Office of National Drug Control Policy i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) requires reliable information about

the nature and extent of the drug problem for use in developing appropriate national policy. Over

the years, ONDCP has spearheaded numerous efforts to improve the quality, timeliness, and

policy relevance of Federal drug-related data to develop new methods for capturing information

about emerging drug trends. One of the most significant efforts, the Drug Control Research, Data,

and Evaluation (DCRDE) Advisory Committee, was launched in 1994. The DCRDE committee

and its three Subcommittees were created to (1) provide, promote, and facilitate coordination of

Federal drug-related research efforts; (2) ensure that key Federal drug-related research efforts

receive appropriate support and priority; and (3) provide a mechanism to ensure that available

drug-related Federal research dollars are expended on projects that have a high probability of both

immediate and long-term cost effectiveness, and that are consistent with the primary goals and

objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy.

This report from the DCRDE advisory committee summarizes the actions of the

Subcommittee on Data, Research and Interagency Coordination, and describes three major task

accomplishments: (1) a Federal Drug-Related Data Needs Assessment; (2) an Inventory on

Federal Drug-Related Data Sources; and (3) a Forum on Integrating Information and Drug Control

Policy. The report discusses ONDCP's reporting requirements in the context of the National Drug

Control Strategy, and the newly announced Performance Measures of Effectiveness system

designed to measure progress of major drug programs supporting the National Drug Control

Strategy. The report also outlines legislative mandates of ONDCP and the dramatic extension of

drug control data needs required by the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

The following is a list of principles which ONDCP will use to guide its National data

policy priorities. Each principle includes an example of action item(s) to demonstrate what is 

needed to achieve the objective. These principles reflect extensive efforts to examine Federal drug

control data systems from the perspectives of a broad representation of experts in the Federal,

State, academic, and private sectors. 

! Information on Illicit Drug Use, Including Legal Drugs Used Illegally, Should be

Adequate, Accurate and Timely in Order to Measure the Extent of the Problem

Nationally.

1) obtain incidence and prevalence data addressing casual and chronic drug use, including

implications for progression from casual to severe addictive use; and

2) examine protective and risk factors for youth that decrease the likelihood of use and

promote nonuse; and

3) obtain state/local estimates of drug use to understand geographic variations in drug use.
Executive Summary

ii Office of National Drug Control Policy

! Information on the Health Risks and Consequences of Drug Use Should be Valid and

Reliable for Purposes of Defining the Scope and Magnitude of the Problem.

1) expand and redefine indicator data collection points for emergency medical

consequences to other parts of the health care environment, to better capture

information on the extent of medical crises associated with drug abuse; and

2) enhance the scope and national representativeness of the indicator system for

measuring substance abuse among arrestee populations.

! Information on the Social Cost of Drug Use and the Cost Effectiveness of Treatment

and Treatment Alternatives Must be Comprehensive and Research-Based.

1) develop programmatic support for resources to conduct necessary and timely

econometric studies for policy analysis and to reflect the ramifications and magnitude

of the social cost associated with drug use; and

2) stimulate and fund research that will evaluate treatment resource allocations and the

cost-effectiveness of various sanctions employed against drug users and among

traffickers within the criminal justice system; and

3) ensure that drug resource allocation policies based on treatment cost-effectiveness

studies are guided by outcomes research. 

! A Broad-based System for Technology Transfer of New Information Should be

Developed and Funded to Encourage Use by Field Practitioners and the Research

Community at Large.

1) implement program policy and funding initiatives to ensure that the field and research

community have access to data to encourage greater secondary analysis, improved

dissemination and use of the results; and

2) sponsor or cosponsor research symposiums with Federal and non-Federal organizations

related to information requirements and national drug control policy.

! Federal Drug-Related Information Data Collection Systems Must be Coordinated to

Avoid Overlap and Duplication of Effort, so as to Achieve Maximum Use of Results.

1) authorize ONDCP advisory committee's Subcommittee on Data, Research, and

Interagency Coordination to make recommendations regarding integration of Federal

efforts related to drug data collection, data processing, and data sharing; and

2) reinforce ONDCP's responsibility for coordinating drug-related information data

collection strategies among Federal drug control agencies.
Executive Summary

Office of National Drug Control Policy iii

! Information Collections from State and Local Level Jurisdictions Should Have the

Capability to Accommodate a Uniform Set of Standardized Data Elements.

1) develop Federal drug control policy guidelines that will, at a minimum, promote

standardized minimum data elements for federally funded projects that are collected at

the State, regional and local levels.

! A Scientific Methodological Study Design Should be Developed to Evaluate the

Effectiveness of Supply Reduction Efforts.

1) coordinate and improve methods for estimating crop loss, foreign consumption and

domestic seizures, and develop a model using these data to estimate the flow of illegal

drugs into the United States.

! ONDCP Should Use its Office to Enhance Information Coordination and Work with

Technical Agencies that Conduct Data Collections and Research, in Order to,

Accurately Evaluate and Assess the Impact of Potential Changes on the Nation's

Drug Control Programs and Policies. 

1) commission ONDCP with responsibility for developing a framework for an annual

retrospective presentation, or “report card,” of the finding by the leading indicators of

counter drug control initiatives to further guide its performance measurement system.

In developing this Report, we have endeavored to provide an avenue of communications

by which a wide-range of individuals in the drug abuse research community can advise the

Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy on questions related to national drug

control research. The ONDCP Drug Control Research, Data and Evaluation Committee,

individuals representing the scientific, engineering, and treatment fields; drug research experts,

including current and former Federal policy makers; researchers from private for-profit, private

nonprofit, and university organizations, have all provided comments and input to this document.

The proposed principles in this report are intended to serve as a blueprint for improving the

usefulness and national policy relevance of Federal drug-related data sources. The eight principles

and associated policy needs will drive data demand for next three to five years, it is therefore

important that the research community examine the current data portfolio for relevance and

integration into the National Drug Control Strategy and National Performance Measures of

Effective. The ten-year National Drug Control Strategy's goals and objectives have been linked to

a new system of performance measures of effectiveness to ensure data policy priorities of Federal

drug-control agencies data are on target.
Office of National Drug Control Policy v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... i

REPORT OF THE DRUG CONTROL RESEARCH, DATA, AND EVALUATION

COMMITTEE ......................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1

THE DCRDE COMMITTEE AND THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL

STRATEGY ........................................................ 2

The National Performance Measurement System ............................. 4

THE DCRDE COMMITTEE AND ONDCP LEGISLATIVE MANDATES ........ 5

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 ........................................ 5

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 .................. 10

DATA SUBCOMMITTEE TASKS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS ................ 13

Federal Drug-Related Data Needs Assessment ............................... 14

Inventory of Federal Drug-Related Data Sources ............................. 16

Forum on Integrating Information and Drug Control Policy ..................... 17

PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DATA PRIORITIES ........................... 18

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS ........................ 27

Initiatives For Improving Information on National Drug Treatment Capacity ........ 27

APPENDIX A: INVENTORY OF FEDERAL DRUG-RELATED DATA SOURCES ... 31

APPENDIX B: FORUM ON INTEGRATING INFORMATION AND

DRUG CONTROL POLICY .............................................. 179

APPENDIX C: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................... 201
Office of National Drug Control Policy 1

REPORT OF THE DRUG CONTROL RESEARCH, DATA, AND

EVALUATION COMMITTEE

INTRODUCTION

In 1995 the Office of Management and Budget and the General Services Administration

authorized the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to establish the

Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation (DCRDE) Committee. This Committee, chaired by

ONDCP's Director, is tasked to refine and improve the manner in which the results of research are

used to support the development of effective drug control programs and strategies. The Data,

Evaluation, and Interagency Coordination Subcommittee (hereafter referred to as the Data

Subcommittee) is one of three subcommittees established under the DCRDE Committee (see

Figure 1). The Data Subcommittee's charge was to accomplish the following tasks:

! Develop an inventory of drug-related information systems and their report generation 

capabilities;

! Evaluate the adequacy and ability of drug-related data systems to inform the drug 

policy planning process;

! Integrate Federal efforts related to drug data collection, data processing, and data 

sharing; and

! Develop a drug data strategy for the Federal Government to improve the quality and 

efficacy of drug-related data systems.

The Data Subcommittee is composed of an external committee of outside advisors as well as

representatives from Federal departments and agencies that have legislative mandates to pursue

drug-related initiatives.
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

2 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Figure 1

Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

This report from the DCRDE Committee provides an overview of the activities of the Data

Subcommittee and includes key recommendations for ONDCP's national data priorities. The

report includes the following four sections: (1) the DCRDE Committee and the National Drug

Control Strategy, (2) the DCRDE Committee and ONDCP's Legislative Mandates, (3) Data

Subcommittee Tasks and Accomplishments, and (4) Recommendations for ONDCP Data

Priorities.

THE DCRDE COMMITTEE AND THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

The efforts of the DCRDEC's Data Subcommittee are best appreciated when viewed

against the evolving panorama of the National Drug Control Strategy. When President Clinton

announced the 1998 National Drug Control Strategy, he signified the Administration's support for

a very bold and ambitious plan to reduce drug use, availability, and drug use consequences in the

United States. This National Drug Control Strategy continues the 10-year Federal commitment

that is supported by a 5-year Federal drug-control budget. Performance measures of effectiveness

will gauge the efficacy of drug control programs and resources in achieving the goals and

objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy.

The National Drug Control Strategy is designed to reduce illicit drug use and its

consequences. It builds on the five goals first proposed in the 1996 National Drug Control

Strategy (see Figure 2), which recognize that anti-drug efforts do not occur in isolation and must

be long-term and global in focus. First and foremost, the Strategy's goals and objectives stress the

need for prevention to deter first-time use among adolescents and to thwart the progression from

casual drug use to addiction. Second, the goals emphasize the need for law enforcement to

remove violent and predatory criminals and to dismantle drug networks in the United States and

abroad. Third, the Strategy goals highlight the importance of providing treatment to those caught

in a vicious cycle of chronic drug use. And fourth, the Strategy goals aim to reduce the supply of
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

Office of National Drug Control Policy 3

Figure 2

National Drug Control Strategy Goals

Goal 1: Educate and enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs as well as alcohol and tobacco.

Goal 2: Increase the safety of America's citizens by substantially reducing drug-related crime and

violence.

Goal 3: Reduce health and social costs to the public of illegal drug use.

Goal 4: Shield America's air, land, and sea frontiers from the drug threat.

Goal 5: Break foreign and domestic drug sources of supply.

illicit drugs to the United States through coordinated domestic programs and comprehensive

international drug control efforts.

The National Drug Control Strategy proposes key changes in the way the Federal

Government organizes its efforts to reduce drug use and its consequences in America. A reform

movement within the halls of Federal bureaucracy has resulted in Government initiatives that

refocus public managers on results rather than on process and output. For the first time, ONDCP

and the drug control agencies have collaborated to establish a system to measure progress of drug

control programs that support the goals and objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy.

ONDCP's National Performance Measures of Effectiveness system will assess the

effectiveness of the national drug control effort. This new system will provide feedback for

strategy refinement and system management and assist the Administration in resource allocation. 

As ONDCP implements the National Drug Control Strategy and its supporting

performance measurement system, the need for up-to-date, scientifically accurate drug data

becomes more urgent than ever. Such data will reveal emerging drug trends and provide the

building blocks for modifying future National Drug Control Strategies. In addition, the quality of

drug control data and evaluation systems will be critical in the creation and operation of the

national drug control performance measurement system. Finally, the work of the Data
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

4 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Subcommittee will guide the efforts of numerous Federal departments and agencies and assist in

the integration of the activities of existing groups that report on the data collection, data

processing, and data sharing practices of these organizations.

