U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis, Director

continued...

Drugs in the Heartland:

Methamphetamine Use

in Rural Nebraska

by Denise C. Herz

April 2000

ing in their State. NIJ’s Arrestee Drug

Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program had

shown that for Omaha this concern was

well founded. Use of the drug by people

arrested and booked was higher there

than at many other ADAM test sites. With

8 percent of adult male arrestees testing

positive for meth in 1995, Omaha ranked

fifth among the 23 sites. Although the following year the rate dropped to just over

4 percent, in 1997 and again in 1998 it

surpassed the 1995 figure, rising to 10

percent.2

 The upward trend in Omaha is

even more evident when data from the

period 1990 through 1998 are analyzed.

Between those two dates, the proportion

of male arrestees who tested positive for

methamphetamine rose from less than 1

percent to more than 10 percent.3

Although ADAM data confirmed the use

of methamphetamine in Omaha, the extent to which it was penetrating rural Nebraska remained unknown. Information

gathered by law enforcement about possession and trafficking suggested that use

might be as extensive in rural areas as in

Omaha—if not more so. For example, the

number of arrests for possessing and selling methamphetamine and seizures of the

A decade ago, methamphetamine was

commonly believed to be limited to

the West Coast and a few other, isolated

areas. Recent evidence shows that substantial proportions of arrestees in several

large urban areas of the West and Midwest are using the drug.1

 Increasingly,

the problem is coming to the attention of

policymakers and law enforcement nationwide. (See “The Federal Government

Responds.”)

Methamphetamine has generated concern

because of its ready availability and the

severity of its effects on the user. It is

cheaper than cocaine, it is easy to manufacture, it produces a longer lasting

“high,” and its short- and long-term effects can be extreme. The feelings of

euphoria and increased energy the drug

initially produces may be followed by

paranoia, depression, memory loss, convulsions, and other effects. Long-term

and heavy use are often associated with

addiction, and prolonged use may lead

to brain damage or death. (See “Life

or Meth?”)

In Nebraska, policymakers and law enforcement officials were concerned that

methamphetamine use might be increasIssues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: The use

of methamphetamine, which migrated from the West Coast to

the Midwest and affected Omaha

among other cities, is also being

detected in rural areas of Nebraska. The drug appears to be

penetrating not only the cities of

the Heartland, but its rural counties as well.

Key issues: NIJ’s ADAM (Arrestee

Drug Abuse Monitoring) program

revealed that use of this powerful

central nervous system stimulant

was increasing among arrestees in

several of the program’s test sites.

Among those sites was Omaha,

where in the period 1990 through

1998, the proportion of adult male

arrestees who used the drug rose

from less than 1 percent to more

than 10 percent. To find out

whether meth was also penetrating rural Nebraska, use patterns

were measured in four rural counties and the findings compared

with patterns in Omaha, the

State’s major urban area.

Key findings: In several respects,

the rural counties resembled the

city in the use of methamphetamine and the characteristics of

users:

● Substance abuse in general was

more widespread in the city, but

there were few rural-urban differences in use of methamphetamine,
2

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

● Is methamphetamine trafficking in

rural Nebraska different from what

it is in Omaha?

The study was conducted in four rural

counties—Madison, Hall, Dawson, and

Scotts Bluff—in October and November

1998. Methamphetamine use among

arrestees in these counties was compared

with use in Omaha, the State’s major

urban area. (Details of the study method

are in “Measuring Meth Use in Rural

Nebraska.”)

In several respects the findings confirmed

what officials had suspected. Rural

Nebraska looked much like the city of

Omaha. Although drug use in general

was more prevalent among arrestees in

the city than in the four rural counties,

when it came to use of methamphetamine,

there were few rural-urban differences.

One major distinction was that meth

appeared (after marijuana) to be the drug

drug by Federal and State interagency

drug enforcement task forces increased

dramatically statewide in the period 1995

to 1998. To corroborate these findings

and to find out whether levels of use

among arrestees in rural Nebraska

matched those in Omaha, the Rural

Nebraska ADAM project was launched.

Rural Nebraska ADAM

A pilot outreach project of the National

Institute of Justice’s ADAM program

(see “ADAM Outreach”), Rural Nebraska

ADAM was designed to answer three

questions:

● Is methamphetamine use by arrestees

in rural Nebraska different from what

it is in Omaha?

● Are methamphetamine users in rural

Nebraska different from those in

Omaha?

as measured by the results of urinalysis testing of arrestees.

