Denver, CO 10.8

Salt Lake City, UT 10.6

Philadelphia, PA 10.0

Laredo, TX 10.0

Spokane, WA 9.3

San Jose, CA 9.3

Cleveland, OH 9.2

Tucson, AZ 9.1

Phoenix, AZ 9.0

Oklahoma City, OK 8.8

Sacramento, CA 8.8

Miami, FL 7.6

Des Moines, IA 7.2

San Antonio, TX 7.2

Birmingham, AL 6.4

Indianapolis, IN 6.1

Las Vegas, NV 5.7

Omaha, NE 5.4

Atlanta, GA 4.9

New Orleans, LA 3.5

Median 9.2%

* Treatment could be inpatient or outpatient.

Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000.
21

Drug Markets

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

V. DRUG MARKETS

Law enforcement agencies often base

their strategies for controlling drug markets on anecdotal information and the

experience of individual officers. That

approach is useful but limited. The new

ADAM interview instrument makes it

possible for the first time to routinely

obtain systematic data about drug markets at the local level. Information about

extent of participation in drug markets,

methods of acquiring drugs (whether

cash or noncash), place of purchase

(whether on the street or indoors), neighborhood of purchase, and difficulties

experienced in locating and buying

drugs can help law enforcement officials

design better control strategies.

The approach to gathering data was

designed to produce a representative

account of the nature of drug exchanges

among arrestees. Early testing of interview questions revealed that arrestees

were unable to accurately describe a

“typical” exchange and either resorted to

“war stories” of “best scores” or tried to

mentally calculate an average from different transactions. Users may obtain drugs

several times during a month or even a

week, and they employ a wide range of

methods and types of exchanges. Thus,

“typical” was not a cognitively feasible

term, so the question was made more

precise. It was reworded to ask arrestees

to describe the last (most recent) instance

in which they obtained drugs during the

past 30 days, regardless of how they

obtained them, both through cash and

noncash transactions (e.g., by trading

property or sex). This approach compels

respondents to focus on one real event,

the most recent one during the past 30

days, and to describe it accurately.

Previous research suggests that while

all drug markets are economic markets

(Brownstein 2000), the dynamics of each

market are likely to be somewhat different,

varying with the drug. (See Brownstein,

Crimmins, and Spunt 2000; Golub and

Johnson 1997; Johnson, Hamid, and

Sanbria 1992.) This necessitates examining each drug separately.

Extent of drug-market 

participation

Data about purchases of crack, powder

cocaine, and marijuana indicate that

more arrestees participated in the marijuana market than in either the crack or

powder cocaine markets.1 The findings

of self-reported purchases made during

the past 30 days should be interpreted

cautiously: The data are only for threequarters of the year, which in some

sites makes the sample size small, and

1. Special analyses of heroin and methamphetamine markets are in the planning stages.
22Drug Markets

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

underreporting may have to some extent

affected the findings.2

As measured by unweighted numbers of

arrestees who obtained drugs,3 participation was greatest in the marijuana market.

Participation ranged from 86 (Laredo) to

444 adult male arrestees (Cleveland). For

crack, the range was 24 (San Antonio and

Laredo) to 223 (Phoenix), and for powder cocaine it was 9 (Des Moines) to 152

(New York). In half the sites, the number

of arrestees who obtained crack cocaine

exceeded 64, and it surpassed 100 in 7

sites. For powder cocaine and marijuana,

the average numbers of arrestees participating in the market were 56 and 182,

respectively. (See Appendix Table 8.)

The sample sizes on which these numbers

are based were small, but they suggest

the types of analysis possible once a full

year of data is available. 

The number of days during the past

month in which arrestees obtained

drugs in the market varied by site and

by drug. (See Appendix Table 8.) Of the

three drugs, crack was highest: In half

the sites, arrestees who participated in

the market obtained this drug 14 or more

days during the previous month. The

range among the sites for crack market

participation was 7 days (Des Moines)

to 19 days (Miami). In the powder cocaine

market, where the average number of market participation days was 7, the range

was 3 days (Des Moines) to 12 days (New

York). And in the marijuana market,

where the average was 8 days, the range

was 6 days (San Antonio) to 17 days

(New York).

In half the sites, 44 percent or more of

arrestees who took part in the drug market in the 30 days before they were

interviewed obtained marijuana. The

proportion surpassed 50 percent in four

sites. For crack cocaine, the average was

16 percent of arrestees; for powder cocaine, 9 percent. (See Appendix Table 8).

In fact, in every site except one (Laredo),

the percentage of arrestees who were

marijuana market participants was higher

than in the other two markets. However,

the finding that crack market participants

engaged in more drug transactions per

month confirms previous research and

anecdotal information about the greater

frequency of participation in the market

for this drug (Williams 1992).

How drugs are acquired

(cash or noncash)

The dollar value of drug transactions is

not easy to calculate. When questions

about drug acquisition were field tested

in focus groups of arrestees, the answers

confirmed what ethnographers have often

reported (e.g., Williams 1992): A substantial portion of the drug trade at the street

level consists of combinations of goods

and services exchanged in addition to

or in place of cash. For example, some

focus group participants said that for

their most recent purchase of heroin

they had paid the seller $25 and a radio

for five “dime bags.” If the cash part of

this transaction and no other part were

taken into account, the assumption would

be that five bags of heroin were worth

$25. In fact, they were sold for the equivalent of $50. Other arrestees said they had

2. To some extent, the problem of underreporting drug use also appears to carry over to self-reported drug market participation. Although some people only sell drugs but do not consume them, it is possible to obtain some indication of

whether arrestees truthfully answer the questions about drug market participation. This can be done by comparing

urinalysis rates with self-reported market participation. Despite high levels of cocaine use detected by urinalysis (the

average for all sites is 30 percent of arrestees), the percentage of arrestees who admitted to obtaining either crack or

powder cocaine (i.e., admitted to participating in the market) is fairly low (an average of 16 percent for crack and 9

percent for powder cocaine). This disparity does not appear in the findings about the marijuana market (the average

for marijuana-positives is 40 percent, while 44 percent admitted obtaining marijuana during the past 30 days). 

3. Unweighted numbers are presented to convey a sense of the small size of the sample. (See Appendix Table 8.)
23Drug Markets

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

received a specified amount of drugs in

exchange for sexual favors or services,

such as transporting drugs or messages

and steering customers to the seller. 

Because the value of goods and services

must be taken into account, ADAM

examines noncash as well as cash transactions separately and combines them to

determine total purchases. Although the

type of transaction that was most common varied by site, there were several

in which cash-only purchases dominated the market for crack, powder cocaine,

and marijuana. This was true In New

York City, for example, where the percentages of arrestees who obtained these

drugs by paying cash were higher than

the percentages who obtained them in

other ways (the figures were 92 percent

for crack cocaine, 91 percent for powder

cocaine, and 81 percent for marijuana).

The same was true in Birmingham,

Cleveland, and Philadelphia. Noncash

transactions dominated all three markets

in only one site, Spokane. Combination

transactions dominated all three markets

in Des Moines. (See Appendix Table 9.) 

Noncash transactions. Marijuana was

the drug for which the proportion of

noncash-only transactions was highest

in many sites. In half the sites, 42 percent

or more of arrestees said they did not

pay cash for marijuana; in 19 of the 17

sites, one-third or more of arrestees who

obtained drugs said their transactions

were on a noncash basis (Appendix Table

9). Of the three drugs, crack cocaine was

the one for which the proportion of noncash transactions was the lowest. The

median was 18 percent, with 15 of the

27 sites reporting that less than 20 percent

of the transactions were on a noncash basis. 

The most common noncash transaction

involves receiving a drug as a gift, and

the next most common is obtaining it on

credit and paying cash later.4 Examples

of gifts are marijuana joints given or

shared at a party, or sharing crack. In

half the sites, 55 percent or more of

arrestees said that in noncash transactions they obtained drugs as gifts; in 15

of the 27 sites the rates surpassed 50

percent. Gift-giving is even more pronounced for marijuana and powder

cocaine. In half the sites, more than

three-fourths of the arrestees who

obtained marijuana by noncash means

said they received it as a gift. In all

sites the rate exceeded 60 percent. For

powder cocaine, at least 68 percent of

arrestees in half the sites said that in

their noncash transactions for this drug

they had obtained it as a gift. In 20 of

the 27 sites, the proportion who obtained

it as a gift exceeded 60 percent. For crack,

in half the sites 9 percent or more of

arrestees who obtained this drug other

than by cash received it on credit and

paid cash later. The figures for powder

cocaine and marijuana were 8 percent

and 7 percent, respectively. 

Cash transactions. At many sites,

marijuana was the substance for which

cash-only transactions were proportionately lowest. In half the sites, 22 percent

or more of the arrestees said they paid

cash for it. In only 9 of the 27 sites were

more than one-fourth of the marijuana

transactions conducted on a cash-only

basis (Appendix Table 9). For powder

cocaine and crack cocaine transactions,

the percentages of arrestees who said

they paid cash were much higher. In

half the sites, 40 percent or more said

they paid cash for powder cocaine, with

4. The proportion of “other” types of noncash transactions is higher than the proportion in which payment is on

credit, with cash paid later. 
24Drug Markets

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

the percentage exceeding one-third in

many (22 of the 27 sites). In half the sites,

36 percent or more of arrestees who purchased crack cocaine paid cash, and the

percentage exceeded one-third in 19 sites.