The National Performance Measurement System

The National Drug Control Strategy established 5 Goals and 32 Objectives to encompass

the overall efforts of over 50 federal agencies and their state and local partners to reduce the use,

consequences, and availability of illegal drugs in the United States. ONDCP, working with

federal interagency teams, developed a Performance Measures of Effectiveness system (hereafter

referred to as the PME system) with 94 performance targets to calibrate the progress of the

Strategy and assess the effectiveness of national drug control efforts.

The PME System established twelve Impact Targets that define the desired outcomes for

the Strategy's Goals. The remaining 82 performance targets are designed to measure the progress

toward a 50 percent reduction in drug use and availability and at least a 25 percent reduction in

drug use consequences. Each year, ONDCP will publish a progress report assessing the

effectiveness of the Strategy based on the PME System.

Beginning in 1998, interagency working groups will collect, synthesize, and report

performance data through an Information Management System (IMS) to track progress toward the

94 performance targets. These working groups will identify procedures for transmitting data

already available into the IMS. The Data Subcommittee will assess the quality of the data. They

will also identify future steps needed to modify existing databases and develop new ones.

THE DCRDE COMMITTEE AND ONDCP LEGISLATIVE MANDATES

The DCRDEC and its Subcommittees were created in response to the 1994 Violent Crime

Control and Law Enforcement Act, which dramatically extended the need for improved drug

control data. Earlier, the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act spurred the need for a national drug control

program with enhanced data systems.
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 established ONDCP to coordinate Federal efforts to

reduce the use of illegal drugs in the United States. The Act requires ONDCP to develop an

annual strategy for reducing illegal drug use and to incorporate goals and measurable objectives

for monitoring its progress.

ONDCP's mandated activities include:

! Developing an annual National Drug Control Strategy;

! Developing a consolidated National Drug Control Budget for presentation to the

President and the Congress (including budget certifications and quarterly

reprogramming reports);
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

6 Office of National Drug Control Policy

! Coordinating and overseeing Federal anti-drug policies and programs involving

approximately 50 Federal agencies and 12 Cabinet departments and the programs they

administer;

! Encouraging private sector and State and local initiatives for drug prevention and

control;

! Recommending to the President changes in organization, management, and budgets of

Federal departments and agencies engaged in the anti-drug effort;

! Representing the Administration's drug policies and proposals to Congress;

! Participating in National Security Council deliberations that concern drugs;

! Establishing and overseeing numerous legislatively mandated national campaigns and

commissions;

! Certifying the budgets of programs, bureaus, agencies, and departments;

! Certifying drug policy changes by programs, bureaus, agencies and departments;

! Reviewing and approving reprogramming requests submitted by bureaus, agencies, and

departments;

! Designating areas as high-intensity drug trafficking areas and making grants to State

and local law enforcement entities in these areas; and

! Establishing a counter-drug technology assessment center to serve as the central

counter-drug enforcement research and development center for the Federal

Government.

Upon its establishment, one of ONDCP's immediate tasks was to determine the national

scope of the drug problem—in terms of both the supply of and demand for drugs. However, no

coordinated, standard, uniform information system existed at that time to provide data on the

national scope and prevalence of the drug problem; no single set of data described the drug

epidemic in all its complexity.

ONDCP's first step toward coordinating the collection, analysis, and dissemination of

Federal drug-related data was to identify baseline data on the scope of the Nation's drug problem

that also could be used to measure progress as counter-drug initiatives were developed and
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

Office of National Drug Control Policy 7

implemented. A 1990 ONDCP white paper, Leading Drug Indicators, initially identified a core

set of these Federal data systems. These data sets included the following:

! The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA).—This survey measures the

prevalence of drug use in the United States among the civilian, noninstitutionalized

population, ages 12 and older. Periodically since 1972, and annually since 1990, data

have been collected through personal interviews conducted primarily in household

settings on the use of selected drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, inhalants,

hallucinogens, heroin, alcohol, and cigarettes, and the nonmedical use of prescription

drugs. Between 1972 and 1991, the NHSDA was operated by the National Institute on

Drug Abuse (NIDA); since 1992 the survey has been operated by the Substance Abuse

and Mental Health & Services Administration (SAMHSA). NHSDA analysts

acknowledge that the survey may produce conservative estimates of the extent of drug

use among members of the general population, particularly for such rarely used drugs

as heroin.

! The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN).—This survey monitors the annual number

and patterns of drug-related emergencies in a nationally representative sample of

hospital emergency departments. Drug-related deaths are also reported to DAWN by

selected metropolitan medical examiner offices. Data include (1) the drugs involved in

the emergency department episode or death; (2) the gender, age, and race of the

individuals; (3) the reason for the emergency department visit or cause of death;

(4) whether the individual was involved in single or multiple drug use; and (5) the

method by which the drug was consumed. Between 1973 and 1979 DAWN was

operated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), between 1980 and 1991 it

was operated by NIDA, and since 1992 it has been operated by SAMHSA.

! The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program.—This data collection program was

established by the National Institute of Justice to measure the rates of drug use among

those arrested for serious crimes. Since 1986 the DUF program has used urinalysis to
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

8 Office of National Drug Control Policy

test a sample of arrestees in selected major cities across the Nation to determine recent

drug use. Urine specimens are collected from arrestees anonymously and voluntarily

and tested to detect the use of 10 different drugs, including cocaine, marijuana, PCP

(phencyclidine), methamphetamine, heroin, and opium. The DUF program releases a

report annually on the percentage of arrestees tested in each city who recently used

drugs.

! The Monitoring the Future (MTF) Study.—This study, commonly known as the High

School Senior Survey, is the leading indicator of drug use and attitudes toward drugs

among the Nation's secondary school students. The survey has been conducted

annually with high school seniors since 1975, and starting in 1991, samples of 8th and

10th grade students were included. The survey is administered in schools, and students

responding to survey questions are assured of confidentiality. Survey questions focus

on respondents' use and attitudes toward the use of illicit drugs and alcohol. The

survey sample does not capture those who have dropped out of school or those who are

absent on the day of the survey. The MTF study is conducted by the University of

Michigan's Institute for Social Research and funded through a NIDA grant.

! Drug Price and Purity Indicators.—The DEA regularly tracks changes in both the price

and purity of drugs available on the streets of major metropolitan areas through data

related to the purchase and seizure of drugs. The assumption behind collecting price

data is that the illicit drug market is susceptible to the same market forces as other

commodities; that is, if supply rises and/or demand falls, prices drop; if supply falls

and/or demand rises, prices climb. Drug purity data are important because they

provide information about the availability of drugs. This usefulness stems from the

fact that heroin and cocaine are routinely “cut” with other substances, a process which

decreases its purity. If drug supplies are plentiful, they usually are more pure; if

supplies dwindle, drug dealers are more likely to cut their supplies with higher levels of

additives so that they can maintain the same level of sales with less potent doses. 
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

Office of National Drug Control Policy 9

Although illegal drugs are trafficked across the United States, the levels of price,

purity, and availability vary greatly among metropolitan areas and regions.

! Crime Statistics.—The U.S. Department of Justice measures crime in three ways:

Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

which produce both an estimate of all serious or “index” crimes reported to authorities

and a record of all arrests made by law enforcement officials, and the National Crime

Survey, administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which gathers data through an

annual survey of 50,000 households, thereby including crimes that go unreported to

authorities. In the National Crime Survey, drug law violations are not counted as

“index” crimes, and because such violations frequently involve the willful possession

and distribution of drugs, they are less likely to emerge from survey data. Therefore,

most data on drug violations come from UCR's arrest data.

! The International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR).—The INCSR is the

Department of State's annual report to Congress that gauges the effectiveness of drug

control efforts among the world's major drug producing and transit nations. The

INCSR has been released annually since 1987 in accordance with a law that conditions

U.S. assistance to major drug producer or transit countries based on their full

cooperation with the United States and their progress in suppressing illicit drug

production, drug trafficking, and money laundering. Data for the INCSR are compiled

in the field by Department of State specialists, DEA agents, and embassy personnel. 

Their contributions are supplemented and further refined in Washington, D.C., by

Federal agencies directly involved in conducting international drug policy and

enforcement activities. Each report contains an extensive description of the progress or

lack of progress in suppressing illegal drugs in more than 46 countries.

! The National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee (NNICC) Report.—The

NNICC report, an annually produced paper representing a cooperative effort, provides

facts and figures on worldwide drug production, eradication, seizures, and trends in
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

10 Office of National Drug Control Policy

U.S. drug consumption. It is a document based more on careful compilation and

refinement of existing data than on original research. The NNICC report draws on the

most major drug indicators, prime among them the INCSR; it also uses data from

DAWN, DUF, and the DEA's Domestic Monitor Program (DMP). The NNICC report

organizes its data by drug type, in contrast to the INCSR, which organizes its data

according to specialized country dossiers. Similar to the INCSR, the NNICC report

contains a special chapter on drug-related financial crimes. Because it documents

many facets of the drug problem—ranging from drug trafficking and illicit drug retail

price to purity and drug-related hospital emergencies—and because it collects data

from a wide range of sources, the NNICC report primarily serves as an expanded

summary of current drug statistics. However, the report also includes comprehensive

citations to original data sources, making it a useful reference text of drug statistics.

Using these data sets, ONDCP built the basic framework for describing the drug problem

in the Nation. However, as understanding of the complexities of the drug problem evolved, so did

the requirements for data. As a result, in 1994 the incumbent Director of ONDCP proposed the

establishment of the DCRDE Committee to advise the Director of ONDCP regarding policies and

priorities for drug control research and to provide support to ONDCP in evaluating the ability of

existing Federal drug-related data systems to answer important policy questions. The DCRDE

Committee was established with an external committee of outside advisors, an internal policy

committee, and three subcommittees: the Data, Evaluation, and Interagency Coordination

Subcommittee, the Science and Technology Subcommittee, and the Prevention, Treatment, and

Medical Research Subcommittee.

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (hereafter referred to as the

Crime Control Act) provided legislative reauthorization for ONDCP, but more importantly, it

extended ONDCP's mission to include budget and resource powers related to formulating and

implementing the President's National Drug Control Strategy and established new reporting

requirements for ONDCP. This new authority gave ONDCP influence over agency budgets to
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

Office of National Drug Control Policy 11

ensure they carry out the priorities, goals, and objectives of the Strategy. Specifically, ONDCP's

reporting requirements under the Crime Control Act included responsibilities in the following

areas:

! Assessing the reduction of drug use, including estimating drug prevalence and

frequency of use as measured by national, State, and local surveys and by other special

studies of the following:

— High-risk populations, including those who drop out of school, homeless and

transient people, arrestees, parolees, probationers, and juvenile delinquents; and

— Drug use in the workplace, including productivity lost.

! Assessing the reduction of drug availability, as measured by the following:

— The quantities of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana available for consumption in the

United States;

— The amount of cocaine and heroin entering the United States;

— The number of hectares of poppy and coca cultivated and destroyed;

— The number of metric tons of heroin and cocaine seized;

— The number of cocaine processing labs destroyed;

— Changes in the price and purity of heroin and cocaine; and

— The amount and type of controlled substances diverted from legitimate retail and

wholesale sources.

! Assessing the reduction of the consequences of illicit drug use and availability, which

include estimating the following:

— Burdens drug users place on hospital emergency rooms, such as quantity of

drug-related services;

— The annual national health care costs of illicit drug use, including costs associated

with people becoming infected with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) and

other communicable diseases;

— The extent of drug-related crime and criminal activity; and
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

12 Office of National Drug Control Policy

— The contribution of illicit drugs to the underground economy, as measured by the

retail value of drugs sold in the United States.