● The drug of first choice among

arrestees in both the city and the

counties was marijuana. In the city,

the drug of second choice was

cocaine; in the rural areas, that

distinction was held by methamphetamine.

● Use patterns in the rural areas

were similar to those in the city.

There were no significant differences in the proportions of

arrestees who said they ever used

meth or in frequency of use. The

proportions who said they were

dependent on the drug, needed

treatment, and were receiving it

were also the same irrespective of

area. Users in rural areas were as

likely as those in the city to say

meth is cheap and easy to obtain.

● Meth users irrespective of area

were more likely to be white than

members of another racial/ethnic

group. Users in the rural counties

were younger than those in the

city, a finding that appears consistent with the fact that in the city

age at first use was higher.

● In certain respects, criminality

was greater in the rural areas.

Arrestees in the rural areas were

just as likely as those in the city to

manufacture meth, but were more

likely to be involved in selling it.

Meth users in the rural sites had

more prior offenses than those

in Omaha. On the other hand,

amount of illegal income and

amount of money spent on drugs

were higher among Omaha

arrestees.

Target audience: Local policymakers and law enforcement

officials, particularly in rural

counties; researchers; providers

of treatment and related services.

Issues and Findings

continued...

C oncern about methamphetamine

prompted Congress to pass the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act in

1996. Under the aegis of the act, the Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force was

established, with the mission of studying

methamphetamine use in the United States

and reporting the findings to Congress.

Cochaired by Attorney General Janet Reno

and Office of National Drug Control Policy

Director Barry McCaffrey, the task force

comprised experts in prevention and education, treatment, and law enforcement who

represent local and State government as

well as the Federal Government.

Between 1998 and 1999, the task force

explored and documented the Nation’s

methamphetamine problem and developed

an advisory report that outlined a set of principles, needs and recommendations, and

research priorities. The aim was to inform

the implementation of a national strategy

for responding to methamphetamine use.

The task force emphasized that the strategy

to be developed should be comprehensive

and interdisciplinary. That is, it should fully

integrate the work of the various levels of

government—local, State, and Federal partners in law enforcement, health, education,

and other disciplines—and should be based

on scientifically sound research, best practices, and programs that have proven “what

works.”

The report, Methamphetamine Interagency

Task Force: Final Report, Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of National Drug Control Policy, U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Education (January 2000), can be

downloaded from the NIJ Web site: http://

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

The Federal Government Responds
3

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

of choice of arrestees in rural

Nebraska—more widespread than

cocaine. There were no rural-urban

differences in the proportions of

arrestees who said they had ever used

meth. In the same way, arrestees in

rural areas were just as likely as those

in Omaha to say meth was cheap and

readily available, as likely to manufacture it, and more likely to sell it.

Extent of methamphetamine

use

Substance abuse in general was found

to be more common in Omaha than

in rural areas of Nebraska. That is,

when it came to the use of any drug,4

arrestees in Omaha were more likely

than those in the rural counties to test

positive (see exhibit 1). Analysis of

the urine samples provided by the

arrestees revealed that more than half

of those in Omaha had used one or

more drug, compared with 26 to 38

percent in the four rural counties.

The story is not the same for methamphetamine. In levels of meth use, the

differences among the rural counties

were greater than between the rural

counties and Omaha. The rural-urban

difference was not statistically significant, but in two counties—Hall and

Dawson—arrestees’ use of meth

was higher than in the two others—

Madison and Scotts Bluff (13 percent

and 14 percent, compared with 6 and

3 percent).

The similarity between urban and

rural areas in methamphetamine use

becomes clearer when it is compared

with the use of other drugs, site to site.

In all sites, rural and urban, arrestees

used marijuana more than any other

drug. For cocaine, there is a distinctive picture. Arrestees were much

more likely to test positive for cocaine

Methamphetamine (“meth,”

“speed,” “crystal,” and “ice” are

among its more than 170 street names)

is a powerful central nervous system

stimulant. A synthetic form of amphetamine that is chemically similar to

adrenaline, it can be smoked, snorted,

orally ingested, or injected. It produces

an initial feeling of alertness and elation,

along with a variety of adverse reactions.

High percentages of methamphetamine

users have reported such problems as

paranoia, hallucinations, and violent

behavior.

The “rush” and “high” the user experiences are believed to result from the

release of high levels of dopamine into

areas of the brain that regulate feelings

of pleasure. One reason for meth’s popularity is that its effects are longer lasting

than those of cocaine. Long-term, the

drug can lead to addiction. Abusers

often experience delusions, anxiety,

convulsions, extreme paranoia, mood

swings, hallucinations, and homicidal

and suicidal thoughts. Injection can

increase the risk of transmitting hepatitis

B and C and HIV. Prolonged use may lead

to brain damage or death.