Cash and noncash combined. The

findings of the focus group sessions

were confirmed: Many drug buyers paid

cash sometimes and other times used

noncash payments. There are three types

of these “combination” transactions. One

consists of two separate exchanges, one

involving cash and one involving a noncash payment. The second combination

consists of a single transaction in which

the buyer simultaneously uses both cash

and noncash payments (e.g., $5 and a

watch). The third consists of two exchanges,

one involving noncash payment and the

other both cash and noncash together.5

The highest percentages of combination

transactions were in the crack and marijuana markets. When it comes to getting

crack, in half the sites 39 percent or

more of arrestees used cash and noncash,

with the range between 7 percent (New

York) and 53 percent (Anchorage). In a

larger number of sites (19 of the 27), the

proportion who obtained crack through

combination transactions exceeded onethird. The numbers were similar for

marijuana. In half the sites, 34 percent

or more of arrestees obtained it through

combination transactions, and in most

of the sites (20 of the 27) more than 30

percent did so. In general, the proportion of arrestees using combination

transactions to obtain powder cocaine

was smaller than for the other two drugs.

On average, one-fourth of arrestees in

the powder cocaine market obtained the

drug by cash and noncash means combined, with this type of transaction

exceeding 30 percent in only 8 sites.

Place of purchase 

(open-air or indoor)

Crack cocaine markets first appeared in

U.S. cities in the late 1980s and early

1990s. With crack, a seemingly inexpensive variety of cocaine was available as

never before to drug users living in unrelenting poverty in the city centers (Inciardi,

Lockwood, and Pottieger 1993; and

Williams 1992). The media was quick

to report on the high levels of violence

associated with the emerging trade in

crack cocaine (Massing 1989, and Witkin

1991). Researchers who subsequently

documented the violence saw it as related to the characteristics of the substance

itself and the nature of the market and

marketing of the product (Belenko 1990;

Brownstein et al. 1992; Fagan and Chin

1990; Goldstein, Brownstein, and Ryan

1992; and Goldstein, Brownstein, Ryan,

and Bellucci 1989). 

When the reported level of violent crime

in urban areas began to fall in the early

1990s, some observers suggested the

decline was to some extent related to the

changing nature of the crack markets.

(Compare Blumstein 1995; Brownstein

1996; Golub and Johnson 1997; Lattimore

et al. 1997.) One change was that open

air sales were being replaced by indoor

transactions, which were considered

safer for buyers and sellers. With ADAM

now collecting information about drug

markets, it is possible to assess the extent

to which particular drugs in particular

places at particular times are sold outdoors or indoors. The ADAM focus on

individual sites, which brings to light

information that would be obscured in

nationwide or regional analyses of drug

patterns, is particularly relevant.

The proportion of arrestees who purchased

crack outdoors exceeded 50 percent in

5. All three types of transactions are included in the “combination” category because in almost all the sites,

all combination transactions involved two separate transactions, one cash only and one noncash only.
25

11 of the 27 sites. In half the sites, at

least 43 percent obtained it outdoors,

with a range of 9 percent (Laredo) to 87

percent (New York). For marijuana, the

proportion who made outdoor purchases

exceeded 50 percent in only 4 sites (the

median was 29 percent). For powder

cocaine, the proportion of outdoor purchases exceeded 50 percent in only 6

sites (the median was 27 percent). (See

Appendix Table 10.) For crack, the disturbing image of the open air market was

confirmed in the larger cities in the sample (e.g., New York, Philadelphia, San

Diego, Miami, and Atlanta), while only a

few of the smaller cities were dominated

by outdoor sales of this drug.

There are other differences among the

sites in drug market operations. In New

York, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and

Cleveland, outdoor purchasing dominated

the market for all three drugs—powder

cocaine, marijuana, and crack. At the

other end of the continuum are several

sites where more than 70 percent of purchasing took place indoors for all three

drugs. (They are Laredo, Oklahoma City,

Anchorage, Albuquerque, Spokane, Phoenix,

San Antonio, Salt Lake City, and Tucson).

The accounts by arrestees in the larger

cities about open-air drug markets do

not seem to be duplicated in these

smaller cities.

Outside or inside the 

neighborhood

The role of the drug trade in promoting

neighborhood instability has not been

studied often or systematically. Community

activists note that outsiders (people who

do not live in the neighborhood) come

into the community to buy drugs. The

ADAM data confirm their observations.

In half the sites reporting, 50 percent or

more of arrestees who obtained drugs

made at least one purchase of either

marijuana, crack, or powder cocaine in a

neighborhood other than their own. (See

Appendix Table 11.)6

For crack and powder cocaine, the proportion of arrestees who ventured outside

their own neighborhood at least once to

obtain these drugs exceeded 60 percent

in 6 and 10 sites, respectively. For marijuana,

the proportion exceeded 50 percent in 20

sites and exceeded 60 percent in 13. The

problem of outsider buys of all three

drugs appeared to be particularly acute

in Omaha, San Antonio, and Birmingham,

with high percentages of arrestees in

all these sites going outside their

neighborhood. 

In instances where arrestees purchased

drugs in their own neighborhood, the

analysis can be further refined by mapping. Using the arrestees’ addresses,

which ADAM obtains from official police

records, mapping technology can be

applied to learn where the purchases are

made. By plotting the addresses by ZIP

Code, it is possible to determine the concentration of purchases in a given area.

Problems obtaining drugs

Considerable law enforcement resources

have been spent on making it more difficult for drug users to find and obtain

illicit drugs (Sviridoff and Hillsman

1994; Kleiman 1988). 

For the most part, the majority of arrestees

have no difficulty in completing a drug

transaction (See Appendix Table 12).7 In a

large number of sites, fewer than one-third

of the arrestees said their attempts to

obtain one of the three drugs had failed

Drug Markets

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

6. Because arrestees were asked, “Did you buy it [name of drug] in the neighborhood where you live or outside your

neighborhood?” the definition of “neighborhood” reflected their perceptions. 

7. Arrestees were asked, “Was there a time in the past 30 days when you tried to buy [name of drug] and had the cash,

but you did not buy any?” They were also asked why they did not buy a particular drug. 
(for marijuana, the number of sites was

8; for powder cocaine, 16; and for crack,

11). Of the three drugs, marijuana was

the one for which the percentage of

arrestees reporting failures was highest.

In half the sites, 42 percent or more of

arrestees reported a failed transaction,

with a range of 14 percent (New York)

to 56 percent (Laredo). For crack, the

median failure rate was 38 percent; for

powder cocaine, it was 31 percent. 

The reason for transaction failures varied to some extent by type of drug. (See

Appendix Table 13.) For crack cocaine,

the most typical reason for failure was

that the dealer did not have it available

to sell. In half the sites, 25 percent of

arrestees cited this reason, with a range

from zero percent (San Antonio) to 51

percent (Salt Lake City). In 8 of the 27

sites, more than 30 percent of the arrestees

reported lack of availability as the reason

for failed transactions. For marijuana,

lack of availability was also the most

common reason for failed transactions.

In half the sites, 34 percent of arrestees

cited this reason. The range was 9 percent (Philadelphia) to 59 percent (San

Jose). In 8 sites, this was the reason

reported by 40 percent or more of the

arrestees. For powder cocaine, among

all reasons for failure, the most commonly cited was that no dealers were

available: It was noted in half the sites

by 29 percent of the arrestees, ranging

from zero percent (Minneapolis, Omaha,

and Sacramento) to 100 percent (San

Diego). In nearly half the sites (12 of the

27), more than 30 percent of the arrestees

cited this reason. 

Not only do few transactions end in failure, but when they do, police activity is

rarely specified as the reason. The proportion of arrestees who said the presence

of the police had deterred them from

buying crack was low among the sites.

For crack and marijuana, in half the

sites, 5 percent or less cited police presence; for powder cocaine the median was

13 percent. Between zero percent (in 9 sites)

and 46 percent (New York) of arrestees

cited police activity as the reason they

failed to purchase crack. Between zero

(in 10 sites) and 87 percent (Sacramento)

noted police activity as the reason for

failed purchases of powder cocaine.

Between zero percent (Birmingham and

Denver) and 41 percent (New York) cited

the police as the reason for failure to purchase marijuana. In many sites, less than

10 percent of arrestees noted police activity as a deterrent: For crack it was less than

10 percent in 20 sites, in 13 sites for powder

cocaine, and in 21 sites for marijuana. 

26Drug Markets

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

Table 11: Reasons Attempts to Purchase Drugs Failed (Medians), by Drug—

Adult Male Arrestees

Percent of Arrestees Who Cited 

Reason for Failing To Purchase:

No Dealers Available 23.0% 29.0% 20.0%

Dealers Did Not Have Any 25.0 24.0 34.0

Dealers Did Not Have Quality 13.0 9.0 13.0

Police Activity 5.0 13.0 5.0

Other 22.0 16.0 24.0

Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000.

Reason Crack Cocaine Powder Cocaine Marijuana
27

There are, however, a few notable

exceptions. In Sacramento, nearly onethird (31 percent) of arrestees said their

transactions for powder cocaine had

ended in failure, and here almost 90 percent of arrestees who sought to obtain

this drug cited the police as a deterrent.

In Miami, where more than one-third of

arrestees said their transactions for this

drug had failed, more than one-third of

those who tried and failed to obtain it

ascribed their failure to police presence.