! Determining the status of drug treatment in the United States by assessing the

following:

— Public and private treatment capacities within each State, including the number of

drug treatment slots available in relation to the number of slots actually used and

the number intravenous drug users and pregnant women;

— The extent within each State to which drug treatment is available to and in demand

by intravenous drug users and pregnant women;

— The number of drug users the Director estimates could benefit from drug treatment;

and

— The success of drug treatment programs, including assessing the effectiveness of

the mechanisms in place federally and within each State to determine the relative

quality of treatment programs, the qualifications of treatment personnel, and the

mechanism by which patients are admitted to the most appropriate and

cost-effective treatment setting.

In addition to assessing progress in these four areas, the Crime Control Act also required

the Director to include with every other National Drug Control Strategy (starting in February of

1995) the following assessments:

! An assessment of the quality of current drug use measurement instruments and

techniques that measure supply reduction and demand reduction activities;

! An assessment of the adequacy of the coverage of existing national drug use

measurement instruments and techniques to measure the casual drug user population

and groups at-risk for drug use;
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

Office of National Drug Control Policy 13

! An assessment of the actions the Director shall take to correct any deficiencies and

limitations identified in the above subparagraphs; and

! Identification of specific factors that restrict the availability of drug treatment services

to those seeking it and proposed administrative or legislative remedies to make drug

treatment available to those individuals.

The reporting requirements hastened by the Crime Control Act caused ONDCP to look

closely across the board at the performance measurement of leading drug control indicators. 

Broadly, the mission of the Data Subcommittee was to establish a process and structure for better

coordination of effort among Federal drug control agencies to ensure the availability of up-to-date

scientific and programmatic information. Within the context of the larger DCRDE Committee, the

Data Subcommittee was responsible for conducting across the board assessments of the national

policy relevance of current approaches to drug-related data collection, analysis, and evaluation.

DATA SUBCOMMITTEE TASKS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The Data Subcommittee, chaired by the Director of ONDCP's Office of Programs, Budget,

Research, and Evaluation, convened for the first time on June 1, 1995. Representation consisted

of the following Federal departments and agencies:

! Department of Agriculture;

! Department of Defense;

! Department of Health and Human Services;

! Department of Housing and Urban Development;

! Department of Justice;

! Department of Labor;

! Department of State;

! Agricultural Research Service;

! Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs;

! Bureau of Justice Statistics;
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

14 Office of National Drug Control Policy

! Bureau of Labor Statistics;

! Drug Enforcement Administration;

! Federal Bureau of Investigation;

! Federal Bureau of Prisons;

! National Center for Health Statistics;

! National Drug Intelligence Center;

! National Institute of Justice;

! National Institute on Drug Abuse; 

! National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; and

! Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

The Data Subcommittee was tasked with accomplishing the following: (1) Conduct a

Federal Drug-Related Data Needs Assessment; (2) Create an Inventory of Federal Drug-Related

Data Sources; and (3) Convene a Forum on Integrating Information and Drug Control Policy. An

overview of each Subcommittee accomplishment is presented as follows:

Federal Drug-Related Data Needs Assessment

The first task of the Data Subcommittee's effort was to conduct a needs assessment to

review the strengths and weaknesses of the leading indicators used to describe the nation's drug

problem and to identify data needs of public health policy that evolved in response to ONDCP's

statutory requirements. The major findings are as follows:

! The chronically addicted drug user is not captured through standard data collection

methodologies. Household and classroom surveys, routinely used to measure drug

prevalence, tend to miss this type of user, who is unlikely to live in a stable household

or attend school. In fact, the casual and chronic drug user populations have distinctly

different characteristics. To acquire an accurate picture of the drug problem, it is

critical to obtain information on drug users that are severely addicted, such as valid

estimates of the number of chronic drug users, the quantity of drugs they consume, the
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

 Research findings tend to suggest with each treatment cycle chronic drug users reduce their drug use, however, there

is also evidence that some may never completely end their use.

Office of National Drug Control Policy 15

frequency with which drugs are consumed and purchased, and information on polydrug

use.

! Knowledge of the supply and movement of illicit drugs in the United States is

improving, but many aspects of the drug trade are not clearly understood. Complete

information is needed about production, seizures, and consumption of illicit drugs at

the international level, particularly in production and trans-shipment countries. In

addition, there is no standard method of collecting or summarizing State and local

seizure data, nor plans for pooling the data in any one location. Finally, the Federal

Government does not have adequate data on the retail price and purity trends of illicit

street drugs. It is necessary that better information is obtained on (1) the availability,

price, and purity of illicit street drugs; (2) how retail prices affect the user market in

terms of increased use and the consequences of use; (3) how law enforcement efforts

affect price; (4) how increased price translates into decreased use; and (5) how retail

prices interact with all market forces.

! The drug trade exacts direct and indirect costs from drug users and from society in

terms of health and social costs and lost revenue. Knowing these costs is essential to

determining whether the Nation's drug policies and programs are adequate, appropriate,

and cost-effective in relation to the magnitude of the problem. No single set of data

quantifies the Nation's costs for treating drug users in medical facilities and treatment

centers. It is important to determine to what extent the consequences of drug use affect

health care costs, particularly with regard to chronic drug users who may require

several cycles of drug treatment. In addition, more information is necessary on how 1

much State and local governments spend on drug-related activities, including health,

education, courts and prosecution, and law enforcement activities.
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

16 Office of National Drug Control Policy

! It is not known to what extent successful prevention programs affect drug use among

various populations, particularly high-risk groups such as inner-city minorities. 

Evaluation measures must be developed that reflect the diversity of the U.S. population

and the types of intervention required.

! Understanding of the Nation's drug treatment system must improve. For example, it is

important to determine the Nation's capacity to meet treatment needs; the types of

treatment available; the cost of treatment; and where, and how those who need

treatment access it. It also is important to develop measures that monitor and

determine the effectiveness of drug treatment programs and policies. These measures

should be flexible so that the definition of successful outcomes accounts for the varying

needs of diverse population groups.

! It is important to evaluate various criminal justice responses to drug crime and drug

users for their efficiency in reducing recidivism. One priority is to determine the

relationship between sentencing and incarceration and reduced drug use; that is, how

do the severity of the sentence, the length of incarceration, and treatment programs

translate into reduced recidivism to drug use and drug crime?

! The dynamics of youth gangs and their role in the retail drug market are not uniformly

understood. It is important to collect data on the characteristics of youth involved in

gang drug trafficking and those responding to prevention or intervention programs. 

These data will help to determine the best approach for deterring youth from joining

gangs and participating in the drug trade.

The DCRDEC determined that a systematic approach must be developed for gathering

drug-related data to ensure that policymakers and analysts have complete information for making

public policy. This critical goal for successful drug control policy requires the following steps: 

(1) improve the coordination and direction of data collection and evaluation, (2) assess the primary

indicators, (3) assess data for policy relevance, (4) design innovative data collection methods,
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

Office of National Drug Control Policy 17

(5) improve analysis capabilities, (6) improve the timeliness of data, (7) improve dissemination of

data, and (8) support ongoing research.

Inventory of Federal Drug-Related Data Sources

In accordance with its stated mission, the Data Subcommittee created an Inventory of

Federal Drug-Related Data Sources (see Appendix A). It includes a compilation of all known

Federal drug-related information systems and their report generation capabilities. Descriptive

information regarding the following elements for each data resource is provided: title of data set,

frequency of data collection, sponsoring agency (ies), point of contact, purpose of data set, how

and to whom the data are disseminated, available formats, sample size, methodology, drug-related

variables, other key variables, strengths and limitations, and implications for drug policy. The

Inventory also includes Federal drug-related resources for both demand and supply reduction

programs and assesses the extent to which these programs provide input to requirements of the

1994 Crime Control Act. Additionally, the Inventory rates the information's relevance for drug

policy.

Forum on Integrating Information and Drug Control Policy

To assist the Data Subcommittee in developing a final data evaluation report, a Forum was

convened with approximately 40 drug research experts, including current and former Federal

policy makers; researchers from private for-profit, private nonprofit, and university organizations;

and State drug data collection experts. The meeting, titled “Forum on Integrating Information and

National Drug Control Policy,” was held in Boston, Massachusetts, on November 4–5, 1995, and

asked participants to reflect and comment on three data and policy issues. 

! How can existing data resources best be used to document the dimensions of the drug

problem? What new data sources are needed to meet this objective?

! How can existing data resources best be applied in determining the range and priority

of specific drug control policy objectives? What new data sources are needed to meet

this objective?
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

18 Office of National Drug Control Policy

! How can existing data resources best be used to evaluate the efficacy of specific drug

control strategies? What new data sources are needed to meet this objective?

In addition, participants were asked the following two questions regarding existing data

sets:

! If you could make one change or addition to a data set, what would it be? 

! If you could eliminate one data set, which would it be?

Attendees at the Forum offered a wide range of ideas for improving the collection and

analysis of drug-related data; the following is an abbreviated listing of preliminary guidelines for

how ONDCP might approach the task:

! Obtain a general understanding of the scope of the problem;

! Conduct secondary analysis of existing data sets;

! Study drug abuse in a broader social context;

! Use biological markers as validity checks;

! Disseminate data in a more timely fashion;

! Assess data sets and other indicators in combination;

! Develop data sets with greater integration and interface;

! Aggregate or disseminate data to States and communities;

! Research the effectiveness of treatment modalities; and

! Use multiple methods and sources for gathering data.

In addition to the above 10 guidelines for improving the collection and analysis of drugrelated data, Forum attendees made observations on the nature of drug-related data and

policymaking, including the relationship between information and knowledge, flaws in the

definitions of users, problems in interpretation of data, and difficulties in supply-side data

collection. A copy of the entire Forum proceedings is attached as Appendix B.
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

 The most recent National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health, a nationally representative

study of health-related behavior of adolescents in grades 7 through 12 will include a data tape for

public use. While the primary focus of the study is not exclusively youth drug use, it examines

substance abuse issues among youth as a consequence of risk behaviors they choose.

Office of National Drug Control Policy 19

PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DATA PRIORITIES

Following the Forum, the Data Subcommittee convened to consider the nature and scope

of its labor, based on its mission requirements and tasks accomplishments as a component of the

larger DCRDE Committee. The Data Subcommittee's charge under the advisory Committee was

to accomplish the following: (1) develop an inventory of drug-related information systems and

their report generation capabilities; (2) evaluate the adequacy and ability of drug-related data

systems to inform the drug policy planning process; (3) integrate Federal efforts related to drug

data collection, data processing, and data sharing; and (4) develop a strategy for the Federal

Government to improve the quality and efficacy of drug-related data systems.

In addition, the Data Subcommittee focused on the following major policy areas that

cannot be addressed with current data. Action has already been taken on implementing some of

the principles.

! Information on illicit drug use, including legal drugs used illegally, should be

adequate, accurate and timely in order to measure the extent of the problem

nationally. Understanding the risks and consequences of drug use is important if we

are to develop appropriate prevention programs aimed at reducing all drug use--

whether legal or illicit. Research indicates that the use of one drug is often related to

the subsequent use of another. Typically, drug use begins with alcohol and cigarettes,

which are followed by marijuana and other illicit drugs. This typical sequence of drug

use was established in the 1970's (Kandel & Faust, 1975) and has been found to

continue into the 1990's. A limited number of Federal and non-Federal national studies

have identified “protective” and “risk” factors for youth drug use. More in-depth 2

analysis of the lifestyles and behavior characteristics that create conditions that promote

non-use by youth is needed to add to this body of knowledge.
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

20 Office of National Drug Control Policy

While surveys such as the NHSDA and the MTF provide much needed and valuable

information on drug use among the general U.S. population, they are not able to

provide needed detailed information on such issues as minority drug use and

disaggregation of national data. For example, while most national level general

population surveys are able to produce estimates for whites, blacks, and Hispanics, they

do not produce estimates for Asians, Native American, or Hispanic subgroups. 