Meth is relatively easy to manufacture.

The ingredients, which include iodine, lye,

rock salt, lighter fluid, propane, match

sticks, and drain cleaner, are fairly easy to

obtain. This explains why the drug is often “cooked” in homes, motels, public

storage lockers, and vans. Because many

of the chemical ingredients are extremely

dangerous, the manufacturing process is

very hazardous and creates the risk of

fire, explosions, and release of toxic

gases. Waste left in illegal labs poses risks

to the environment.*

* Most of the information about methamphetamine is from Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities, by

S. Pennell et al., Research Report, Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, May 1999 (NCJ 176331);

and 1998 Annual Report on Methamphetamine Use Among Arrestees, Research Report,

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1999 (NCJ

175660).

Life or Meth?

Exhibit 1. Level of methamphetamine use by arrestees, rural and

urban Nebraska

Madison Hall Dawson Scotts Bluff Omaha

County County County County (Douglas County)

(N=50) (N=46) (N=42) (N=138) (N=174)

Urinalysis Positive for % % % % %

Any drug (excluding

alcohol and tobacco)* 26 30 29 38 54

Methamphetaminea 6 13 14 3 7

Cocaine*, a – 7 12 18 25

Marijuana* 20 22 19 29 38

* Difference between rural counties and Omaha significant at P=< .05.

a.Difference among rural counties significant at P=< .05.
4

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 2. Characteristics of arrestees who use methamphetamine, rural and

urban Nebraska

Madison Hall Dawson Scotts Bluff Omaha

County County County County (Douglas County)

Percentage Who Ever 36% 26% 35% 26% 23%

Used Meth (N=27) (N=14) (N=17) (N=40) (N=47)

Use History

Age at first use 18.6 18.1 18.1 19.2 21.1

Used in past 12 months 56% 43% 71% 40% 60%

Used in past 30 days 30% 29% 41% 28% 49%

Average number days 5.6 8.8 5.3 6.3 6.9

used in past 30 days

Percentage Who Used Meth

Every day 33 36 41 23 11

2–3 times a week 11 14 18 12 11

Weekends only 19 21 12 3 6

Less than once a week 7 7 12 22 24

Less than once a month 4 7 12 – 6

Other/don’t know 26 14 6 40 42

Percentage Who Say They Use Meth By

Snorting1 59 36 35 25 45

Smoking 15 21 12 23 19

Injecting 19 7 24 10 11

Combination* 4 36 29 22 –

(Missing Data) – – – 20 25

1. P=< .10

* P=< .05

in Omaha than in any of the rural

sites. It appeared to be the drug of

second choice in urban Nebraska,

while in the rural sites this distinction

was held by methamphetamine.

Scotts Bluff was the exception to the

rural pattern. Here, arrestee drug use

was more a reflection of what was happening in Omaha: The rate of cocaine

use was higher than in the other rural

counties. It is difficult to explain this

anomaly, although proximity to Denver

may be a contributing factor (see

exhibit 7).

Use patterns. Arrestees were asked

about their history of methamphetamine

use, their current level of use, and

the ways they use the drug. Here the

findings were similar to what was

learned from urinalysis: There was

no statistically significant difference between the rural counties and Omaha in

the proportion of arrestees who said they

had ever used methamphetamine (see

exhibit 2).

In two characteristics of drug use,

there were rural-urban differences.

Arrestees in Omaha tended to be

slightly older when they first used the

drug than those in the rural counties.

There were also differences among the

sites in ways of taking methamphetamine. Again, Omaha and Scotts Bluff

were similar. In both these sites,

arrestees were more likely to snort the

drug, while arrestees in Madison, Hall,

and Dawson were more likely to use

a combination of methods, including

injection.

Need for drug treatment. Some

arrestees said they felt dependent on

methamphetamine and needed treatment. But the arrestees from rural areas were neither more nor less likely

than those in Omaha to say so. And

despite the feelings of dependence and

need for treatment, almost no arrestees

A DAM Outreach, a component

of NIJ’s Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program, measures

substance abuse among special populations of arrestees in particular States.

Examples of such populations are

arrestees in suburban and rural areas,

Native Americans, and members of

the military. They are groups that the

ADAM program does not ordinarily

reach. Outreach data are obtained

during a collection period separate

from the quarterly collection that is

standard in the ADAM program.