There were similar exceptions for crack

purchasing. In Seattle, 40 percent of

arrestees said their transactions failed,

and of these 27 percent attributed this

to police activity. In New York City,

attempts to buy any of these drugs

ended in failure for relatively small

proportions of arrestees, but even here

the police role was notable. For crack

cocaine, 11 percent of arrestees said the

transactions failed, with police cited as

the reason by 46 percent; for powder

cocaine, the figures were 12 percent and

42 percent, and for marijuana, 14 percent

and 41 percent. 

If police activity was not directly responsible

for deterring drug transactions, it may

have had an indirect effect on the availability of drugs, even if few arrestees

cited it. Crack cocaine buying in Des

Moines is an example. In this site, fully

71 percent of the arrestees reported that at

least one attempt to obtain crack cocaine

had failed during the past month, but

none cited police activity as the reason.

However, in this city one-fourth of the

arrestees whose purchase attempt ended

in failure said the reason was that the

dealers had no crack; an additional 32

percent said the dealer did not have the

quality they wanted. In Oklahoma City,

another example, 60 percent of the

arrestees said they had experienced a

failed transaction at least once during

the past month, but only 3 percent

attributed the failures to police activity.

Here, 18 percent of the arrestees cited

the reason as lack of availability of

dealers; 42 percent said the dealer had no

crack to sell; 14 percent said the quality

they wanted was not high enough; and

23 percent noted other reasons. In these

cases, it may be that police activity

against dealers prevented them from

being able to meet customers’ needs. 

Drug Markets

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings
29

First as DUF, and then as ADAM, this

NIJ program has evolved to meet new

policy and practice needs. It is one of

the few Federal Government programs

measuring drug prevalence that directly

addresses the relationship between drug

use and criminal behavior. It is the only

Federal Government program in which

urinalysis, the most reliable method of

determining recent drug use, is the standard procedure for identifying the extent

of substance abuse in this at-risk population. Another strength of the program is its

focus on individual urban areas. Through

the years, this focus has revealed that

drug use patterns vary widely by area,

and that nationwide surveys of drug use

conceal these differences. 

The recent decline in crime notwithstanding, drug use among the arrestee

population has remained consistently

high. The ADAM redesign was intended

to open up new areas in which to explore

the correlates of drug use, as a means to

better understand the problem and, ultimately, to develop solutions. By strengthening the reliability of the findings, the

redesign facilitates better analysis and

understanding. This preliminary report

has applied some, though by no means

all, of the new variables now available

for analysis and has revealed several

findings that convey the intentions of

the redesigned program and suggest its

possibilities. 

The finding that a large proportion of

crack cocaine purchases still takes place

outdoors seems to indicate that at least

one aspect of the crack problem persists. 

The dependency screen introduced by

the ADAM redesign revealed, beyond

speculation, high levels of risk for alcohol

and drug dependence, and thus the need

for treatment.1

The revelations that few attempts to

purchase drugs ended in failure, and that

even when they did fail, police activity

was rarely cited as the reason, may lead

law enforcement officials to refine their

drug control strategies.

These and other findings made possible

through the ADAM redesign not only

offer scientifically sound evidence, but

also new evidence that may be used by

local criminal justice agencies to develop drug-control strategies and related

interventions. 

ADAM’s new capacity for computerized

mapping, which enables researchers and

criminal justice agencies to identify geographical concentrations of dependence,

could help inform decisions on where to

site treatment facilities.

Traditionally, ADAM and its forerunner

DUF examined such variables as age,

race, and type of offense. Combined with

new variables like risk for dependence

and extent of drug market participation,

Prospects and Possibilities

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

VI. PROSPECTS AND POSSIBILITIES

1. Some of the issues covered in this report are being more fully explored by the ADAM staff. They include need for

treatment, drug-use patterns, and drug market dynamics. The findings will be released by NIJ in a series of publications

now in the planning stage. 
they offer the prospect of more richly

textured insights into drug-use patterns.

It is possible, for example, that the extent

of dependence varies by drug, and that

users of certain drugs are more likely

than others to also use alcohol heavily.

The extent of participation in drug markets may be found to vary by type of

offense. Researchers may find that age

is a determinant of participation in drug

markets. By opening up these and other

possibilities for more indepth analysis,

the ADAM redesign makes the prospects

for understanding substance abuse in

this at-risk population far more promising than ever. 

30Prospects and Possibilities

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings
31

References

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

Belenko, S. 1990. “The Impact of Drug

Offenders on the Criminal Justice

System, ” in Drugs, Crime and the

Criminal Justice System, ed. R.A.

Weisheit. Cincinnati: Anderson, 27–48.

Blumstein, A. 1995. Youth Violence,

Guns, and the Illicit-Drug Industry.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice,

NCJ 162687. 

Brownstein, H.H. 2000. “Drug

Distribution and Sales as a Work

System,” in Encyclopedia of Criminology

and Deviant Behavior—Volume Four:

Self Destructive Behavior and Disvalued

Identity, C. Faupel and P.M. Roman, eds.

London: Taylor and Francis, 224–227. 

Brownstein, H.H. 1996. The Rise and Fall

of a Violent Crime Wave—Crack Cocaine

and the Social Construction of a Crime

Problem. Guilderland, NY: Harrow and

Heston. 

Brownstein, H.H., S.M. Crimmins, and

B.J. Spunt. 2000. “A Conceptual Framework for Operationalizing the Relationship

Between Violence and Drug Market

Stability.” Contemporary Drug Problems

27: 867–890.

Brownstein, H.H., H.R. Shiladar-Baxi,

P.J. Goldstein, and P.J. Ryan. 1992. “The

Relationship of Drugs, Drug Trafficking,

and Drug Traffickers to Homicide.” Journal

of Crime and Justice 15 (2): 25–44.

Fagan, J., and K.L. Chin. 1990. “Violence as Regulation and Social Control 

in the Distribution of Crack,” in Drugs 

and Violence: Causes, Correlates, and

Consequences, M. de la Rosa,

E.Y. Lambert, and B. Gropper, eds.

NIDA Research Monograph No. 103.

Rockville, MD: National Institute on

Drug Abuse, 8–34.

Goldstein, P.J., H.H. Brownstein, and

P.J. Ryan. 1992. “Drug-Related Homicide

in New York: 1984 and 1988.” Crime

and Delinquency 38 (4): 459–476. 

Goldstein, P.J., H.H. Brownstein,

P.J. Ryan, and P.A. Bellucci. 1989. 

“Crack and Homicide in New York City:

A Conceptually Based Event Analysis.”

Contemporary Drug Problems 16 (4):

651–687. 

Golub, A., and B. Johnson. 2001. The

Rise of Marijuana as the Drug of Choice

Among Youthful Adult Arrestees.

Research in Brief. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, NCJ 187490.

Golub, A., and B. Johnson. 1997. Crack’s

Decline: Some Surprises Across U.S.

Cities. Research in Brief. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, NCJ 165707.

Inciardi, James A., D. Lockwood, and

A.E. Pottieger. 1993. Women and

Crack-Cocaine. New York: Macmillan

Publishing Company. 

Johnson, B., A. Golub, and E. Dunlap.

2000. “Rise and Decline of Hard Drugs,

Drug Markets, and Violence in Inner

City New York,” in The Crime Drop in

America, A. Blumstein and J. Wallman,

eds. Cambridge, United Kingdom:

Cambridge University Press, 164–206.

REFERENCES
32References

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

Johnson, B., A. Hamid, and H. Sanbria.

1992. “Emerging Models of Crack

Distribution,” in Drugs, Crime, and

Social Policy: Research, Issues, and

Concerns, ed. T. Mieczkowski. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon, Inc.: 56–78.

Johnson, B., A. Taylor, A. Golub, and

J. Eterno. 2001. “Monitoring Impacts of

Policing Initiatives on Arrestees in New

York City.” Final report submitted to

the National Institute of Justice, U.S.

Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Kleiman, M.A.R., A. Barnett, A.V. Bouza,

and K.M. Burke. 1988. Street-Level Drug

Enforcement: Examining the Issues.

Issues and Practices, ed. M.R. Chaiken.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice,

NCJ 115403.

Lattimore, P.K., J. Trudeau, K.J. Riley,

J. Leiter, and S. Edwards. 1997. Homicide

in Eight U.S. Cities: Trends, Context,

and Policy Implications. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, NCJ 167262.

Lu, N., B.G. Taylor, and K.J. Riley. 2001.

“The Validity of Adult Arrestee SelfReports of Crack Cocaine Use.” American

Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 27

(3): 399–420.

Massing, M. 1989. “Crack’s Destructive

Sprint Across America.” New York Times

Magazine (October 1): 38, 40–41, 58, 60, 62.

Rhodes, W. 1993. “Synthetic Estimation

Applied to the Prevalence of Drug Use.”

Journal of Drug Issues 23 (2): 297–321.

Riley, K.J., N. Lu, J. Meeker, P. Lo, 

N. Fortner, and B. Taylor. 2001. “Monitoring 

the Crack Epidemic through Urine Testing:

Establishment of Routine Detection

Methods.” Addiction Biology 6 (1): 83–95.

Sviridoff, M., and S.T. Hillsman. 1994.

“Assessing the Community Effects of

Tactical Narcotics Teams,” in Drugs

and Crime: Evaluating Public Policy

Initiatives, D.L. MacKenzie and C.D.

Uchida, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,

114–128.

U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Office of Applied Studies,

SAMHSA. 1998. National Household

Survey on Drug Abuse. Main Findings.