Additionally, the national-level surveys, in most cases, cannot be disaggregated beyond

the regional level. It would be very helpful to be able to study drug use trends by State. 

To this end, ONDCP is supporting the expansion of the NHSDA sample to enable

direct estimates in some States and more reliable synthetic estimations in the

remainder. This expanded NHSDA is scheduled to be fielded in 1999.

Today, chronically addicted drug users are one of the most troubling aspect of the

Nation's drug problem because they negatively impact society in so many ways.

Chronic users of cocaine, while representing 30 percent of all cocaine users, consume

more than two-thirds of all the cocaine available in the United States. It is these users

who maintain the illegal drug market—and its attendant violence—and keep drug

traffickers in business. Chronic users are responsible for a disproportionate amount of

crime, and the frequency and severity of their criminal activity rises dramatically

during periods of heaviest use. Chronic users frequently are “vectors” for the spread of

infectious diseases such as hepatitis, tuberculosis, and HIV and other sexually

transmitted diseases. And, it is this population that serves as a “reservoir” of drug use

for periodic outbreaks of renewed use of drugs among the general population, as we

may currently be seeing with heroin and methamphetamine. In order to address these

problems, it is important that accurate and reliable estimates of the size and character of

this population be obtained. Surveys of the general population, such as the NHSDA

and MTF, are unable to sample sufficient numbers of this population to produce

reliable estimates. Additional research is needed in order to develop adequate

knowledge regarding the life course of treated addicts, and the relationship of addiction

and treatment career characteristics to treatment outcomes over time. 
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

Office of National Drug Control Policy 21

ONDCP recently released the results of a pilot study conducted in Cook County,

Illinois, to develop a method for estimating the size and characteristics of the

chronically addicted. This methodology involves interviewing chronic users in

locations where they are found in sufficiently large numbers, such as booking facilities,

treatment centers, and homeless shelters. Preliminary results suggest that this

methodology is sound and results in estimates that may be as much as three times that

of earlier estimates based on general population surveys. This research must be

pursued so that improved information about this population can be obtained.

! Information on the health risks and consequences of drug use should be valid and

reliable for purposes of defining the scope and magnitude of the problem. 

ONDCP's mission, in addition to reducing the availability and consumption of drugs, is

to reduce the consequences of drug use. The two major consequence categories related

to drug use are in the areas of health and criminal justice. For information on these

consequences the Federal Government relies primarily upon DAWN for health

consequences and DUF for criminal justice consequences. Both data systems have

their limitations. We need to improve existing indicators and develop new ones. For

example, major improvement is needed in order to address limitations in the DAWN

sample design and data collection methodology. Indeed, existing definitions in DAWN

may be obsolete in today's hospital environment. There are across the board

methodological problems with definitions in DAWN that effect both the universe for

how the hospital sample is selected and the criteria used for selection of what

constitutes a DAWN case. Participants in the Forum on Integrating Information and

Drug Control Policy repeatedly called for biological markers as validity checks in

DAWN. Also, there are indications in the health care environment that there may be a

shift away from hospital emergency departments as the place where people go for drugrelated health emergencies. Research has documented the under reporting of cocainerelated emergencies because DAWN does not include other parts of the hospital in its

universe, e.g., they exclude trauma centers from DAWN, as well as other freestanding
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

 Daniel Brookoff et al., “The Underreporting of Cocaine-Related Trauma: Drug Abuse Warning

Network Reports vs Hospital Toxicology Tests,” American Journal of Public Health, March 1993,

Vol. 83, No.3.

 Henrick Harwood et al., under contract to NIDA and NIAAA, “The Economic Costs of

Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992” (Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, 1998).

22 Office of National Drug Control Policy

emergency facilities. Indications are that DAWN is in critical need of redesign in 3

order to respond to the changing health care industry.

The expansion and redesign of the DUF program into the ADAM (Arrestee Drug

Abuse Monitoring) system is one step currently underway to address deficiencies in

existing measures of criminal justice consequences related to drug use. Under ADAM

the number of participating cities will increase from 23 to 75. The resulting data will

constitute a representative sample for each city and will, therefore, provide more

reliable estimates of drug involvement in criminal activity. ONDCP is supporting the

initial expansion of 10 new ADAM sites due to start data collection this year.

! Information on the social cost of drug use and the cost effectiveness of treatment

and treatment alternatives must be comprehensive and research based. The cost

to society of drug use is great and wide-ranging. Components of this cost include

premature death; health care, including caring for drug-addicted children; drug-related

crime; incarceration of drug-related offenders; and lost productivity and tax revenue.

Costs associated with lost productivity accrue in the form of work not performed and

measured in terms of lost earnings. Similarly, costs of crime attributed to illicit drug

abuse include reduced earnings due to incarceration, crime careers, and criminal

victimization. Another social cost of drug use that should be considered is the cost of 4

foster care placements for the children of single parents, who either are incarcerated for

drug-related offenses or are receiving substance abuse treatment in an inpatient facility. 

Although some treatment facilities can accommodate dependents on site, the ability to

do so tends to vary with the ages of the children and the nature of the treatment being

received by the adults. Recidivism rates among drug-related offenders often leads to
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

 Child Welfare League of America, Child Welfare and Chemical Dependency Fact Sheet, n.d.

 James Inciardi et al., “An Effective Model of Prison-Based Treatment For Drug-Involved

Offenders,” Journal of Drug Issues, Spring 1997.

Office of National Drug Control Policy 23

the need for multiple sessions of inpatient treatments, thus multiplying the foster care

costs related to drug use, which will be incurred by state and local governments. For

example, in 1997, an average of 67 percent of parents involved with the child welfare

system needed substance-abuse treatment.5

In order to more effectively address these problems, we need better and more timely

measures of them. The early summer 1998 release of the report, The Economic Costs

of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992, is only the second large scale

study to measure the impact on society of drug use. It has been nearly 10 years since

the last major effort was conducted. Related to this effort must be studies of the cost

effectiveness of the various sanctions employed against drug users and traffickers. 

While there is little research available on the cost effectiveness of incarceration for

drug offenses, recent outcome studies on treatment effectiveness indicate promising

results in decreasing criminal recidivism behavior when treatment is extended over a

significant length of follow-up time. The potential impact of indeterminate sentencing 6

as a deterrence to continued criminal activity, and as a possible incentive for offenders

to participate in treatment is another area in need of further study. We need to continue

to assess the cost effectiveness of various treatment modalities.

! A broad-based system for dissemination of new information should be developed

to encourage use by the research community at large, and by field practitioners.

In order for the wealth of data that is collected by the Federal Government to be of

increased value, it must be made more accessible to researchers. In addition, they must

be encouraged to study it, and the results of their efforts must be disseminated broadly. 

To varying degrees, these issues apply to nearly every Federal data system. For

example, public use tapes for MTF's longitudinal panels and DAWN hospital

emergency department estimates, two of the major data systems relied upon by the
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

24 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Government each year to characterize trends in drug use and its consequences

are not available to the research community for secondary analysis. Making the MTF

data files available would encourage further analysis of the subset of MTF's

longitudinal panel that is followed overtime. Such analyses could have value in further

understanding youth drug use and the impact of patterns of use at various

developmental phases. Similarly, the DAWN data files could be a useful analytic

resource for studying drug use consequences and patterns at the local level. Options

for making these data systems more accessible to the research community for original

research need to be pursued. Other data systems, such as the surveys of local jails and

State and Federal prisons are not conducted frequently enough. Also, additional ways

need to be identified and developed, perhaps through grants, to encourage researchers

to conduct studies using Federal data systems. Conversely, where methodologically

feasible, strategies should be put into place for ideas to flow upwards from localities to

encourage research practitioners at the community, state and regional levels to also

conduct secondary analysis and validation. The majority of the data systems described

in the Inventory in Appendix A of this report are vastly underutilized by the drug

research community. Finally, the results of such drug-related research need to be

disseminated more broadly so that interested researchers, public health officials,

prevention and treatment providers, law enforcement officials, policymakers, and other

concerned parties can make use of them. 

! Federal drug-related information collections must be coordinated to avoid overlap

and duplication of effort, so as to achieve maximum use of results. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), in conjunction with the Office of National Drug

Control Policy, coordinates the review of proposed Federal drug-related information

collections among the approximately fifty drug-control agencies. However, resources

for data collection are limited. Therefore, wasteful and inefficient duplication of effort

in drug-related data collection must be avoided. Existing drug-related data collection

systems should be reviewed for the expressed purpose of identifying any apparent

duplicative measurement. The Data Subcommittee's Inventory of Federal Drug-
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

Office of National Drug Control Policy 25

Related Data Sources is a beginning effort to identify all such information collections. 

For example, the Data Subcommittee questioned whether several of the existing

surveys of jail and prison inmates and institutions could be combined into one or two

surveys. Additionally, questions regarding the possible duplication of effort between

the MTF and the 12- to 17-year-old sample from the NHSDA were raised. The Data

Subcommittee recognizes that such determinations must be thorough and take into

account the purpose and design of the survey and the exact nature of the information

being collected.

! Information collections from State and local level jurisdictions should be designed

with the capability to accommodate a uniform set of standardized data elements. 

Traditionally, the Federal Government has relied upon a number of national-level data

systems to inform drug control policy; these include the NHSDA, DAWN, DUF, MTF,

DEA's price and purity data, FBI crime statistics, the INCSR report on source and

transit countries, and the NNICC report on production, eradication, seizures, and

consumption. However, as we seek more accurate and timely data, we need to make

better use of other data sources. State and local governments routinely collect a wealth

of information that is potentially useful. For example, each State is required to collect

needs assessment data in order to obtain Federal block grant funds in the areas of

prevention, treatment, and law enforcement. Needs assessments must be rigorous and

have a standardized methodology to provide maximum benefit to policymakers. 

Improved dissemination and use of these data would be of tremendous benefit to the

Federal drug policy formulation efforts. The Data Subcommittee is encouraged by a

recently developed protocol and resource guide by the National Institute on Drug

Abuse (NIDA) entitled “Assessing Drug Abuse Within and Across Communities.” 

Based on a National model, NIDA's Community Epidemiology Work Group (CEWG),

this resource guide appears to have great potential for State, county, city, and local

communities interested in developing community drug abuse epidemiology work

groups. Research methods designed to examine consistent patterns of local, county,

and state drug patterns would be extremely useful to officials and policy makers at the
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

26 Office of National Drug Control Policy

national level. The methods and approaches can be used to collect and analyze

practical information that can assist in the formulation of public health policy, drug

abuse treatment and prevention resource management, and research development.

! A scientific methodological study design should be developed to evaluate the

effectiveness of interdiction efforts. Improved data collection in the areas of

interdiction, crop loss, foreign consumption, and domestic seizures are needed to

estimate the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. A model to estimate the flow

of illegal drugs through the various points of entry into the United States, from

production through transit to consumption, needs to be developed. This will require

improved methods for estimating all of the factors that affect the drug supply and its

flow into the United States, including source country production/cultivation,

eradication, loss, seizures at all stages (i.e., source country, transit zone, and domestic

and foreign), and foreign consumption. For example, one area in which almost no

reliable data exist is the amount of drugs seized by State and local authorities. In cases

where Federal authorities are involved, the data are reported to FDSS (Federal-wide

Drug Seizure System), but when drugs are seized by State or local authorities without

Federal involvement, information on the seizure (e.g., type of drug, amount, purity) is

not obtained by FDSS. Such seizures, therefore, cannot be incorporated into

determinations of the supply of drugs available for consumption in the United States. 