The Rural Nebraska project described

here was the first ADAM outreach

program. In addition to measuring the

use of methamphetamine use among

arrestees in rural and urban Nebraska,

it aimed to test the feasibility of the

outreach component of the ADAM

program. By 2002, all 35 ADAM sites

will be collecting outreach data.

ADAM Outreach
5

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

were receiving treatment at the time

they were interviewed for the Rural

Nebraska ADAM project.

There were significant differences

from site to site in the proportion of

arrestees who had ever been treated

for substance abuse. Some said they

had participated in some type of treatment program, with arrestees in Scotts

Bluff more likely than those in any

other site to have done so. Overall

(except in Scotts Bluff), a larger

percentage of arrestees said they

needed treatment than were currently

receiving it or had ever received it.

Characteristics of

methamphetamine users

To fill out the picture of methamphetamine users, the study included questions on race/ethnicity, age, marital

status, education, and similar characteristics. The analysis focused not

only on rural-urban differences but

Measuring Meth Use in Rural Nebraska

ethamphetamine use by arrestees

in four rural counties was compared with

use in Omaha. The data were obtained

on the basis of voluntarily provided

urine samples and interviews with the

arrestees.

Choosing the rural sites. Four counties—Madison, Hall, Dawson, and Scotts

Bluff—were the rural sites chosen for

comparison with the city. The rural character of the counties was confirmed on

the basis of population size and economic base. All four are small compared

with Omaha, the population center of

Douglas County, which numbers close

to half a million people. All four are also

more racially/ethnically homogeneous

than Omaha. The economic base of the

selected counties is agriculture and,

more recently, manufacturing and

meat processing, whereas Omaha’s

economy centers largely on services and

manufacturing.

The rural sites were also selected on the

basis of their widely differing geographic

representation of the State: They are in

the west, central, and northeast sections

(see exhibit 7—map of Nebraska). Time

was another selection criterion. All four

counties were able to test and interview

enough arrestees to produce a useful

study sample in a relatively short period.

A third criterion was presumed prevalence; that is, law enforcement activity

suggested that levels of methamphetamine use were high in these sites.

Collecting data. Information about meth

use among arrestees was obtained with the

methods used in NIJ’s ADAM program.a

Urine samples are taken from booked

arrestees who volunteer to participate, and

confidential interviews are conducted to

learn about such topics as history of substance abuse. For this study, a supplemental

questionnaire about meth in particular was

administered.b

Data were collected in a 2-month period in

October and November 1998. Convenience

sampling rather than random assignment

was used. Arrestees who were released on

bond were not necessarily included in the

pool of people considered eligible for the

study. The size of the sample in the rural

sites was between 50 and 150 arrestees

(10 to 40 percent of the jail population)

and 200 in Omaha. Despite low representaM tion in some sites, the distribution of

race/ethnicity, gender, and age in the

sample was not different from that in

the general jail population at the time.

a. For details of the ADAM method of collecting information about arrestee drug use,

see 1998 Drug Use Forecasting: Annual

Report on Adult and Juvenile Arrestees,

Research Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of

Justice, April 1999, NCJ 175656, 5–11.

b. The addendum was adapted from the one

used in Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities, by

S. Pennell et al., Research Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, May 1999,

NCJ 176331.

Population and racial/ethnic distribution, rural and urban Nebraska

Madison Hall Dawson Scotts Bluff Omaha

County County County County (Douglas

County)

Population 34,585 51,851 23,183 36,109 443,794

Race/Ethnicity % % % % %

White 95 92 94 77 84

Hispanic 2 4 6 15 3

African American 1 <1 <1 <1 11

Native American 1 <1 <1 2 1

Other 1 3 – 6 1

Note: Population data are based on census projections for 1997.
6

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

also on differences between users

and nonusers.

Demographics I—Race/ethnicity,

age. The racial/ethnic identity and

age of meth users and nonusers in the

rural areas and in Omaha were compared. Without exception, among

racial/ethnic groups, white arrestees

were more likely than Hispanic

arrestees to use meth. Users in the

rural counties appeared to be slightly

younger than those in Omaha: Twothirds to three-fourths of those in the

rural sites were 18 to 27 years of age,

whereas in Omaha less than half were

in this age category. Comparing the

ages of users and nonusers reveals that

in Madison and Hall counties, users

tended to be younger, whereas in the

other rural areas and in Omaha, the

difference between the two groups was

not significant.