Williams, T. 1992. Crackhouse: Notes

from the End of the Line. New York:

Penguin Books. 

Wish, E. 1990. “U.S. Drug Policy in the

1990s: Insights from New Data from

Arrestees.” International Journal of the

Addictions 25 (3): 377–409.

Witkin, G. 1991. “The Men Who Created

Crack.” U.S. News and World Report

(August 19): 44–53.
33Appendixes

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

APPENDIXES

Appendix A: The New ADAM Method

Appendix B: ADAM Staff—National Institute of Justice 

and Abt Associates Inc.

Appendix C: Appendix Tables
35

The redesign of the ADAM program has

several major components, two of which

are showcased here: the adoption of

probability-based sampling and the development of a new, expanded survey

instrument. The changes were intended

by NIJ to strengthen the program by

making it more scientifically sound and

by opening up new possibilities for areas

of use to policymakers and researchers. 

Sampling

The previous practice in each site was to

obtain data from only one booking facility

in the county and to interview only the

arrestees who were in the facility at the

time the ADAM interviews were scheduled. To make sure the ADAM arrestee

population was representative of the

entire county, that practice changed. It

meant that the number of county jail

facilities included in the study had to

expand to become representative of all

booking facilities in the county. It also

meant that the arrestees selected had to

represent all people arrested throughout

the day—not just those who happened

to be in the facility when the ADAM

interviews of arrestees were taking place.

Finally, to ensure accurate weighting of

cases to represent the entire arrestee population, data were collected on all bookings

in a given county, not just on bookings

of arrestees detained long enough to be

interviewed by ADAM.

Implementing the new sampling procedures in each site required major changes

in operational procedures. The changes

were intended to promote more sophisticated and far-reaching analyses. By

2000, the changes had been made and

the ADAM data: 

• Represent the target counties’ arrestee

population, not simply an unspecified

proportion of that population

• Indicate, by means of confidence intervals

around estimates, the level of statistical

significance of the various findings.

The ADAM sampling challenge

The key to sampling is knowing the probability with which every case in the

sample will be selected. In general,

sampling statisticians start with an

exhaustive list of cases of interest (the

frame) and then assign a probability of

selection to every member on the list.

Once the sample is drawn, each member

has a sampling weight equal to the

reciprocal of that member’s selection

probability. For example, in ADAM, if

an arrestee were assigned a .10 probability of selection, he or she would represent

nine people (in addition to the arrestee)

in the population who were not sampled.

This is what is known as weighting. 

While the approach is simple in concept,

in ADAM it is not easy to apply, for two

Appendix A

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

APPENDIX A

The New ADAM Method
36Appendix A

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

reasons. First, ADAM has no sampling

frame because there is no way to know

who will be arrested during data collection. Only those who actually are arrested is known. Second, some cases have a

higher probability of selection than do

others (e.g., felons or more serious offenders

who are being held pending an appearance in court). Arrestees in small jails

also may have a higher probability of

being selected for ADAM because in

such places, where there are relatively

few arrestees, the interviewer has more

time to conduct interviews and can,

while he or she is on site, include almost

everyone arrested. For other arrestees

(e.g., people who are arrested early in

the day and are processed and released

before the ADAM interview team arrives),

the probability of selection is lower. 

The solution

The sampling will be biased unless all

arrestees moved through the booking

process are taken into account. ADAM

surmounted this difficulty by using

post-sampling stratification, a technique

typically employed to minimize the width

of confidence intervals calculated for estimates. It is used here to eliminate or

reduce bias in the samples. 

The first step in post-sampling stratification is to account for factors that affect

the probability of selection: time of day

of the arrest, day of the week of the arrest,

reason for the arrest, and the particular

booking facility where the arrestee was

taken. These factors are used to “stratify”

the data from the sample as well as the

data from all bookings that took place

during the data collection period. 

Every arrestee in any stratum will have

the same probability as any other arrestee

of being selected for the sample. An example of a stratum is all arrests of males on

felony charges that occur between 6:00

p.m. and 2:00 a.m. on a weekend night

in a large jail. All cases of this type for

each facility from a particular county

and the sample are sorted into groupings. The strata in each data set are then

compared, and weights are applied to

the sample cases to represent the total

number of cases had all arrestees for that

facility been interviewed for ADAM. For

example, if there are 5 cases in a sample

stratum and a total of 50 cases for the facility, each sample case represents 10 cases. 

Weighting cases in this fashion enables

the ADAM sites to calculate the number

of arrestees in a given county who have

any number of characteristics that might

be of interest, such as types of drugs

used, need for treatment, and whether

they live in stable housing. 

Because this technique also enables the

sites to estimate standard errors and confidence intervals, they can, for the first

time, determine if changes from one year

to the next are “real” or have occurred

by chance. For example, 30 percent of

arrestees at a specific site may test positive for a given drug in a given year, and

35 percent the next. The increase may

not be a real change if the confidence

interval for those estimates is plus or

minus 8 percent, for example; that is,

the change has occurred but may not be

statistically significant.

New instrumentation

After 2 years of development and testing,

the new ADAM instrument (the questionnaire used in interviewing arrestees) was

put into operation during the first quarter

of 2000. It expands the focus of ADAM in

major ways. First, there are additional

areas for exploration, such as arrestees’

participation in drug markets and an

assessment of the need for alcohol and/or

drug treatment. Second, there are “crosswalk” measures that link ADAM to other

national data sets on substance abuse.

Third, the redesign also facilitates the

application of computerized mapping to

the data. 
37Appendix A

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

Drug markets are among the new areas

for exploration. The ADAM sites will be

able to track changes from year to year in

certain characteristics of drug transactions

and can do so for each drug examined.

Examples of these characteristics are

whether drug sales take place indoors or

outdoors, the use of electronic devices

to contact buyers, and whether payment

was made with cash or other means. A

simple diagnostic screen enables the sites

to calculate the proportion of arrestees

who need treatment for drug and/or

alcohol dependence. 

The new instrument includes questions

that enable the sites to contrast the findings from ADAM analyses with those

of other drug surveys. These are the

National Household Survey on Drug

Abuse (NHSDA) and the Treatment

Episode Data Set (TEDS), both of which

are administered by the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services.* Because

the criteria for inclusion in the NHSDA

are mirrored in the new ADAM instrument, researchers can determine which

arrestees in the ADAM sample would

not have been eligible for the NHSDA

and therefore not included in it. Similarly,

questions about episodes of treatment during the past year help determine which

ADAM arrestees have also been counted

in the TEDS.

The redesign permits analysis of the data

by means of computerized mapping.

This is possible because ADAM now

includes information about arrestees’

residential ZIP Code and ZIP Code of

arrest location. The sites can use this

information to map geographic concentration of factors such as drug use, need

for treatment, homelessness, or drug

market activity. 

Full details of the new ADAM research

methods are presented in the Methodology

Guide for ADAM, which can be downloaded from the ADAM Web page

(http://www.adam-nij.net) on the NIJ

Web site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).

Also available on the ADAM Web page

is a guide to analyzing the ADAM data,

the Analytic Guide for ADAM.

* The NHSDA collects information nationwide on use rates, number of users, and other measures related to illicit

drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, and other forms of tobacco among people 12 years of age and older. TEDS is a collection

of data routinely gathered by the States in monitoring their substance abuse treatment systems. Although TEDS

does not reflect the total national demand for substance abuse treatment, it does count a significant proportion of all

admissions to substance abuse treatment.
39

National Institute 

of Justice

Henry Brownstein

Director, Drugs and

Crime Division, NIJ

Executive Director, ADAM

Brownsth@ojp.usdoj.gov

Bruce Taylor

Deputy Director, ADAM

Taylorb@ojp.usdoj.gov

Christine Crossland

Program and Policy Analyst

Crosslan@ojp.usdoj.gov

Karen Cyrus

Program and Policy Specialist

Cyrusk@ojp.usdoj.gov

Nora Fitzgerald

Social Science Analyst

Fitzgera@ojp.usdoj.gov

Natalie Lu

Drug Testing Technology Specialist

Lun@ojp.usdoj.gov

Diana Noone

Social Science Analyst

Nooned@ojp.usdoj.gov

Abt Associates Inc.