Estimates derived from this flow model will have many purposes, including supporting

performance measurement efforts to validate the effectiveness of various counterdrug

programs.

! ONDCP should use its office to enhance information coordination and work with

technical agencies that conduct data collections and research, in order to,

accurately evaluate and assess the impact of potential changes on the Nation's

drug control programs and policies. The spiraling prevalence of drug use and its

consequences of the past decade catapulted to the forefront the need for improved

coordination among Federal drug control agencies. Beginning with the Anti-Drug
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

Office of National Drug Control Policy 27

Abuse Act of 1988 that created ONDCP, and its subsequent reauthorization by the

1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, is evidence of the fact that the

Congress and the general public at large recognized the need for a coordinated public

policy response to the nation's counterdrug policies regarding illegal drug use. The

launching of the ten year NDCS in 1996 offered the first real opportunity to further

address these concerns in a coordinated fashion. The 1996 Strategy provided the focus

needed for the national drug control program and started it down a pathway that would

ensure continuity and an enduring commitment to reduce drug use and its

consequences. It was linked to a five year budget plan that in 1998, was joined by a

companion system designed to monitor and assess the performance of the five goals

and thirty-two objectives, and the overall progress of the Nation's drug control efforts.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The work conducted by the DCRDE Committee clearly supports the need for ONDCP to

assume a more vigorous leadership role in coordinating issues of national drug control policy. 

This has been a recurring theme articulated in various public policy forums designed to increase

dialogue with the research community concerned with the prevalence and public health impact of

illicit drug use. The primary purpose served by the DCRDE Committee's accomplishments has

been to provide input into the Data Subcommittee's efforts to begin the process for integrating

information and national drug control policy. The Inventory of Federal Drug-Related Data

Sources, and the Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Control Policy provide the

necessary background research for the frame of reference with which the full DCRDE Committee

can effectively advise ONDCP.

The next phase will be for ONDCP and the DCRDEC to task the Data Subcommittee with

responsibility for evaluating the adequacy and ability of existing Federal drug-related data

systems to inform the drug policy planning process. Some of what will be needed has already

begun with the development of the Inventory of Federal Drug-Related Data Sources, which

assesses the strengths and limitations of the data sets, and their potential for informing the drug
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

28 Office of National Drug Control Policy

policy process. This process will be further enhanced by the PME system, which will identify and

track specific impact targets and measures within the leading indicators.

Initiatives For Improving Information on National Drug Treatment Capacity

As ONDCP has endeavored to identify gaps in Federal drug-related data sources used to

inform national drug control policy, initiatives have been undertaken to address them. One such

example is an initiative involving the study of the availability of drug treatment within the

criminal justice system. The project, “Substance Abuse Treatment in Correctional Facilities,” was

undertaken by SAMHSA at ONDCP's request, and with the support and collaboration of the

agencies within the U.S. Department of Justice. The original design of the study was undertaken

to investigate the feasibility of developing a methodology for the ongoing collection of

information on the status and availability of drug treatment within the criminal justice

environment for the incarcerated population. While not yet completed, the study promises to

yield encouraging baseline data on the status and availability of treatment in correctional settings. 

Information on the availability and content of treatment in correctional settings is enormously

important to the goals and objectives of the NDCS, not to mention the fact that it provides

additional opportunities for special studies and ongoing research of treatment with the criminal

justice population. Prior to this study, very limited information existed as to the availability of

drug treatment services for this population group. ONDCP will use the DCRDE Committee to

stimulate discussion regarding recommendations for further study in support of NDCS,

particularly, research initiatives focusing on breaking the cycle between drug-related crime and

violence.

Critical to the national research agenda for drug control policy is Federal/State partnership

initiatives. Examples are recent Federal initiatives in support of state infrastructure development

and capacity building for the purpose of assessing prevention and treatment need. HHS's State

Systems Development Program (SSDP), expansion of the National Household Survey on Drug

Abuse (NHSDA), in conjunction with other data sources, technical assistance, the development of

appropriate programmatic outcome measures and the assessments of results, will provide a

powerful means for assessing the state and national picture with regard to the need for prevention
Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

Office of National Drug Control Policy 29

and treatment services. This is another area in which ONDCP will call upon the DCRDEC to

provide policy recommendations regarding the national treatment delivery system and how we

respond to the “gap” in the delivery of treatment services. Currently, it is estimated that

approximately 3.6 million drug users are in need of help to overcome their addiction; we have

only responded to 52 percent of the people that are in need of treatment. At the Federal and State

level, policymakers are debating issues with regard to the programmatic alignment of agency

budgets to address this problem. Analysts are scrutinizing the definition and methodology used

for estimating the size of the treatment gap; the basis for the definition is being questioned in

terms of “treatment need,” as opposed to “treatment demand.”

In summary, the most important contribution of the DCRDE has been its leadership in

causing the drug community to re-think, perhaps more systematically, the whole drug issue. 

Federal drug-related data must be accurate and timely in its description of the scope and

magnitude of the nation's drug problem. Qualitative and quantitative studies of the health and

social consequences associated with drug dependence and the impact it exacts on society, not only

for the drug abuser, but also for significant others in the abuser's family and community, are

needed.

ONDCP will continue to seek the Committee's guidance in identifying opportunities to

further study aspects of the drug problem where limited knowledge is available. Hence, the eight

data principles proposed in this Report are intended to provide the framework within which

ONDCP improve the usefullness and relevance of Federal-drug related information to enhance the

effectiveness and execution of national drug policy research for enforcement and demand

reduction at Federal, state, and local levels. The enclosed data principles will be linked to the

PME system through an annual assessment of the effectiveness of the NDCS.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 31

APPENDIX A

INVENTORY OF FEDERAL DRUG-RELATED DATA SOURCES
Office of National Drug Control Policy 33

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword .................................................................................. 36

Data Inventory Matrix ...................................................................... 37

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

Census of Jails ........................................................................... 41

Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities ........................................ 43

Federal Justice Statistics Database ........................................................... 45

Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) ............................ 47

National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) ............................................... 49

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) ................................................. 51

National Judicial Reporting Program (NJRP) .................................................. 53

National Survey of Prosecutors (NSP) ........................................................ 55

State Court Processing Statistics ............................................................. 57

Survey of Adults on Probation .............................................................. 59

Survey of Inmates in Local Jails ............................................................. 61

Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities ..................................... 63

Survey of Justice Expenditure and Employment (CJEE) .......................................... 65

Survey of Youth in Custody, 1987 ........................................................... 67

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Business Responds to AIDS Benchmark Survey ................................................ 69

1991 National Health Interview Survey of Drug and Alcohol Use (NHIS-DAU) ...................... 70

1992 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey Emergency Room Departmen7 Data ......... 32

National Maternal and Infant Health Survey (NMIHS) ........................................... 74

National, State, and Local Youth Risk Behavior Surveys (YRBS) .................................. 76

National Vital Statistics System, Mortality Data ................................................ 78

The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), 1988-1994 .............. 80

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)

Chemical Handlers Enforcement Management System (CHEMS) .................................. 82

Computerized Asset Program System (CAPS) .................................................. 83

Defendant Statistical System (DSS) .......................................................... 85

Federal-wide Drug Seizure System (FDSS) .................................................... 87

System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) ................................... 89

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Uniform Crime Reports/Age, Sex, and Race of Persons Arrested .................................. 91

Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)

Baseline Interview ........................................................................ 92

Intake 1 ................................................................................. 94

Residential Treatment Eligibility Interview .................................................... 96

Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities, 1991 ....................................... 97

National Institute of Justice (NIJ)

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program ............................................. 98

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey (NLAES) .................................. 100

Substance Abuse Treatment Study (SATS) ................................................... 102

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)

National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health ............................................. 104

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)

Community Epidemiology Work Group (CEWG) .............................................. 106

Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS) .............................................. 108
Table of Contents (Continued)

34 Office of National Drug Control Policy

The Monitoring the Future Study ........................................................... 110

National AIDS Demonstration Research Project ............................................... 113

National Cooperative Agreement for AIDS Community-Based Outreach/Intervention Research

Program ............................................................................ 114

National Pregnancy and Health Survey (NPHS) ............................................... 116

The Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Drug Study (DC*MADS) ............................... 118

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)

The Dynamics of Deviant Behavior, National Youth Survey ..................................... 120

Office of National Drug Control Policy

National Survey of Expenditure for Drug Control Activities of State and Local Governments .......... 122

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS) .................................................... 123

Annualized Spending Estimates for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services ................... 125

Community Partnership Demonstration Program Surveys: Student Survey and Adult Community Survey 127

Cost Profiles of Substance Abuse Treatment Service Delivery Units ............................... 129

Cross-Site Data Sets ...................................................................... 130

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), Emergency Department Component ...................... 131

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), Medical Examiner Component ........................... 133

Drug and Alcohol Services Information System (DASIS) ....................................... 135

Drug Services Research Survey (DSRS) (1990) ............................................... 137

Evaluation of Model Programs for Pregnant and Postpartum Women and Their Infants (PPWI) Outcome

Data Set (ODS) and Process Data Set (PDS) ............................................... 139

Evaluation of a Drug Treatment Enrichment Program at Job Corps Sites ............................ 141

Meta-Analysis of Five Grant Programs Designed To Reduce 

 Substance Abuse-Related Violence ....................................................... 143

National Findings Bank, The ................................................................ 144

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) ........................................... 145

National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study ............................................. 147

Predictor Variables ........................................................................ 149

Services Research Outcome Study (SROS) .................................................... 151

State Needs Assessment Studies ............................................................. 153

Violence Data Exchange Team Network ...................................................... 155

World Health Organization Cross-National Study of Health Behavior Among Youth: U.S.

Component (WHO/SAMHSA Survey) .................................................... 157

U.S. Department of Defense Coordinator for Drug Enforcement Policy and Support and Assistant

Secretary of Defense/Health Affairs

Worldwide Survey of Substance Abuse and Health Behaviors Among Military Personnel .............. 159

U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Interdiction Coordinator

Interagency Counterdrug Performance Assessment Working Group (ICPAWG) ...................... 160

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics

1993 National Household Education Survey, School Safety and Discipline Component ................ 162

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Public Housing Drug Elimination Outcome Monitoring Form ..................................... 164

Public Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP) Grant Awards ................................ 165

Public Housing Drug Elimination Youth Sports Grant Awards .................................... 166

Public Housing Law Enforcement and Security Personnel Form ................................... 167

U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL)

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth79 (NLSY79) ............................................ 168

Quarterly Report on Testing for Alcohol and Other Drugs of Abuse (AODA) ........................ 170
Table of Contents (Continued)

Office of National Drug Control Policy 35

Survey of Employer Anti-drug Programs ...................................................... 171

Workplace Module to National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) ........................ 174

U.S. Department of State

Foreign Drug Seizure and Arrest Data ........................................................ 176

Illicit Crop Estimates ...................................................................... 177
36 Office of National Drug Control Policy

FOREWORD

This document is an inventory of current (i.e., 1988 to the present) Federal drug control data

resources compiled by members of the Office of National Drug Control Policy's (ONDCP) Data,

Evaluation, and Interagency Coordination Subcommittee. The data resources encompass information

covering both drug demand and supply reduction. The data collection activities are supervised by several

Federal agencies including the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the

Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the National Center for Health Statistics,

the National Institute of Justice, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the

National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the National

Institute of Mental Health, ONDCP, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and

the U.S. Departments of Defense, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and State.

It is the mission of the subcommittee to explore ways to better use existing data for policymaking.