Demographics II—Marital status,

housing, education. In marital status and housing type, there were few

differences, either among all sites or

between the rural sites and Omaha.

Whether the arrestees used meth or

not, they tended to be single and to

live in private-sector housing (rather

than public housing). In education,

there was one statistically significant

difference: In Dawson and Scotts

Bluff counties, meth users were better

educated than nonusers; that is, more

likely to have their high school diploma or GED. But between rural and

urban Nebraska, there were no significant differences in the educational

attainment of meth users.

Demographics III—Income and

drug money. Perhaps not surprisingly, when it came to illegal income,

meth users earned more than nonusers. This was the case only in the rural

sites, however; in Omaha, the amount

of illegal income earned by meth users

was no greater than the amount earned

by nonusers. Again, it may be no surprise that the amount of money spent

on drugs was higher among users than

nonusers. This was the case in three of

the four rural sites.

In the amount of illegal income and

amount of money spent on drugs, there

was considerable difference between

Omaha and the rural areas, with the

rural counties much lower on both

counts. Dawson County was the sole

exception. Here the average amount

spent on drugs was higher than in

Omaha. This is because in Dawson a

small number of offenders reported

amounts as high as $2,500, skewing

the results or perhaps offering evidence that methamphetamine use is

more visible in that county.

Involvement in crime. Involvement

in crime was measured by the seriousness of the arrestee’s current offense

and whether there were prior offenses.

No statistically significant differences

were found either among the four rural

sites or between the city and the rural

sites in the proportion of arrestees

charged with a felony and the proportion who had at least one prior offense.

However, the average number of priors

was higher in the rural sites than in

Omaha (see exhibit 3). The usernonuser comparison revealed that nonusers of meth were as likely as users

to have been involved in previous

criminal activity as measured by number of priors, with Madison County the

only exception. There, users had been

arrested slightly more often than

nonusers.

The meth market

When it came to buying methamphetamine, arrestees in rural Nebraska

were much like their counterparts in

Omaha. Most bought it from a friend

or family member; the primary source

was likely to be white rather than a

member of another racial/ethnic group

(see exhibit 4). When meth was unavailable, arrestees said they either

went without it or bought it from

another dealer. Arrestees in the rural

Exhibit 3. Criminal involvement of methamphetamine users and nonusers, rural and urban Nebraska

Madison Hall Dawson Scotts Bluff Omaha

County County County County (Douglas County)

Criminal Offense/History Non- Non- Non- Non- Nonusers Users users Users users Users users Users users Users

(N=51) (N=27) (N=39) (N=14) (N=33) (N=17) (N=109) (N=40) (N=155) (N=47)

Arrested on felony charge 18% 22% 31% 21% 36% 24% 20% 23% 34% 45%

Have prior offenses 29% 63%* 21% 43% 36% 59% 51% 62% 39% 43%

Average number of 1.6 3.5* 1.7 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.4 1.8 1.9

prior offenses*

* P=< .05
7

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

areas were more likely than those in

the city to have ever bought meth.5

Availability. Evidence about quality,

price, and availability indicates that

methamphetamine was as prevalent in

rural areas as in Omaha. Irrespective

of area, arrestees were more likely to

say that the quality had recently declined than to say it either increased

or remained the same and also more

likely to say the price had stayed the

same rather than risen or fallen (see

exhibit 5). Arrestees in rural areas

considered meth easy to obtain, as did

arrestees in Omaha. In fact, hardly

any arrestees said the drug was very

difficult to obtain. They also saw meth

as more available or just as available

at the time they were interviewed as it

was the previous year. This response

was consistent with the finding of easy

availability: The flow of this drug was

unabated.

Selling and manufacturing. Arrestees

in the rural areas were more likely to sell

methamphetamine than were those in the

city. In the city, about one-fourth of

the arrestees said they sold meth, in

contrast to one-third in Scotts Bluff

County, almost one-half in Madison

and Dawson counties, and nearly twothirds in Hall County (see exhibit 6).

This finding in particular appears to

be further evidence of the role of

methamphetamine in Nebraska’s rural

areas. It may also, however, be the

result of intensive law enforcement

targeted at meth markets in Omaha.

When it came to percentages of

arrestees who said they manufactured

the drug, there were no city-county

differences and no differences among

the rural counties. Hall County

was the sole exception. There, no

arrestees said they made methamphetamine.