Dana Hunt

Project Director

Phyllis Newton

Project Manager

William Rhodes

Technical Adviser

Meg Townsend

Field Operations Manager 

Carol Witcher

ADAM Data Center Manager 

Jessica Davis

Site Liaison

Douglas Fuller

Site Liaison

Sara Wolf

Site Liaison

Michael Costa

Research Analyst

Laura Gandolfo

Programmer

Sylvia Young

Data Center Supervisor

Hiwotte Amare

Associate Programmer

Sara Kuck

Research Assistant

Jackie Moore

Administrative Assistant

Appendix B

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

APPENDIX B

ADAM Staff—National Institute of 

Justice and Abt Associates Inc.
41

Appendix C

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

APPENDIX C

Appendix Tables
43

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

Number of Interviews Completed 

County Booking Facilities Each Quarter, 2000 (Unweighted)

continued on page 44

Appendix Table 1: ADAM Sites

Number Where Weighted

Number Adult Male Data Quarter Quarter Quarter Number of

Primary City County Catchment/Study Area in Country Were Collected 1 2 3 Total Interviews

Albuquerque, NM Bernalillo County 1 1 150 109 75 334 2,919Anchorage, AK Anchorage Borough 3 2 171 138 135 444 813Atlanta, GA Fulton and Dekalb Counties 3 2 189 175 203 567 6,246Birmingham, AL Jefferson County 21 5 99 116 ND 215 1,340Albany, NYa Capital Area 38 5 ND ND ND ND ND

Charlotte, NCa Charlotte-Metro 1 1 ND ND ND ND NDChicago, IL Cook County 36 3 ND ND 441 441 1,642Cleveland, OH Cuyahoga County 66 5 284 343 269 896 4,488Dallas, TX Dallas County 23 1 ND ND ND ND NDDenver, CO Denver County 1 1 160 175 185 520 4,042Des Moines, IA Polk County 5 3 90 87 83 260 1,529Detroit, MI Wayne County 54 6 ND ND 291 291 456Ft. Lauderdale, FL Broward County 1 1 177 ND ND 177 2,486Honolulu, HI Oahu 8 1 ND ND ND ND NDHouston, TX Harris County 115 2 ND ND ND ND NDIndianapolis, IN Marion County 1 1 167 186 221 574 6,660Laredo, TX Webb County 2 1 68 93 86 247 754Las Vegas, NV Clark County 4 4 201 262 250 713 5,873Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles County 86 12 ND ND ND ND NDMiami, FL Miami-Dade County 2 2 200 228 ND 428 6,334Minneapolis, MN Hennepin County 18 3 ND 184 206 390 3,032New Orleans, LA Orleans Parish 1 1 164 169 165 498 6,196Manhattan, NYb New York County 6 2 427 203 246 876 14,142Oklahoma City, OK Oklahoma County 1 1 192 184 180 556 2,471Omaha, NE Douglas County 2 1 104 102 117 323 3,276Philadelphia, PA County of Philadelphia 7 4 ND 155 127 282 1,483Phoenix, AZ Maricopa County 9 3 315 360 362 1,037 1,101
44

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings Appendix Table 1: ADAM Sites Number Where Weighted Number Adult Male Data Quarter Quarter Quarter Number of Primary City County Catchment/Study Area in Country Were Collected 1 2 3 Total Interviews Portland, OR Multnomah County 1 1 135 200 217 552 2,933 Sacramento, CA Sacramento County 1 1 143 136 164 443 5,404 Salt Lake City, UT Salt Lake County 1 1 159 186 171 516 2,295 San Antonio, TX Bexar County 28 1 108 160 183 451 5,540 San Diego, CA San Diego County 2 2 155 153 164 472 6,718 San Jose, CA Santa Clara County 4 1 158 159 187 504 7,256 Seattle, WA King County 7 4 217 266 280 763 4,623 St. Louis, MOc

Spokane, WA Spokane County 1 1 137 125 134 396 2,051Tucson, AZ Pima County 1 1 183 149 138 470 2,658Washington, DC Washington, DC 8 4 ND ND ND ND NDTotals 4,553 4,803 5,280 14,636 126,677a. ADAM affiliate site.b. During the first quarter of 2000, data were collected in all five boroughs of New York City, but for the remainder of the year only in Manhattan.c. St. Louis has been in ADAM for several years, and is now in hiatus status. It will return to active status after resolution of financial and other issues.ND = No data availableNote: Data are from the period January–September 2000. Although ADAM data are collected on a county basis, the primary (most populous) city in each county also is noted in this and all other tables in this report. The breakdownby quarter in the number of interviews conveys the change in the number from one quarter to the next. Because the number of interviews in each quarter is relatively small, it is not advisable to compare one quarter with another. 

Number of Interviews Completed 

County Booking Facilities Each Quarter, 2000 (Unweighted)

continued from page 43
45

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

Percent of Arrestees Who Tested Positive For:*

Appendix Table 2: Drug Test Results, by Drug by Site—Adult Male Arrestees

Percent of 

Interviews With

Metham- Multiple Completed

Primary City Cocaine Opiates Marijuana phetamine PCP Any Drug Drugs Urine Tests

Albuquerque, NM 35% 12% 47% 5% 0% 65% 28% 82%Anchorage, AK 21 3 40 0 0 53 10 80Atlanta, GA 49 2 38 0 0 70 19 96Birmingham, AL 35 11 44 0 0 67 23 80Cleveland, OH 37 3 51 0 8 72 26 79Denver, CO 34 3 43 3 0 63 20 92Des Moines, IA 8 2 38 17 2 51 16 91Indianapolis, IN 32 3 50 1 1 66 20 91Laredo, TX 44 6 30 0 0 57 19 93Las Vegas, NV 21 4 31 19 2 56 18 87Miami, FL 43 4 38 0 0 63 22 90Minneapolis, MN 25 4 54 2 1 66 19 90New Orleans, LA 32 15 47 0 0 69 20 96New York, NY 46 22 40 0 1 79 27 96Oklahoma City, OK 24 3 57 12 5 72 25 96Omaha, NE 17 1 46 9 0 60 12 87Philadelphia, PA 31 12 51 0 3 74 19 83Phoenix, AZ 31 6 33 17 2 63 23 83Portland, OR 20 13 35 20 0 61 24 86Sacramento, CA 18 2 50 27 0 73 23 88Salt Lake City, UT 18 7 33 17 0 54 18 86San Antonio, TX 21 14 40 0 0 55 18 88San Diego, CA 17 6 39 25 0 65 20 95San Jose, CA 11 7 35 22 4 52 22 87Seattle, WA 30 11 38 10 2 65 22 82Spokane, WA 14 8 39 21 0 56 21 82Tucson, AZ 40 9 46 7 0 69 30 87Median 30% 6% 40% 5% 0% 65% 20% 88%* These five drugs are the NIDA–5 drugs, established by NIDA as a standard panel of commonly used illegal drugs. They are the drugs analyzed in this report. Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000. Percentages are based on weighted data. 
46

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings Appendix Table 3: Demographics and Sociodemographics, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees Percent Who Percent Who Say Their Percent Who Say They Housing Say They Have No Situation Was 15–20 21–25 26–30 31–35 36+ Were High School Unstable, Past Primary City years years years years years Mean White Black Hispanic Other Employed Diploma 30 Days Albuquerque, NM 15.8% 18.2% 17.4% 11.1% 37.6% 31.9% 20.2% 10.7% 57.2% 11.9% 69.3% 24.1% 13.0% Anchorage, AK 13.2 16.8 13.2 17.3 39.5 32.5 52.2 13.6 2.6 31.7 53.6 19.8 25.1 Atlanta, GA 13.1 12.8 12.0 13.8 48.3 34.6 8.3 88.9 2.4 0.4 66.5 33.9 23.0 Birmingham, AL 15.5 18.3 18.4 14.7 33.1 31.7 33.6 63.5 0.9 2.0 66.2 33.6 9.2 Cleveland, OH 15.5 20.2 15.9 10.4 38.0 32.3 20.5 75.4 3.7 0.3 66.1 34.3 7.3 Denver, CO 15.1 15.7 16.4 13.2 39.6 32.8 30.1 30.0 36.2 3.7 66.5 32.6 26.7 Des Moines, IA 14.7 16.8 18.1 17.0 33.4 32.3 61.9 31.0 6.3 0.9 67.9 21.3 17.6 Indianapolis, IN 15.8 19.5 12.5 13.0 39.2 32.3 42.9 56.4 0.3 0.4 68.2 43.5 9.7 Laredo, TX 18.2 22.0 19.9 12.1 27.8 29.8 29.0 1.6 69.0 0.3 66.5 54.9 4.9 Las Vegas, NV 9.0 20.2 15.2 18.0 37.6 34.0 56.6 26.0 14.1 3.4 66.9 24.6 18.7 Miami, FL 11.0 22.2 11.9 17.8 37.1 33.8 39.0 55.1 5.9 0.0 64.4 33.0 13.4 Minneapolis, MN 19.6 22.3 15.9 16.6 25.6 29.6 35.3 59.0 0.4 5.3 57.1 25.2 15.6 New Orleans, LA 21.8 24.6 17.3 9.0 27.3 29.8 9.8 89.7 0.4 0.1 61.0 52.3 5.8

New York, NY 18.0 13.4 11.9 12.7 44.0 32.8 10.6 62.2 26.2 1.0 45.7 41.3 13.9Omaha, NE 14.0 25.1 18.6 13.5 28.8 30.3 47.2 43.9 5.0 4.0 78.3 22.8 6.7Philadelphia, PA 18.8 23.4 12.5 15.9 29.5 30.9 20.8 78.1 0.0 1.1 54.7 30.2 5.5Phoenix, AZ 13.5 21.4 16.1 14.5 34.5 31.7 46.4 14.1 32.7 6.8 70.6 32.2 16.2Portland, OR 10.2 15.2 15.8 17.0 41.8 33.8 67.0 26.4 4.1 2.5 51.3 27.5 26.8Sacramento, CA 8.9 14.4 18.3 16.6 41.8 33.9 40.3 39.3 17.0 3.3 51.9 24.2 19.0Salt Lake City, UT 14.0 25.5 17.0 15.0 28.6 30.2 62.6 6.3 22.2 8.9 70.2 35.8 13.6San Antonio, TX 22.2 21.1 17.5 9.0 30.2 30.6 37.2 12.9 49.8 0.0 67.8 32.8 12.2San Diego, CA 12.3 16.9 17.3 15.3 38.3 32.8 39.8 24.6 31.8 3.9 59.9 22.9 24.4San Jose, CA 13.7 19.0 14.3 13.8 39.1 32.7 35.6 18.7 36.8 8.9 68.9 19.8 18.5Seattle, WA 13.5 18.5 15.5 14.0 38.5 32.5 60.8 31.1 0.7 7.4 61.4 20.5 23.4Spokane, WA 13.8 16.1 16.9 17.3 35.9 32.2 79.6 13.0 1.9 5.5 52.4 23.8 14.4Tucson, AZ 12.3 21.2 17.2 14.3 35.0 32.4 41.3 12.4 39.8 6.6 64.7 33.9 18.1Median 14.0% 19.2% 16.3% 14.4% 37.4% 32.3% 39.4% 30.5% 6.1% 3.3% 66.1% 31.2% 15.0%Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000.