The purpose of this inventory is to identify and describe all Federal drug-related data sources available to

policymakers. This drug data inventory differs from previous inventories because of its focus on the

relevance of the data to policy issues. The following elements are provided for each data resource:

! Title of data set

! Frequency of data collection

! Sponsoring agency(ies)

! Point(s) of contact

! Purpose of data set

! How and to whom the data are disseminated

! Available formats

! Sample size

! Methodology

! Drug-related variables

! Other key variables

! Strengths and limitations

! Implications for drug policy

Included at the beginning of the inventory is a matrix containing each data set and how it relates to

the specific reporting requirements of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

(ONDCP is required to report to Congress each year on the progress made in these areas). This matrix

provides a summary indication of which areas are covered by existing data and where gaps exist.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 37

Demand Reduction Assessment of the Determination of the Status

Reduction of Drug Use of Drug Treatment

Assessment of the

Reduction of

Consequences of

Drug Use and

Availability

l definitely

m probably Drug prevalence

Frequency of drug useDrug use in workplace andproductivity lostHigh-risk populationsEmergency roomsHealth care costsHealth-relatedconsequencesTreatment capacityTreatment availability ondemandNo. of drug users whocould benefit w/treatmentSuccess of drug treatmentprograms

CONTINUING 

Worldwide Survey of Substance Abuse and Health

Behaviors Among Military Personnel l l

The Monitoring the Future Study l l l m

National Cooperative Agreement for AIDS CommunityBased Outreach/Intervention Research Program l l l m l l

Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities l l l l m

Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities,

1991 l l l l m

Survey of Inmates in Local Jails l l l l l

Survey of Adults on Probation l l l m

Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional

Facilities l l

Census of Jails l

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program l l m

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth79 (NLSY79) l l

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) l l l l l

Drug and Alcohol Services Information System

(DASIS) l l l l l

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), Emergency

Department Component l l

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), Medical

Examiner Component

Alcohol and Drug Services Survey (ADSS) l l l l l

CSAT State Needs Assessment Studies l l l

National Vital Statistics System, Mortality Data l l m

National, State, and Local Youth Risk Behavior

Surveys (YRBS) l m l

Business Responds to AIDS Benchmark Survey l m

Quarterly Report on Testing for Alcohol and Other

Drugs of Abuse (AODA) l l l l

The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination

Survey (NHANES III) l

The Dynamics of Deviant Behavior, National Youth

Survey l l

Defendant Statistical System (DSS) l
Demand Reduction Assessment of the Determination of the Status

Reduction of Drug Use of Drug Treatment

Assessment of the

Reduction of

Consequences of

Drug Use and

Availability

l definitely

m probably Drug prevalence

Frequency of drug useDrug use in workplace andproductivity lostHigh-risk populationsEmergency roomsHealth care costsHealth-relatedconsequencesTreatment capacityTreatment availability ondemandNo. of drug users whocould benefit w/treatmentSuccess of drug treatmentprograms

38 Office of National Drug Control Policy

ONE-TIME

National Pregnancy and Health Survey (NPHS) l l m m

National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiology Survey

(NLAES) l l l l l l

Survey of TB Screening, Testing and Referral

Practices in Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health

Treatment Facilities

l l l l

Workplace Module to National Household Survey on

Drug Abuse (NHSDA) l l l l l

National AIDS Demonstration Research Project l l l l l l

The Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Drug Study

(DC*MADS) l l m m l m

Services Research Outcome Study (SROS) l l l m m m l

Substance Abuse Treatment Study (SATS) l l

National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health l l l

World Health Organization Cross-National Study of

Health Behavior Among Youth: U.S. Component

(WHO/SAMHSA Survey)

l l l l

1992 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care

Survey Emergency Room Department Data l l

National Maternal and Infant Health Survey (NMIHS) l l

1991 National Health Interview Survey of Drug and

Alcohol Use (NHIS-DAU) l l l

Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS) l l

National Household Education Survey, School Safety

and Discipline Component l l

ASSESSMENT ADMINISTRATION

Public Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP)

Grant Awards

Public Housing Drug Elimination Youth Sports Grant

Awards

Public Housing Drug Elimination Outcome Monitoring

Form

National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study l

Evaluation of a Drug Treatment Enrichment Program at

Job Corps Sites l

Evaluation of Model Programs for Pregnant and

Postpartum Women and Their Infants (PPWI) Outcome

Data Set (ODS) and Process Data Set (PDS)

l

Community Partnership Demonstration Program

Surveys: Student Survey and Adult Community Survey l
Demand Reduction Assessment of the Determination of the Status

Reduction of Drug Use of Drug Treatment

Assessment of the

Reduction of

Consequences of

Drug Use and

Availability

l definitely

m probably Drug prevalence

Frequency of drug useDrug use in workplace andproductivity lostHigh-risk populationsEmergency roomsHealth care costsHealth-relatedconsequencesTreatment capacityTreatment availability ondemandNo. of drug users whocould benefit w/treatmentSuccess of drug treatmentprograms

Office of National Drug Control Policy 39

Intake 1 l l l m

Baseline Interview l l l m

Residential Treatment Eligibility Interview l l l l

CONTEXT

Community Epidemiology Work Group (CEWG) l l l m m

OTHER

Survey of Employer Anti-drug Programs
40 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Supply Reduction Assessment of the Reduction of Drug Availability Consequences of

Assessment of

the Reduction of

Drug Use and

Availability

l definitely

m probably Cocaine, heroin, and

marijuanaCocaine and heroinentering the U.S.Hectares of poppy andcoca cultivated/destroyedMetric tons of heroin andcocaine seizedCocaine processing labsdestroyedPrice and purity of heroinand cocaineDiversion of controlledsubstancesDrug-related crime andcriminal activityContribution of drugs tounderground economy

CONTINUING 

Federal-wide Drug Seizure System (FDSS) l l l m l

System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) l l l l

Foreign Drug Seizure and Arrest Data l l l l

Illicit Crop Estimates l l

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) l

Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities l

Survey of Inmates in Local Jails l

Survey of Adults on Probation l

National Judicial Reporting Program (NJRP) l

State Court Processing Statistics l

National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) l m

Defendant Statistical System (DSS) l

Federal Justice Statistics Database l

Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics

(LEMAS) l

National Survey of Prosecutors (NSP) l

Uniform Crime Reports/Age, Sex, and Race of Persons Arrested l m

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program l

Interagency Counterdrug Performance Assessment Working Group

(ICPAWG) l l

ONE-TIME

Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS) l

National Survey of Expenditure for Drug Control Activities of State

and Local Governments l

Survey of Youth in Custody, 1987 l

ASSESSMENT ADMINISTRATION

Public Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP) Grant Awards

Public Housing Drug Elimination Youth Sports Grant Awards

Public Housing Drug Elimination Outcome Monitoring Form

Public Housing Law Enforcement and Security Personnel Form

Computerized Asset Program System (CAPS)

Chemical Handlers Enforcement Management System (CHEMS)

OTHER

Survey of Justice Expenditure and Employment (CJEE)
Office of National Drug Control Policy 41

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Census of Jails Approximately once every 6 years

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) James J. Stephan, Statistician

Bureau of Justice Statistics

810 Seventh St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Telephone No.: (202) 616-3289

Fax No.: (202) 307-1463

e-mail: stephanj@ojp.usdoj.gov

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

This census provides descriptive information on all locally administered confinement facilities (3,304 total) that

hold inmates beyond arraignment and are staffed by municipal or county employees. The census also includes

17 jails that are privately operated under contract for local governments and 7 facilities maintained by the

Federal Bureau of Prisons that function as jails.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated in written reports, spreadsheet files, and public use files. Public use files are available

from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/home.html). Written reports

that include drug-related information are disseminated to the BJS Drugs and Crime mailing list of 27,500.

Reports and spreadsheets are available from the BJS website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). Subscribers to

JUSTINFO (5,540 users) are notified of each release and updates of electronic files. Data are disseminated to

policymakers at all levels of Government, the media, researchers, educators, students, and the general public.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Public use data are available online through the

Internet, and, upon request, on data tapes, CD-ROM jails, 17 jails that were privately operated under

(Compact Disc-Read Only Memory), and computer contract for local governments, and 7 facilities

diskettes. Written reports are available from the BJS maintained by the Federal Bureau of Prisons and

website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs) in Acrobat Portable functioning as jails. Excluded from the sample were

Document Format and ASCII text. Some data are temporary holding facilities, such as drunk tanks and

available in spreadsheets in WK1 format. police lockups that do not hold persons after they are

The recent census included 3,304 locally-operated

charged in court. Also excluded were State-operated

facilities in Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii,

Rhode Island, and Vermont, which have combined

jail-prison systems.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The facility universe was developed from the National Justice Agency List and updates of the 1988 National

Jail Census. Questionnaires were mailed to facility respondents at the end of June 1993. After extensive

followup, all jails (except those in one jurisdiction) provided data for four critical items: number of inmates,

average daily population, rated capacity, and gender of inmates. Completed forms with data for all or most

items were received for 2,981 jails, resulting in a 90 percent response rate.
42 Office of National Drug Control Policy

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

The census provides the number of jail facilities

conducting drug tests on inmates and staff, drug number of inmates/residents, type of facility, inmate

testing policies, the number of tests conducted deaths, inmate violations, facility capacity, facility

between July 1, 1992, and June 30, 1993, the number function, level of security, facility staffing, and

of tests that were positive, the types of staff subject to expenditures for facilities.

testing, and the number of staff tested.

Other variables include the number of facilities, the

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The census is a complete enumeration of all jail facilities and provides a comprehensive description of the

nature and extent of drug testing in local correctional facilities.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

BJS' prison and jail surveys and censuses were greatly expanded over the past 15 years to collect as much drugrelated data as possible; at the present time the survey series are collecting the most drug-related information

available.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 43

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional

Facilities

Once every 5 to 6 years

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) James J. Stephan, Statistician

Bureau of Justice Statistics

810 Seventh St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Telephone No.: (202) 616-3289

Fax No.: (202) 307-1463

e-mail: stephanj@ojp.usdoj.gov

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

This census provides descriptive information on State- and Federally- operated adult confinement facilities and

community-based adult correctional facilities nationwide. The most recent census (19950) also included

Federal facilities.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated in written reports, spreadsheet files, and public use files. Public use files are available

from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/home.html). Written reports

that include drug-related information are disseminated to the BJS Drugs and Crime mailing list of 27,500.

Reports and spreadsheets are available from the BJS website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). Subscribers to

JUSTINFO (5,540 users) are notified of each release and updates of electronic files. Data are disseminated to

policymakers at all levels of Government, the media, researchers, educators, students, and the general public.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Public use data are available online through the

Internet, and, upon request, on data tapes, CD-ROM Federal correctional facilities.

(Compact Disc-Read Only Memory), and computer

diskettes. Written reports are available from the BJS

website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs) in Acrobat Portable

Document Format and ASCII text. Some data are

available in spreadsheets in WK1 format.

The most recent census included 1,375 State and 110

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The facility universe was developed from the Census of State Adult Correctional Facilities conducted in 1990

and was revised to use the 1995 American Correctional Association Directory and information obtained from

State departments of correction and from the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Questionnaires were mailed to facility respondents at the end of June 1995. Second request forms were mailed

and telephone followups were conducted in the fall, resulting in a final response rate of 100 percent. Facilities

were included in the census if they were staffed with State or Federal employees; housed primarily State or

Federal prisoners; were physically, functionally, and administratively separate from other facilities; and were

operational on the reference date, June 30, 1995.
44 Office of National Drug Control Policy

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

The 1995 census provides the number of inmates or

residents in counseling programs, including those number of inmates/residents, type of facility,

with alcohol and/or drug dependency problems. The incidence of inmate death, inmate violations, facility

1990 census also included an addendum on drug capacity, facility function, level of security, education

control activities that requested information on programs and work assignments, counseling/special

facilities' drug interdiction activities, urinalyses of programs, health and safety conditions, boot camps,

inmates and staff, and specific information about drug and facility staffing.

treatment programs (i.e., type of program, such as

detoxification; estimated capacity of the program; and

number of participants in the program).