Exhibit 4. Buying methamphetamine, rural and urban Nebraska

Madison Hall Dawson Scotts Bluff Omaha

County County County County (Douglas County)

(N=27) (N=14) (N=17) (N=40) (N=35)

%%% % %

Ever bought meth1 78 93 71 61 54

Source

Friend/family 44 43 47 44 31

Work – 7 – – 6

Dealer 33 43 18 15 11

Other/missing 22 7 35 41 52

Source’s race/ethnicity1

African American – – – 3 3

Hispanic 30 36 12 18 11

White 48 57 35 31 40

Other/missing 22 7 53 48 0

What do you do when source unavailable?

Different source 22 21 35 26 11

Friend 22 7 – 8 3

Do without 30 57 29 26 37

Other 25 14 36 41 49

1. P=< .10

N IJ’s ADAM program continues to

track the use of methamphetamine and

other illicit substances. The most recent

findings are in the 1999 Annual Report

on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile

Arrestees, Research Report, Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, April 2000 (NCJ

181426). The publication can be downloaded from http://www.adam-nij.net or

copies can be obtained by calling the

National Criminal Justice Reference

Service at 800–851–3420.

Other NIJ publications on methamphetamine are:

● Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities, by

S. Pennell et al. (Research Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, May 1999,

NCJ 176331).

● Methamphetamine Use Among Adult

Arrestees: Findings from the Drug Use

Forecasting (DUF) Program, by Thomas E.

Feucht and Gabrielle M. Kyle (Research in

Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department

of Justice, National Institute of Justice,

November 1996, NCJ 161842).

● 1998 Annual Report on Methamphetamine Use Among Arrestees (Research

Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of

Justice, 1999, NCJ 175660).

● The Rise of Crack and Ice: Experiences

in Three Locales, by Marcia R. Chaiken

(Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute

of Justice, 1993, NCJ 139559).

NIJ Reports on Methamphetamine
8

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Implications for drug control

in rural areas

The Rural Nebraska ADAM pilot

outreach project offers quantitative

evidence that, measured by data from

arrestees, the use of methamphetamine, the availability of the drug,

and many user characteristics in

Nebraska’s rural areas are much the

same as in the State’s urban center.

A particularly striking finding is that

methamphetamine was the only drug

whose use in rural areas rivaled urban

rates. Whereas in Omaha, arrestees’

use of marijuana and cocaine was

much higher than in the rural sites,

there were no significant rural-urban

differences in use of meth. Arrestees

in the rural areas who used meth were

indistinguishable from their counterparts in Omaha in several respects,

among them their use patterns and

their involvement in distribution and

manufacturing.

In general, when it comes to providing

assistance for crime-related problems,

rural areas are often neglected. It is

true that drug use and crime are typically higher in urban areas, but their

impact is still substantial in rural

areas, as this pilot project has shown.

Yet, because most Federal and State

funds are typically allocated to urban

areas, officials in rural areas must

seek local sources to fund needed

services. To be sure, the size of urban

areas justifies their receiving a large

portion of the funding pie, but, as this

study demonstrates, rural areas face

problems similar to those of the cities

and have similar needs for services.

Enforcement and treatment

policies. Two specific policy areas

of interest are drug enforcement and

treatment. Currently in Nebraska,

interagency drug task forces operate

Exhibit 5. Methamphetamine quality, price, and availability, rural and

urban Nebraska

Madison Hall Dawson Scotts Bluff Omaha

County County County County (Douglas County)

(N=27) (N=14) (N=17) (N=40) (N=47)

%%% % %

How meth quality changed in past yeara

Worse 44 57 59 36 31

Better 7 14 – 18 6

Same 4 7 12 8 11

Don’t know 45 21 29 38 51

In past year, price of meth hasb

Gone up 11 14 6 15 6

Gone down 4 7 35 5 6

Stayed the same 30 57 18 36 29

Don’t know 55 21 41 44 59

How easy is it to get meth?b

Very easy 48 79 59 44 37

Somewhat easy 22 7 12 7 3

Somewhat difficult 4 7 – 10 11

Very difficult – – – – 3

Missing 26 7 29 39 46

Compared with a year ago, how available is meth now?b

More available 26 43 29 26 23

Less available 4 14 35 10 9

Same availability 19 21 – 21 9

Don’t know 52 21 35 43 60

a. Asked of users only.

b. Asked of buyers only.