Percent Who Say 

Percent Whose Age Is: Racially/Ethnically They Are:
47

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

Appendix Table 4: Crack Cocaine Use, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees

Average Number of Days

in Past 30 in Which Crack

Primary City Past 7 Days Past 30 Days Past Year Was Used (in Past Year)*

Albuquerque, NM 18.3% 19.3% 25.3% 12.1 daysAnchorage, AK 13.4 16.6 21.9 7.4Atlanta, GA 25.1 26.3 29.6 13.0Birmingham, AL 16.1 17.5 20.9 11.6Cleveland, OH 20.3 21.2 22.5 9.2Denver, CO 15.2 18.7 21.3 8.3Des Moines, IA 7.1 9.7 12.9 8.2Indianapolis, IN 14.6 15.9 18.8 11.1Laredo, TX 8.0 9.2 12.9 7.9Las Vegas, NV 10.7 12.9 17.4 9.1Miami, FL 14.0 14.1 15.8 11.0Minneapolis, MN 13.0 15.4 17.5 7.3New Orleans, LA 12.8 14.6 15.9 9.0New York, NY 18.2 20.4 21.9 13.2Oklahoma City, OK 11.2 12.3 15.6 8.7Omaha, NE 7.4 8.6 10.7 8.4Philadelphia, PA 16.3 18.5 21.2 9.7Phoenix, AZ 18.7 20.7 25.7 10.6Portland, OR 9.6 11.6 15.5 8.2Sacramento, CA 11.7 13.5 17.4 8.3Salt Lake City, UT 6.7 7.8 14.3 7.5San Antonio, TX 2.3 3.8 7.0 6.3San Diego, CA 10.2 10.9 13.6 6.8San Jose, CA 4.9 5.6 8.3 6.5Seattle, WA 16.0 18.0 23.1 9.7Spokane, WA 9.4 16.0 22.0 7.1Tucson, AZ 20.0 22.4 26.6 9.2Median 13.0% 15.4% 17.5% 8.7 days* Asked of those who said they had used crack cocaine in the past year.Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000. Any given arrestee may not use crack and powder cocaine exclusively, but could use both. 
48

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings Appendix Table 5: Powder Cocaine Use, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees Albuquerque, NM 11.6% 18.2% 25.0% 5.9 days Anchorage, AK 6.0 11.1 19.1 5.0 Atlanta, GA 7.5 9.1 13.4 8.4 Birmingham, AL 3.8 6.8 9.4 4.8 Cleveland, OH 5.0 6.3 8.4 7.6 Denver, CO 9.4 11.2 17.1 6.4 Des Moines, IA 2.4 4.5 7.6 5.1 Indianapolis, IN 3.8 8.2 10.9 6.6 Laredo, TX 29.0 34.8 40.8 6.7 Las Vegas, NV 5.6 8.3 13.6 8.1 Miami, FL 15.4 17.2 23.1 7.8 Minneapolis, MN 5.2 8.4 13.3 3.7 New Orleans, LA 6.2 7.2 9.5 6.7 New York, NY 14.6 16.5 18.2 10.5 Oklahoma City, OK 4.9 7.3 12.3 6.9

Omaha, NE 2.5 5.3 8.5 4.7Philadelphia, PA 4.9 6.8 9.2 5.9Phoenix, AZ 10.7 13.9 21.2 7.1Portland, OR 5.3 7.5 11.5 7.5Sacramento, CA 1.8 3.6 5.1 5.1Salt Lake City, UT 10.2 13.6 21.3 6.5San Antonio, TX 9.7 13.7 19.1 8.7San Diego, CA 3.4 6.3 10.2 3.1San Jose, CA 2.8 4.8 11.4 3.0Seattle, WA 9.7 11.5 17.1 6.1Spokane, WA 7.3 12.2 18.9 7.9Tucson, AZ 21.4 26.8 36.4 6.1Median 6.0% 8.4% 13.4% 6.5 days* Asked of those who said they had used powder cocaine in the past year. Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000. Any given arrestee may not use crack and powder cocaine exclusively, but could use both.

Percent of Arrestees Who Reported Powder Cocaine Use In:

Primary City

Average Number of Days in Past

30 in Which Powder Cocaine

Was Used (in Past Year)* Past 7 Days Past 30 Days Past Year
Percent of Arrestees Who Reported Marijuana Use In:

49

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

Appendix Table 6: Marijuana Use, by Site—Adult Male Arrestees

Average Number of Days in 

Past 30 in Which Marijuana 

Primary City Past 7 Days Past 30 Days Past Year Was Used (in Past Year)*

Albuquerque, NM 44.5% 51.7% 56.7% 11.7 daysAnchorage, AK 36.2 40.5 50.0 11.1Atlanta, GA 33.8 36.7 45.2 11.7Birmingham, AL 36.7 44.9 56.9 9.6Cleveland, OH 46.2 49.9 58.8 10.2Denver, CO 42.0 48.9 54.8 10.4Des Moines, IA 35.4 43.2 49.9 10.3Indianapolis, IN 40.7 45.2 53.0 12.7Laredo, TX 26.8 30.8 35.1 11.4Las Vegas, NV 31.8 39.2 47.4 10.5Miami, FL 29.4 34.5 41.4 9.9Minneapolis, MN 44.6 52.1 60.1 11.4New Orleans, LA 44.7 48.4 55.9 10.6New York, NY 43.9 48.3 52.4 13.7Oklahoma City, OK 49.0 53.3 60.8 12.4Omaha, NE 43.7 50.4 56.1 13.1Philadelphia, PA 48.7 54.0 58.9 12.9Phoenix, AZ 31.9 38.4 46.3 10.9Portland, OR 30.7 38.6 50.0 9.4Sacramento, CA 42.8 50.2 56.3 12.2Salt Lake City, UT 28.4 35.6 43.5 10.5San Antonio, TX 25.6 29.3 40.8 11.3San Diego, CA 33.3 39.6 49.1 9.8San Jose, CA 33.2 40.7 47.5 11.4Seattle, WA 39.5 48.1 56.3 11.2Spokane, WA 38.7 47.8 52.9 9.8Tucson, AZ 42.4 49.7 56.4 12.1Median 38.7% 45.2% 52.9% 11.2 days* Asked of those who said they had used marijuana in the past year.Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000.
50

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings Appendix Table 7: Marijuana Use—Measured by Urinalysis and Self-Reports, by Age by Site—Adult Male Arrestees Age 20 Age 20 Age 20 Primary City and Under Over 20 and Under Over 20 and Under Over 20 Albuquerque, NM 80.5% 42.3% 15.0 days 10.9 days 29.6% 18.5% Anchorage, AK 70.9 34.8 14.7 9.9 35.1 14.0 Atlanta, GA 66.8 33.5 13.1 11.3 32.6 18.2 Birmingham, AL 61.6 42.0 12.4 8.9 38.1 13.8 Cleveland, OH 68.2 47.4 12.1 9.7 21.4 14.4 Denver, CO 52.0 42.1 9.9 10.5 15.6 18.2 Des Moines, IA 52.6 35.7 10.9 10.1 5.1 14.6 Indianapolis, IN 72.7 45.8 15.6 11.8 38.7 18.9 Laredo, TX 57.0 24.0 12.5 10.8 25.8 17.8 Las Vegas, NV 53.6 28.7 13.9 10.0 14.2 16.4 Miami, FL 53.9 36.8 12.5 9.5 26.6 14.7 Minneapolis, MN 74.7 49.0 12.6 10.9 28.6 19.3 New Orleans, LA 68.8 39.5 12.9 9.7 25.5 14.5 New York, NY 70.6 33.9 17.0 12.7 57.1 34.1

Oklahoma City, OK 77.0 53.0 14.4 11.8 33.0 24.4Omaha, NE 65.6 42.7 11.3 13.6 20.3 29.9Philadelphia, PA 78.6 43.1 14.8 12.2 38.0 27.8Phoenix, AZ 63.6 28.6 14.1 10.0 31.6 17.4Portland, OR 49.3 34.3 11.5 9.1 15.8 10.4Sacramento, CA 79.7 47.3 16.8 11.6 48.2 17.6Salt Lake City, UT 55.5 29.1 12.6 9.8 24.7 13.9San Antonio, TX 58.3 34.6 11.9 10.9 19.5 18.0San Diego, CA 53.5 37.5 13.7 9.2 16.8 15.3San Jose, CA 66.3 29.3 15.8 10.0 15.1 12.1Seattle, WA 63.8 33.9 13.7 10.4 32.1 18.5Spokane, WA 60.2 36.6 14.7 8.7 33.2 9.0Tucson, AZ 65.1 43.5 14.4 11.5 33.3 21.4Median 65.1% 36.8% 13.7 days 10.4 days 28.6% 17.6%a. Asked of those who said they had used marijuana in the past year. b. Heavy use is defined in the NHSDA as 13 or more days of self-reported consumption of a drug in a 30-day period in the year before the interview.Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000.
51