Other variables include the number of facilities, the

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Because the census was completely enumerated, the results were not subject to sampling error.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

BJS's prison and jail surveys and censuses were greatly expanded over the past 15 years to collect as much

drug-related data as possible; at the present time the survey are collecting the most drug-related information

available. ONDCP may wish to undertake secondary analysis of the extensive drug treatment data that were

collected by the census, as drug treatment is one of ONDCP's statistical and research priorities this year.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 45

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Federal Justice Statistics Database Annually

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) John Scalia, Jr.

Bureau of Justice Statistics

810 Seventh Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Telephone No.: (202) 616-3276

Fax No.: (202) 307-5846

e-mail: scalia@ojp.usdoj.gov

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To describe the Federal criminal justice system from investigation through release from correctional

supervision

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated in written reports, spreadsheet files, and public use files. Public use files are available

from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/home.html). Written reports

that include drug-related information are disseminated to the BJS Drugs and Crime mailing list of 27,500.

Reports and spreadsheets are available from the BJS website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). Subscribers to

JUSTINFO (5,540 users) are notified of each release and updates of electronic files. Data are disseminated to

policymakers at all levels of Government, the media, researchers, educators, students, and the general public.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Public use data are available online through the

Internet, and, upon request, on data tapes, CD-ROM investigated by U.S. attorneys.

(Compact Disc-Read Only Memory), and computer

diskettes. Written reports are available from the BJS

website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs) in Acrobat Portable

Document Format and ASCII text. Some data are

available in spreadsheets in WK1 format.

In 1996, 97,776 suspects in criminal matters

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The BJS Federal Justice Statistics Database is presently constructed from source files provided by the Executive

Office for U.S. Attorneys, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the U.S. Sentencing

Commission and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. The Administrative Office provide data describing the Federal

judiciary's criminal docket (both district court and appellate court), defendants supervised by Federal pretrial

services officers, and offenders supervised by Federal probation officers.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Processing of Federal drug offenders, including the

outcome of investigations (such as whether the person

was prosecuted, convicted, or incarcerated); time

served in prison; and offense codes permitting the

breakdown of drug offenses into

distribution/manufacture, importation, possession, and

general trafficking categories. This series began in

1984.

The data are available for all offense categories.
46 Office of National Drug Control Policy

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The Federal Justice Statistics Database is unique because it links the separate components of the Federal

criminal justice system (e.g., prosecutors, courts, corrections). Federal cases, however, are a small and

unrepresentative proportion of all drug cases because most criminal justice system activity occurs at the State

and local levels.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Because the data set is dependent upon existing criminal justice data systems in other Federal agencies, BJS has

no control over the variables that ultimately are available for inclusion in the data set. In recent years, the

quality of data describing the type of drug involved in the offense has improved.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 47

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Law Enforcement Management and Administrative

Statistics (LEMAS)

Every 3–4 years

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D., Chief

Law Enforcement and Pretrial Statistics 

Bureau of Justice Statistics

810 Seventh St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Telephone No.: (202) 616-3287

Fax No.: (202) 307-5846

e-mail: reavesb@ojp.usdoj.gov

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To provide national data on the management and administration of law enforcement agencies

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated in written reports, spreadsheet files, and public use files. Public use files are available

from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/home.html). Written reports

that include drug-related information are disseminated to the BJS Drugs and Crime mailing list of 27,500.

Reports and spreadsheets are available from the BJS website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). Subscribers to

JUSTINFO (5,540 users) are notified of each release and updates of electronic files. Data are disseminated to

policymakers at all levels of Government, the media, researchers, educators, students, and the general public.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Public use data are available online through the

Internet, and, upon request, on data tapes, CD-ROM collected data from a nationally representative sample

(Compact Disc-Read Only Memory), and computer of publicly funded State and local law enforcement

diskettes. Written reports are available from the BJS agencies. All State and local law enforcement

website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs) in Acrobat Portable agencies in the United States with 100 or more sworn

Document Format and ASCII text. Some data are officers received the full-length LEMAS

available in spreadsheets in WK1 format. questionnaire, with the remainder receiving a shorter

In 1987, 1990, 1993, and 1997 the LEMAS survey

version. For each year, data are available for

approximately 3,000 agencies.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The sampling frame for the LEMAS survey is the Directory Survey of Law Enforcement Agencies, a census of

agencies conducted in 1986, 1992, and 1996. The non-self-representing agencies were chosen using a stratified

random sample with cells based on the type of agency (local police, sheriff, or special police), size of

population served, and number of sworn officers. The data are collected by the Bureau of the Census for BJS. 

Response rates for all LEMAS surveys have exceeded 90%.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Drug-related variables include existence of laboratory

testing facilities, drug enforcement units, drug agencies, number of personnel, operating

education units, the number of officers assigned to expenditures, workload level, primary

special drug units, the cost of such units, participation responsibilities, participation in the 911 system,

in multijurisdictional task forces, receipt of assets characteristics of personnel, training requirements,

from asset forfeiture programs, types of drugs seized, personnel salaries, equipment, nonlethal weapons, and

arrestee and employee testing programs. use of computers.

Other variables include number of law enforcement
48 Office of National Drug Control Policy

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

It provides nationally representative data, but data are mostly limited to management and administrative

matters.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

All available information relevant to drug policy is currently being collected. The survey could be conducted at

more frequent intervals.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 49

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP) Annually

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., Chief

Corrections Statistics

Bureau of Justice Statistics

810 Seventh St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Telephone No.: (202) 616-3277

Fax No.: (202) 307-0128

e-mail: becka@ojp.usdoj.gov

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To describe prisoners entering and leaving custody or supervision, including time served

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated in written reports, spreadsheet files, and public use files. Public use files are available

from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/home.html). Written reports

that include drug-related information are disseminated to the BJS Drugs and Crime mailing list of 27,500.

Reports and spreadsheets are available from the BJS website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). Subscribers to

JUSTINFO (5,540 users) are notified of each release and updates of electronic files. Data are disseminated to

policymakers at all levels of Government, the media, researchers, educators, students, and the general public.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Public use data are available online through the

Internet, and, upon request, on data tapes and admission data was based on 38 States, the District of

CD-ROM (Compact Disc-Read Only Memory. Columbia, and the California Youth Authority,

Documentation for using the data sets is available reporting a total of 431,279 admissions. Release data

from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data was based on 36 States reporting a total of

website in Acrobat Portable Document Format and 347,854 releases. State parole entry data was based

ASCII text. Some data are available in spreadsheets in on 36 States, with 198,009 first-entry-to-paroleWK1 format. In March 1988, BJS issued a special supervision cases for State prisoners. State parole

seven disk set of CD-ROMs covering 1983 to 1994 discharge data was based on 29 States reporting

and containing all NCRP data collected to date— 221,552 cases of discharges after parole supervision.

several million records on the movement of offenders

into and out of correctional facilities and parole

supervision. The CDs are available from the National

Archive of Criminal Justice Data

(www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/home.html). More

recent data will be issued on CD-ROM as released.

In 1992, the most recent year of published data,

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The NCRP collects data on all prison admissions and releases and on parole entries and discharges during each

calendar year from participating jurisdictions. Multiple admissions or releases per person during the year have

been recorded as separate events. The data are provided to BJS by participating sites on data tape format or in

hard copy. The U.S. Bureau of the Census recodes the offense codes into a common format.
50 Office of National Drug Control Policy

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

NCRP contains statistics on prisoners and parolees

whose most serious conviction offense was drug court commitment or parole revocation); sentence

trafficking or possession. length; credited jail time; demographic

Variables include: type of prison admission (i.e., new

characteristics; time served in prison; type of prison

release (i.e., discretionary or mandatory); method of

parole discharge; and time served on parole.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The data are not nationally representative. They are representative only of admissions and releases to the State

and Federal correctional systems that participate and the inmates admitted or released by these correctional

systems. Variations in State practices may restrict some State-by-State comparisons. Calculations of time served

are restricted to persons released from prison or parole (i.e., exit cohorts) and may not accurately reflect time to

be served by persons those entering prison or parole (i.e., admission cohorts).

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

The data may be used to describe the sentences and the length of stay for the first release of convicted drug

offenders. With additional funds, the NCRP could be used to track drug offenders over time or to conduct postrelease recidivism studies of released drug offenders. The development of a cohort of releasees could provide

valuable data on drug use, drug treatment, and criminal involvement of parolees, who are one of the high-risk

groups targeted by ONDCP for study this year.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 51

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) Annually

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Michael R. Rand, Chief

Victimization Statistics 

Bureau of Justice Statistics

810 Seventh St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Telephone No.: (202) 616-3494

Fax No.: (202) 307-1463

e-mail: randm@ojp.usdoj.gov

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To estimate the prevalence of criminal victimization in the United States, including characteristics of victims,

offenders, the crime, and reports to police.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated in written reports, spreadsheet files, and public use files. Public use files are available

from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/home.html). Written reports

that include drug-related information are disseminated to the BJS Drugs and Crime mailing list of 27,500.

Reports and spreadsheets are available from the BJS website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). Subscribers to

JUSTINFO (5,540 users) are notified of each release and updates of electronic files. Data are disseminated to

policymakers at all levels of Government, the media, researchers, educators, students, and the general public.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Public use data are available online through the

Internet, and, upon request, on data tapes, CD-ROM households.

(Compact Disc-Read Only Memory), and computer

diskettes. Written reports are available from the BJS

website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs) in Acrobat Portable

Document Format and ASCII text. Some data are

available in spreadsheets in WK1 format.

In 1996, approximately 94,000 persons in 45,400
52 Office of National Drug Control Policy

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Individuals age 12 and older living in units designated for the sample were eligible for interviews. Each

housing unit selected for the survey remains in the sample for 3 years, with each of seven interviews taking

place at 6-month intervals. An interviewer's first contact with a housing unit selected for the survey is in

person, and, if it is not possible to secure face-to-face interviews with all eligible members of the household

during this initial visit, interviews are permissible by telephone. Since March 1986, all interviews were

conducted by telephone whenever possible, except for the first and fifth interviews, which are still primarily

conducted in person. In 1997, the fifth interview has been conducted by telephone. In 1996, approximately

75 percent of interviews were conducted by telephone.

Survey estimates are based on data obtained from a stratified, multistage, cluster sample. The primary sampling

units included in the first stage of the sampling were counties, groups of counties, or large metropolitan areas. 

The remaining stages of sampling were designed to ensure a self-weighting probability sample of dwelling units

and group quarters within each selected area. Occupants of about 95 percent of all eligible housing units

responded to the survey.

In addition to the core survey, the NCVS can incorporate periodic supplements to obtain information on various

crime-related topics of interest. For 6 months in 1989 and the first 6 months in 1995, a School Crime

Supplement to the NCVS was conducted. This supplement was administered to individuals ages 12B19

attending schools leading toward high school diplomas. Individuals receiving home schooling were not

included in the sample.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

The core NCVS questions ask violent crime victims

their perceptions of drug or alcohol use by offenders. socioeconomic characteristics of crime victims, time

and place of occurrence of the crime, weapon use, The School Crime Supplement includes questions

pertaining to students' knowledge about the difficulty

of obtaining different types of drugs at school. It also

asks students if they know whether street gangs have

been dealt drugs at school.