Exhibit 6. Methamphetamine distribution and manufacturing, rural and

urban Nebraska

Madison Hall Dawson Scotts Bluff Omaha

County County County County (Douglas County)

(N=27) (N=14) (N=17) (N=40) (N=47)

%%% % %

Ever sold 41 64 47 31 23

methamphetamine1

Ever made 11 – 12 8 9

methamphetamine

1. P=< .10
9

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

throughout the State.6 Their deployment is based largely on narcotics

intelligence gathered by law enforcement agencies or on information obtained by law enforcement in other

ways. Although these methods can effectively reduce accessibility to methamphetamine, there are opportunities

for better deployment. For instance,

task forces operating in one area of

Nebraska may displace methamphetamine to another, rural area. But

because the task forces have limited

means of measuring displacement,

they may assume success and not

respond to the displacement until the

markets are entrenched in the new

area. Data collection projects similar

to NIJ’s ADAM program could help

local authorities to better identify their

problem and help drug enforcement

agencies to respond more quickly.

Treatment providers and their clients

in rural areas can benefit from better

information about the extent and type

of drug use. In planning and implementing treatment programs and related criminal justice programs (such

as drug courts), needs assessment

plays a critical role. Data from projects

like this one can help rural communities justify their requests for resources

from local, State, Federal, and private

sources. The data can also inform discussions of proposed changes in the

way drug users are processed by the

criminal justice system and provision

of drug treatment for offenders.

Research

Scientifically based research is an

essential component of public policy

development. This approach can be

successful, however, only to the extent

the researchers ask the appropriate

questions, study the appropriate

populations, and use the appropriate

methods of data collection. Research

conducted under the auspices of the

ADAM program and its Outreach

projects illustrates the strength of the

approach, as it can bring to light empirically based findings about one

of the populations most at risk for

substance abuse: arrestees. Those

findings can be and have been used

by policymakers and in turn can

influence the prevention and control

strategies developed by practitioners.

The Rural Nebraska project seems

to suggest also that studies of rural

areas might benefit from the application of qualitative as well as quantitative methods. Conducting research in

rural areas requires devising innovative ways of obtaining information.

For that to happen, the ethnographic

approach might be useful if we are

to fully understand the nature of the

drug markets in these areas and the

preference for certain drugs over

others.

Notes

1. An ADAM study conducted in 1996–1997

showed that in five cities in the West, between

7 and 40 percent of meth users among arrestees

tested positive for the drug. Pennell, S., et al.,

Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine

Users in Five Western Cities, Research Report,

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, May 1999, NCJ

176331, 1, 6–7, 21–22.

2. The ranking was based on urine tests. 1998

Annual Report on Methamphetamine Use

Among Arrestees, Research Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, 1999 NCJ 175660, 5.

3. Ibid., 5, 7.

4. In the ADAM program, arrestees are tested

for 10 drugs: amphetamines, barbiturates,

benzodiazepines, cocaine, marijuana, methadone, methaqualone, opiates, PCP, and

propoxyphene. The method is Enzyme

Multiplied Immunoassay Testing (EMITTM).

5. In the categories used to measure meth

markets, a substantial amount of data was missing. This is largely because of the number of

arrestees who said they had used or bought

meth at one time but no longer did so. In these

cases, it was difficult for them to respond on

the basis of current use of meth.

6. These task forces are funded by the HIDTA

(High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area) program

of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Under the program, certain areas of the country

that are experiencing severe drug trafficking

receive Federal assistance to help control the

problem.

Exhibit 7. The four “rural Nebraska ADAM” sites

COLORADO

KANSAS

IOWA

SOUTH DAKOTA

WYOMING

Scotts Bluff NEBRASKA

County

Dawson 

County

Hall 

County

Madison 

County

Douglas 

County

Omaha

Denver
10

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Findings and conclusions of the research

reported here are those of the author and do

not necessarily reflect the official position or

policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Denise C. Herz, Ph.D., is a Professor

in the Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska at

Omaha, and director of the ADAM

program’s Omaha site. The research

for this study was funded by grants

from NIJ (98–IJ–CX–0065); the Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services, U.S. Department of Justice;

the Nebraska Midwest HIDTA (High

Intensity Drug Trafficking Area)

program (17–PN–WP–553); and the

Nebraska U.S. Attorney’s Office.

The support and assistance of

Thomas Monaghan, U.S. Attorney for

the Nebraska District, and his staff,

were essential in making this study

possible. The author also wishes to

thank Sheriff Vernon Hjorth, Terry

Howell, and Mike Prather in Madison County; Sheriff Terrill Perkins

and Joel Dalton in Hall County;

Sheriff Gary Reiber and Dottie

Anderson in Dawson County; Sheriff

James Moore, Ron White, and Mike

Moreno in Scotts Bluff County; and

Police Chief Donald Carey and Rick

Power in Omaha for allowing the

ADAM program access to their facilities. Data collection would not

have been possible without the commitment of the Omaha ADAM staff:

Steven Wilmes, who coordinated

and supervised Rural ADAM data

collection; and Ben Castinado, Lupe

Hickey, Alex Castro, Edna Castro,

and Jose Guerrera, who conducted

the interviews in the rural sites.