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

Appendix Table 8: Drug Market Participation in Past 30 Days, by Drug by Site—Adult Male Arrestees

Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of

Arrestees Percent Who Days Arrestees Percent Who Days Arrestees Percent Who Days

Who Said Said They Arrestees Who Said Said They Arrestees Who Said Said They Arrestees

They Obtained Said They They Obtained Said They They Obtained Said They

Obtained Drug in Obtained Obtained Drug in Obtained Obtained Drug in Obtained

Drug in Past Past 30 Drug in Past Drug in Past Past 30 Drug in Past Drug in Past Past 30 Drug in Past

Primary City 30 Daysa Days 30 Daysb 30 Daysa Days 30 Daysb 30 Daysa Days 30 Daysb

Albuquerque, NM 62 21.8% 15.1 days 60 19.2% 5.6 days 148 50.6% 7.6 daysAnchorage, AK 73 16.7 14.0 62 13.8 7.1 179 40.8 8.1Atlanta, GA 158 27.9 18.8 57 10.0 10.1 221 36.7 11.3Birmingham, AL 39 18.8 15.5 18 7.5 3.9 94 44.3 10.5Cleveland, OH 214 23.1 11.4 54 6.6 4.0 444 50.5 9.8Denver, CO 98 19.3 11.5 61 12.1 6.3 238 45.8 6.4Des Moines, IA 25 10.1 6.7 9 4.1 2.6 106 41.4 6.8Indianapolis, IN 95 17.0 13.8 56 9.1 5.1 258 43.8 9.7Laredo, TX 24 10.3 12.0 85 36.3 7.8 86 32.6 8.6Las Vegas, NV 102 12.6 14.8 63 8.2 8.0 253 37.0 6.1Miami, FL 68 14.6 19.0 80 17.6 10.4 133 30.6 11.9Minneapolis, MN 59 15.7 9.6 30 8.4 3.1 174 44.6 10.7New Orleans, LA 76 14.2 14.3 34 6.8 9.4 242 48.3 12.2New York, NY 183 20.2 16.1 152 16.2 12.2 377 48.5 17.2Oklahoma City, OK 73 14.6 14.6 42 7.7 8.2 253 47.7 9.7

Crack Cocaine Powder Cocaine Marijuana

continued on page 52
52

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings Appendix Table 8: Drug Market Participation in Past 30 Days, by Drug by Site—Adult Male Arrestees Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Arrestees Percent Who Days Arrestees Percent Who Days Arrestees Percent Who Days Who Said Said They Arrestees Who Said Said They Arrestees Who Said Said They Arrestees They Obtained Said They They Obtained Said They They Obtained Said They Obtained Drug in Obtained Obtained Drug in Obtained Obtained Drug in Obtained Drug in Past Past 30 Drug in Past Drug in Past Past 30 Drug in Past Drug in Past Past 30 Drug in Past Primary City 30 Daysa Days 30 Daysb 30 Daysa Days 30 Daysb 30 Daysa Days 30 Daysb Omaha, NE 33 8.6 13.1 20 4.3 3.1 146 44.6 8.2 Philadelphia, PA 50 18.7 11.7 21 7.9 9.7 142 51.5 15.3 Phoenix, AZ 223 21.8 16.8 149 14.7 7.0 386 38.0 6.3 Portland, OR 63 11.2 11.7 50 8.3 8.3 168 30.8 6.9 Sacramento, CA 64 14.3 13.5 15 4.1 4.8 213 48.6 10.5 Salt Lake City, UT 45 8.2 12.0 72 14.6 7.4 182 37.1 6.8

San Antonio, TX 24 4.2 11.0 62 14.4 6.8 127 28.9 5.7San Diego, CA 46 11.1 13.0 43 7.8 4.7 197 40.8 6.7San Jose, CA 35 5.8 8.8 36 5.1 3.4 180 39.4 6.5Seattle, WA 135 19.8 16.3 98 13.8 6.6 312 44.6 8.1Spokane, WA 60 16.5 8.8 48 14.1 5.4 160 45.0 6.5Tucson, AZ 106 22.4 15.6 132 29.1 6.8 227 51.8 6.6Median 64.0 15.7% 13.5 days 56.0 9.1% 6.8 days 182.0 44.3% 8.1 daysa. Numbers are unweighted. Question was asked of arrestees who said they obtained the drug.b. Numbers are means.Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000. Findings from the sites where numbers are particularly small should be interpreted cautiously.

Crack Cocaine Powder Cocaine Marijuana

continued from page 51
53

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

Crack Cocaine Powder Cocaine Marijuana

Percent of Arrestees Who Reported Obtaining:

Appendix Table 9: Drug Transaction Type (Cash or Noncash), by Drug by Site—Adult Male Arrestees

Cash and Cash and Cash and 

Noncash Noncash Noncash Noncash Noncash Noncash 

Primary City Cash Only Only Combined Cash Only Only Combined Cash Only Only Combined

Albuquerque, NM 34.4% 22.0% 43.6% 30.4% 46.9% 22.7% 13.8% 44.7% 41.6%Anchorage, AK 30.6 16.4 53.0 38.5 26.7 34.8 19.5 43.3 37.2Atlanta, GA 52.6 8.9 38.4 47.8 23.3 28.9 31.6 37.0 31.4Birmingham, AL 54.8 11.8 33.4 60.5 7.6 31.9 41.9 29.6 28.4Cleveland, OH 47.2 18.9 33.9 61.9 26.2 11.9 36.8 30.6 32.6Denver, CO 38.5 26.3 35.1 35.4 39.4 25.3 20.8 49.0 30.2Des Moines, IA 33.7 27.8 38.6 39.6 12.2 48.3 19.7 35.4 44.9Indianapolis, IN 36.3 13.6 50.1 47.5 29.6 22.9 26.3 32.4 41.4Laredo, TX 44.5 25.3 30.2 34.3 37.0 28.7 18.3 53.9 27.8Las Vegas, NV 42.5 13.8 43.7 42.2 33.0 24.8 20.9 47.4 31.6Miami, FL 67.7 4.6 27.6 46.2 21.6 32.2 36.4 25.5 38.2Minneapolis, MN 36.0 22.7 41.4 44.9 41.1 13.9 25.4 33.3 41.3New Orleans, LA 56.4 20.7 22.9 64.2 18.6 17.2 35.4 25.3 39.3New York, NY 91.9 1.6 6.5 91.3 5.4 3.3 80.9 6.4 12.8Oklahoma City, OK 32.1 34.6 33.3 37.2 29.3 33.5 24.4 37.0 38.6Omaha, NE 50.4 6.7 42.9 52.7 34.7 12.6 23.1 35.8 41.1Philadelphia, PA 86.9 3.5 9.6 65.6 21.5 12.8 53.6 16.1 30.3Phoenix, AZ 31.6 17.9 50.5 21.9 47.2 30.8 15.8 48.7 35.5Portland, OR 63.0 13.1 23.9 57.0 24.6 18.4 22.0 53.8 24.3Sacramento, CA 34.2 20.5 45.3 26.7 45.8 27.5 20.8 32.6 46.6Salt Lake City, UT 29.6 44.9 25.5 44.4 22.0 33.6 13.6 58.7 27.7San Antonio, TX 31.0 27.3 41.6 25.0 53.2 21.8 22.3 45.9 31.8San Diego, CA 35.6 13.7 50.7 38.7 48.8 12.5 11.0 48.6 40.4San Jose, CA 36.8 10.2 52.9 38.1 38.5 23.4 18.2 57.5 24.3Seattle, WA 29.2 18.2 52.7 39.2 28.7 32.1 19.1 41.6 39.2Spokane, WA 22.7 43.5 33.9 30.4 44.3 25.2 23.3 46.8 29.9Tucson, AZ 31.0 21.6 47.4 35.3 38.8 25.9 13.8 51.9 34.4Median 36.3% 18.2% 38.6% 39.6% 29.6% 25.2% 22.0% 41.6% 34.4%Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000. Questions were asked of arrestees who said they had obtained drugs in the 30 days before the interview. Findings from the sites where numbers are particularly small should be interpreted cautiously.
54

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings Appendix Table 10: Outdoor Purchases, by Drug by Site—Adult Male Arrestees Primary City Crack Cocaine Powder Cocaine Marijuana Albuquerque, NM 22.0% 19.0% 21.7% Anchorage, AK 21.3 18.2 22.9 Atlanta, GA 54.9 45.5 41.0 Birmingham, AL 35.9 19.0 37.0 Cleveland, OH 67.9 55.9 61.4 Denver, CO 44.9 29.0 39.2 Des Moines, IA 32.1 27.1 23.3 Indianapolis, IN 22.1 24.4 34.8 Laredo, TX 8.7 5.7 16.3 Las Vegas, NV 44.6 18.6 25.0 Miami, FL 57.2 37.4 40.0 Minneapolis, MN 58.0 47.8 48.3 New Orleans, LA 75.5 54.9 76.1 New York, NY 87.0 79.1 78.8 Oklahoma City, OK 18.5 12.6 14.7

Omaha, NE 55.9 29.8 25.3Philadelphia, PA 77.8 64.8 73.1Phoenix, AZ 23.3 16.8 24.0Portland, OR 52.8 54.5 32.7Sacramento, CA 39.4 9.1 22.9Salt Lake City, UT 27.6 23.0 15.3San Antonio, TX 24.7 11.2 19.7San Diego, CA 59.1 26.8 46.3San Jose, CA 42.9 64.0 29.1Seattle, WA 55.8 40.1 34.8Spokane, WA 23.2 8.9 8.4Tucson, AZ 28.9 20.1 27.3Median 42.9% 26.8% 29.1%Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000. Question was asked of arrestees who said they had purchased drugs.