NCJ 180986

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.

This and other NIJ publications can be

found at and downloaded from the NIJ

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

Quick Access to NIJ Publication News

For news about NIJ’s most recent publications, including solicitations for grant applications,

subscribe to JUSTINFO, the bimonthly newsletter sent to you via e-mail. Here’s how:

Or check out the “Publications and Products” section at the NIJ home page: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

or the “New This Week” section at the Justice Information Center home page:

http://www.ncjrs.org

● Send an e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

● Leave the subject line blank

● Type subscribe justinfo your name

(e.g., subscribe justinfo Jane Doe) in the body of the message
11

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

 * Data on women not collected at this site.

** New ADAM site in 1998.

Note: Data are from NIJ’s Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring program. Data collection in St. Louis was temporarily suspended in 1999; Honolulu replaced

St. Louis in 2000 as the 35th ADAM site.

Percent of Adult Arrestees Testing Positive for Methamphetamine Use, 1995 to 1999

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Northeast

New York, NY

Men 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Women 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Philadelphia, PA

Men 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.2

Women 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0

 Washington, DC

Men 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.9

Women 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 –

South

Atlanta, GA

Men 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.4

Women 0.6 0.0 0.7 – 0.8

Birmingham, AL

Men 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.1

Women 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.9

Dallas, TX

Men 2.2 1.2 2.6 3.3 2.5

Women 3.7 1.5 2.8 4.0 3.2

Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Men 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4

Women 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Houston, TX

Men 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1

Women 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.1

Miami, FL

Men 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

Women* – – – – –

New Orleans, LA

Men 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1

Women 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0

Oklahoma City, OK**

Men – – – 8.0 8.7

Women – – – – 11.3

Midwest

Chicago, IL

Men 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0

Women – – – 0.0 0.0

Cleveland, OH

Men 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Women 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Des Moines, IA**

Men – – – 10.2 14.0

Women – – – 24.2 22.4

Detroit, MI

Men 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

Women 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Indianapolis, IN

Men 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.6

Women 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5

Minneapolis, MN**

Men – – – 0.8 1.1

Women – – – 0.0 2.5

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

West/Southwest

Omaha, NE

Men 7.8 4.3 9.7 10.2 7.8

Women 10.3 4.9 13.3 13.6 11.1

Albuquerque, NM**

Men – – – 3.4 5.1

Women – – – 2.4 8.9

Denver, CO

Men 4.1 2.9 5.0 5.2 3.0

Women 3.2 0.7 4.6 4.6 2.4

Laredo, TX**

Men – – – 0.0 0.2

Women – – – 0.0 0.0

Las Vegas, NV**

Men – – – 13.8 16.2

Women – – – 24.3 17.9

Los Angeles, CA

Men 5.8 4.1 4.7 8.0 8.9

Women 11.3 12.3 8.9 11.8 12.0

Phoenix, AZ

Men 22.0 11.1 16.4 16.4 16.6

Women 21.7 14.0 25.6 22.4 14.3

Sacramento, CA**

Men – – – 24.6 27.6

Women – – – 29.2 32.4

Salt Lake City, UT**

Men – – – 20.3 24.8

Women – – – 31.4 34.1

San Antonio, TX

Men 1.1 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.8

Women 2.5 2.8 2.4 1.7 1.4

San Diego, CA

Men 36.0 29.3 39.6 33.2 26.0

Women 40.2 31.3 42.4 33.3 30.6

San Jose, CA

Men 16.3 12.1 18.4 19.7 24.4

Women 23.6 22.2 24.9 21.1 31.6

Tucson, AZ**

Men – – – 4.0 5.8

Women – – – 2.5 9.6

Northwest

Anchorage, AK**

Men – – – 0.0 0.5

Women – – – 0.0 0.0

Portland, OR

Men 18.1 11.8 15.9 18.1 19.8

Women 19.7 13.5 20.7 22.3 24.8

Seattle, WA**

Men – – – 6.4 9.0

Women – – – 5.2 9.5

Spokane, WA**

Men – – – 15.8 20.1

Women – – – 22.0 26.6