Percent Who Said They Had Purchased Drugs Outdoors
55

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

Percent Who Said They Had Purchased Drugs Outside Their Neighborhood 

Appendix Table 11: Outside-Neighborhood Purchases, by Drug by Site—Adult Male ArresteesPrimary City Crack Cocaine Powder Cocaine MarijuanaAlbuquerque, NM 66.3% 68.9% 71.8% Anchorage, AK 61.2 58.0 74.3Atlanta, GA 42.8 50.5 55.7Birmingham, AL 76.4 71.4 61.5Cleveland, OH 47.3 61.6 43.8Denver, CO 43.6 59.6 49.9Des Moines, IA 38.5 49.6 73.8Indianapolis, IN 49.4 55.3 63.2Laredo, TX 55.0 70.1 61.9Las Vegas, NV 34.0 55.3 64.9Miami, FL 42.3 60.0 34.1Minneapolis, MN 52.0 34.8 56.2New Orleans, LA 56.8 49.7 58.0New York, NY 34.8 29.5 26.7Oklahoma City, OK 56.2 63.7 70.9Omaha, NE 71.9 93.8 67.9Philadelphia, PA 52.2 44.0 49.1Phoenix, AZ 48.4 34.1 55.1Portland, OR 49.2 65.2 54.0Sacramento, CA 40.0 87.3 46.4Salt Lake City, UT 33.0 44.6 74.3San Antonio, TX 81.6 61.5 74.1San Diego, CA 44.9 50.2 51.8San Jose, CA 50.1 38.2 47.1Seattle, WA 57.1 64.7 65.3Spokane, WA 71.8 48.7 61.2Tucson, AZ 53.7 52.2 56.9Median 50.1% 55.3% 58.0%Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000. Question was asked of arrestees who said they had purchased drugs. Because the question was, "Did you buy it [name of drug] in the neighborhood where you live or outside your neighborhood?" the definition of "neighborhood" reflected the arrestees’ perception.
56

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings Appendix Table 12: Failed Purchases, by Drug by Site—Adult Male Arrestees Primary City Crack Cocaine Powder Cocaine Marijuana Albuquerque, NM 39.2% 32.8% 40.8% Anchorage, AK 39.5 34.1 43.0 Atlanta, GA 37.8 28.8 40.6 Birmingham, AL 22.6 8.2 21.7 Cleveland, OH 26.5 11.5 35.9 Denver, CO 37.8 37.3 34.7 Des Moines, IA 70.7 43.8 39.2 Indianapolis, IN 35.1 40.8 54.0 Laredo, TX 28.8 49.9 56.4 Las Vegas, NV 40.7 26.5 42.8 Miami, FL 37.2 35.2 41.7 Minneapolis, MN 53.8 34.4 43.9 New Orleans, LA 16.0 27.5 18.7 New York, NY 11.3 12.0 13.8 Oklahoma City, OK 60.0 34.9 49.4

Omaha, NE 28.9 4.7 44.5Philadelphia, PA 31.5 25.8 32.1Phoenix, AZ 27.1 28.0 44.2Portland, OR 29.7 22.2 26.6Sacramento, CA 41.0 30.6 49.6Salt Lake City, UT 47.0 21.2 29.2San Antonio, TX 15.2 38.3 51.1San Diego, CA 38.0 12.3 47.5San Jose, CA 25.5 34.1 43.6Seattle, WA 39.9 35.1 41.8Spokane, WA 38.9 17.3 31.8Tucson, AZ 39.4 31.7 31.9Median 37.8% 30.6% 41.7%Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000. Question was asked of arrestees who said they had purchased drugs in the past 30 days.

Percent Who Said They Had Failed in Trying To Purchase:
57

ADAM Preliminary 2000 Findings

Percent of Arrestees Who Failed To Percent of Arrestees Who Failed To Percent of Arrestees Who Failed To

Purchase Crack Cocaine Because: Purchase Powder Cocaine Because: Purchase Marijuana Because:

Appendix Table 13:

Primary City

Reasons Attempts to Purchase Drugs Failed, by Drug by Site—Adult Male Arrestees

No Dealers Dealers Did No Dealers Dealers Did No Dealers Dealers Did

Dealers Did Not Not Have Police Dealers Did Not Not Have Police Dealers Did Not Not Have Police 

Available Have Any Quality Activity Other Available Have Any Quality Activity Other Available Have Any Quality Activity Other

Albuquerque, NM 15.5% 47.2% 0% 0% 37.4% 18.2% 53.9% 0% 0% 27.9% 31.4% 33.9% 11.7% 1.4% 21.5%Anchorage, AK 40.4 30.7 4.0 12.3 12.6 37.1 42.5 12.8 0 7.6 32.7 42.5 14.8 2.8 7.3Atlanta, GA 16.1 15.8 15.9 6.4 45.8 15.3 15.4 17.8 24.3 27.1 19.9 17.5 22.9 6.9 32.9Birmingham, AL 22.1 48.7 7.3 7.4 14.6 50.0 50.0 0 0 0 17.0 40.1 34.4 0 8.5Cleveland, OH 53.4 21.8 11.1 6.6 7.1 43.3 30.9 12.9 12.9 0 56.5 20.9 5.5 11.0 6.0Denver, CO 23.0 26.1 16.1 16.3 18.5 43.5 30.4 18.4 0 7.7 21.7 44.8 13.6 0 19.9Des Moines, IA 0 25.4 32.2 0 42.4 29.6 0 0 0 70.4 21.0 37.1 6.4 2.1 33.5Indianapolis, IN 31.1 11.0 7.3 3.4 47.3 42.4 5.5 2.5 12.6 36.9 17.0 22.0 11.8 4.4 44.8Laredo, TX 0 23.8 14.3 0 61.9 12.3 30.4 6.0 20.5 30.9 8.0 39.5 2.9 10.2 39.5Las Vegas, NV 31.0 19.5 9.5 7.8 32.1 13.6 23.6 0 17.4 45.4 19.6 35.6 14.7 1.6 28.5Miami, FL 22.4 32.9 12.3 9.9 22.5 24.9 15.1 19.5 34.6 5.9 17.9 22.0 16.2 14.1 29.8Minneapolis, MN 12.1 41.6 11.2 2.5 32.6 0 52.2 0 0 47.8 17.6 30.7 28.0 7.3 16.4New Orleans, LA 29.7 28.0 12.7 8.8 20.8 12.5 22.4 0 12.5 52.6 25.6 34.1 2.7 8.1 29.4New York, NY 35.1 10.9 7.9 46.1 0 47.2 0 10.8 42.0 0 23.3 12.5 22.3 40.8 1.0Oklahoma City, OK 18.2 41.7 14.2 3.1 22.8 24.2 68.0 0 0 7.8 12.3 46.1 12.4 9.3 19.9Omaha, NE 6.3 23.2 48.7 3.2 18.6 0 53.5 46.5 0 0 21.3 23.3 13.0 4.4 38.0Philadelphia, PA 14.4 12.7 7.7 0 65.2 26.7 0 26.6 19.9 26.7 31.7 8.5 21.4 12.4 26.0Phoenix, AZ 23.4 28.3 6.1 17.5 24.6 30.6 3.3 9.8 16.5 39.8 28.7 31.9 5.5 4.1 29.7Portland, OR 32.1 25.2 22.4 0 20.3 35.2 6.3 44.3 0 14.2 19.1 38.3 2.2 3.1 37.3Sacramento, CA 29.7 25.0 9.0 4.6 31.7 0 13.0 0 87.0 0 27.1 28.5 11.0 9.8 23.6Salt Lake City, UT 18.5 50.8 25.4 0 5.2 53.0 23.5 0 18.8 4.8 26.6 46.0 13.4 9.7 4.3San Antonio, TX 28.8 0 42.3 0 28.8 14.1 35.3 9.0 5.2 36.5 17.0 33.6 15.4 3.3 30.7San Diego, CA 36.8 10.2 13.0 18.2 21.8 100.0 0 0 0 0 21.9 23.4 27.5 12.3 14.8San Jose, CA 58.7 6.1 22.7 0 12.5 43.0 5.8 16.9 16.9 17.4 16.6 59.1 14.9 3.2 6.2Seattle, WA 29.2 16.9 14.5 26.9 12.5 19.8 31.8 11.9 15.8 20.7 17.8 32.8 22.3 3.3 23.8Spokane, WA 16.4 28.4 40.4 0 14.8 53.6 27.2 11.2 8.1 0 14.0 51.5 10.7 4.9 18.9Tucson, AZ 30.0 43.1 0 14.4 12.5 28.5 44.9 2.6 7.9 16.1 17.6 44.8 3.8 9.8 24.1Median 23.4% 25.2% 12.7% 4.6% 21.8% 28.5% 23.6% 9.0% 12.5% 16.1% 19.9% 33.9% 13.4% 4.9% 23.8%Note: Data are from the period January–September 2000. Question was asked of arrestees who said they had attempted to purchase drugs in the past 30 days but failed.
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, DC 20531

Research Report