Other variables include demographic and

injury, self-protective measures, economic costs to

victims, victim-offender relationship, and reports to

police.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The NCVS includes both reported and unreported crimes to law enforcement officials, but it excludes homicide,

arson, commercial crimes, and crimes against children under age 12.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Because the survey obtains information only from victims, who may or may not have observed the offender or

known the motivation for the crime, the information to explore the relationship between drugs and crime

victimization is limited. We could learn much more about drug use and about the relationship between drug use

and (the user's) victimization if we conducted a supplemental survey to the NCVS, adding questions on illegal

drug and alcohol use by victims and nonvictims. Ideally this would be part of an outgoing rotation panel(s) so

as to not Acontaminate@ the regular survey. Alternatively, if we coordinated the sample to take the Substance

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration household survey and the victimization survey and crossanalyzed the two data sets, more could be learned about this topic.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 53

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

National Judicial Reporting Program (NJRP) Once every 2 years

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D., Statistician

Bureau of Justice Statistics

810 Seventh St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Telephone No.: (202) 616-3490

Fax No.: (202) 307-0128 

e-mail: langanp@ojp.usdoj.gov

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To provide national data on the State judicial portion of the criminal justice system

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated in written reports, spreadsheet files, and public use files. Public use files are available

from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/home.html). Written reports

that include drug-related information are disseminated to the BJS Drugs and Crime mailing list of 27,500.

Reports and spreadsheets are available from the BJS website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). Subscribers to

JUSTINFO (5,540 users) are notified of each release and updates of electronic files. Data are disseminated to

policymakers at all levels of Government, the media, researchers, educators, students, and the general public.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Public use data are available online through the

Internet, and, upon request, on data tapes, CD-ROM

(Compact Disc-Read Only Memory), and computer

diskettes. Written reports are available from the BJS

website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs) in Acrobat Portable

Document Format and ASCII text. Some data are

available in spreadsheets in WK1 format.

300 counties and 85,191 felony cases.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The survey used a two-stage, stratified cluster sampling design. In the first stage, the Nation's 3,109 counties or

county equivalents were divided into 8 strata. At the second stage of sampling, a systematic sample of felons

was selected from each county's official records, totaling 85,191 cases. State courts were the source of NJRP

data for about 85 percent of the 300 counties sampled. For other counties, sources included prosecutors'

offices, sentencing commissions, and statistical agencies. NJRP records on individuals were obtained through a

variety of collection methods, including magnetic tape (from 64 percent of the counties) and field collection

(9 percent). Photocopies of official documents and survey questionnaires completed by court officials were

additional data sources (27 percent).

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Included were the number of felony convictions in

State courts for drug offenses. information about the conviction and the sentence

Other variables are demographic information and

(including type of sentence, sentence length, and

estimated time to be served, method of conviction,

and case processing time).

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The data set is limited to information on cases that result in a felony conviction. Because most drug possession

cases are ruled as misdemeanors, the series does not cover all judicial activity regarding drug cases.
54 Office of National Drug Control Policy

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

At vastly increased cost, the survey could be conducted annually, expanded to include selected misdemeanor

cases (including drug cases), and modified to separately examine cocaine cases and crack cocaine cases.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 55

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

National Survey of Prosecutors (NSP) Once every 2 years (since 1990)

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Steven K. Smith, Ph.D., Chief

Law Enforcement, Adjudication, and Federal

Statistics

Bureau of Justice Statistics

810 Seventh St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Telephone No.: (202) 616-3485

Fax No.: (202) 307-5846

e-mail: smithste@ojp.usdoj.gov

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To provide information about the characteristics, staffing, workload, and operations of local prosecutors'

offices.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated in written reports, spreadsheet files, and public use files. Public use files are available

from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/home.html). Written reports

that include drug-related information are disseminated to the BJS Drugs and Crime mailing list of 27,500.

Reports and spreadsheets are available from the BJS website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). Subscribers to

JUSTINFO (5,540 users) are notified of each release and updates of electronic files. Data are disseminated to

policymakers at all levels of Government, the media, researchers, educators, students, and the general public.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Public use data are available online through the

Internet, and, upon request, on data tapes, CD-ROM prosecutors out of a universe of 2,400 who handle

(Compact Disc-Read Only Memory), and computer felony cases in State courts of general jurisdiction. 

diskettes. Written reports are available from the BJS The 1990 and 1992 samples were based on those

website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs) in Acrobat Portable counties with courts in the nationally representative

Document Format and ASCII text. Some data are survey for the 1990 National Judicial Reporting

available in spreadsheets in WK1 format. Program, making the prosecution sample nationally

In 1990 and 1992 the sample consisted of 290 chief

representative as well. In 1994 and 1996, the 308

chief prosecutors surveyed are a nationally drawn

representative sample of the approximately 2,343 who

prosecute felony cases in State courts of general

jurisdiction. A list of all prosecutorial districts that

handle felony cases was compiled from the

approximately 3,100 counties and independent cities

in the United States. The universe database listed

2,343 prosecutorial districts, 1992 population figures,

and 1992 UCR Part I adult arrest data by county. The

2,343 prosecutorial districts were grouped in 6 strata,

depending on the number of Part I adult arrests in

1992. Within each stratum, districts were

systematically selected for the sample.
56 Office of National Drug Control Policy

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Questionnaires were mailed to 290 prosecutors' offices in 1990 and 1992, and 308 prosecutors' offices in 1994

and 1996. The overall response rate in 1994 was nearly 90 percent; in 1992, 90.3 percent; and in 1990, only

one office refused to participate. The 1996 data are still being analyzed and will be available by the end of

calendar 1998.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

In the 1992 data, drug-related variables include drug

testing of staff, existence of specialized narcotics units methods of prosecution used, types of evidence used

in the office, and office participation in in trials, use of intermediate sanctions, types of

multijurisdictional narcotics task forces. Additional problem cases (e.g., threats against victims and

data in the 1994 data set are the presence of a drug witnesses), threats and assaults on staff, security

court, cross-designation of Federal prosecutors and measures used in the office (including staff carrying

local prosecution of drug cases in Federal court, the firearms), civil actions taken against prosecutors,

use of drug rehabilitation as a sanction, juvenile cases types of indigent defense used, staffing, workload

transferred from juvenile court to adult criminal court, size, budget, criminal history information used and

organized by type of offense (including drugs), and problems with it, types of juvenile matters handled,

whether the office is involved with community-based victim-witness programs, computerization, and

drug abuse programs, organized by program type community activities.

(e.g., treatment, prevention, education).

Other variables include types of felony cases handled,

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

It provides nationally representative data, but the data are mostly limited to management and administrative

matters. Much remains to be known about the prosecution of drug cases across the country.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Only restructuring this data collection series could allow information to be collected on the case processing of

drug cases—from case initiation to final disposition. This would allow an examination of early diversion of

minor drug cases, for example, and their ultimate outcomes.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 57

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

State Court Processing Statistics Every 2 years, since 1990

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D., Chief

Law Enforcement and Pretrial Statistics

Bureau of Justice Statistics

810 Seventh St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Telephone No.: (202) 616-3287

Fax No.: (202) 307-5846

e-mail: reavesb@ojp.usdoj.gov

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To provide detailed information about the criminal history, pretrial processing, adjudication, and sentencing of

felony defendants in State courts.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated in written reports, spreadsheet files, and public use files. Public use files are available

from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/home.html). Written reports

that include drug-related information are disseminated to the BJS Drugs and Crime mailing list of 27,500.

Reports and spreadsheets are available from the BJS website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). Subscribers to

JUSTINFO (5,540 users) are notified of each release and updates of electronic files. Data are disseminated to

policymakers at all levels of Government, the media, researchers, educators, students, and the general public.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Public use data are available online through the

Internet, and, upon request, on data tapes, CD-ROM cases filed during May in 40 of the Nation's 75 largest

(Compact Disc-Read Only Memory), and computer jurisdictions.

diskettes. Written reports are available from the BJS

website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs) in Acrobat Portable

Document Format and ASCII text. Some data are

available in spreadsheets in WK1 format.

The SCPS tracks approximately 13,000-14,000 felony

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The sample is a two-stage stratified sample: 40 of the 75 most populous counties are selected at the first stage,

and a systematic sample of State court felony filings (defendants) within each county is selected at the second

stage. The participating jurisdictions provided data for every felony case filed on selected days during that

month. Depending on its first-stage stratum, each jurisdiction provided data for 1, 2, or 4 weeks' worth of

filings during the month of May.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Data were collected for defendants charged with

felony drug offenses. detention, bail amount, criminal justice status at the

Other variables included type of pretrial release or

time of offense, court appearance history, prior

conviction record, time from arrest to pretrial release,

defendant characteristics, failure to appear, pretrial

rearrest, time from arrest to adjudication, and

sentencing outcome.
58 Office of National Drug Control Policy

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The data set is representative of the Nation's 75 most populous counties, which in 1994 accounted for about

36 percent of the U.S. population, about half of all serious crimes reported to law enforcement agencies, and

about half of all felony convictions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

As discussed in questions above, this data set provides data on pretrial processing and outcomes for drug

offenders compared with other offenders. Collecting additional drug-related variables or in-depth analysis of

existing drug-related data using this methodology does not appear possible.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 59

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Survey of Adults on Probation Conducted for first time in 1995. (Possibly will be

collected in 2001.)

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., Chief

Corrections Statistics

Bureau of Justice Statistics

810 Seventh St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Telephone No.: (202) 616-3277

Fax No.: (202) 307-0128

e-mail: becka@ojp.usdoj.gov

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To describe characteristics of adults on probation.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated in written reports, spreadsheet files, and public use files. Public use files are available

from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/home.html). Written reports

that include drug-related information are disseminated to the BJS Drugs and Crime mailing list of 27,500.

Reports and spreadsheets are available from the BJS website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). Subscribers to

JUSTINFO (5,540 users) are notified of each release and updates of electronic files. Data are disseminated to

policymakers at all levels of Government, the media, researchers, educators, students, and the general public.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Public use data are available online through the

Internet, and, upon request, on data tapes, CD-ROM sample, in which 5,867 probationers in 167 State and

(Compact Disc-Read Only Memory), and computer local adult probation offices were selected for

diskettes. Written reports are available from the BJS administrative records checks, and a personal

website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs) in Acrobat Portable interview sample, in which approximately 2,030 adult

Document Format and ASCII text. Some data are probationers in 101 offices were interviewed.

available in spreadsheets in WK1 format.

The data set contained two samples: a records-check

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The sample for the 1995 survey was selected from a universe of more than 2,500 State and local probation

offices that were enumerated in the 1991 Census of Probation and Parole Agencies. The sample design for the

records check sample was a stratified two stage selection. In the first stage, adult probation offices were

separated into four sampling frames: one for State-level executive branch offices; one for State-level judicial

branch offices; one for local-level executive branch offices; and one for local-level judicial branch offices. 

Within each frame, offices were stratified into four strata defined by census region (i.e., Northeast, Midwest,

South, and West). Offices were then selected with probabilities proportionate to size. In the second stage,

interviewers systematically selected a sample of adults on probation using predetermined procedures.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Variables include alcohol and drug-use history, selfreports on prior criminal activity, demographic data, offense categories. Other variables include

drug treatment, drug testing, family background, gang citizenship, HIV infection status, alcohol use, current

membership, drug-related crime, weapon use, and or past treatment, conditions of sentences, and the

needle sharing. nature of current supervision.

The drug-related variables will be reported for all
60 Office of National Drug Control Policy

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The data set provides national-level estimates of drug use and treatment of adults on probation. Data collection

was completed in 1995, but with substantial increase in funds, the collection could be repeated every 5 years. 

Additional funds also would be required to expand the interview sample in order to obtain more precise

estimates.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

This is BJS' only survey on drug use for a nonincarcerated population. We expect it to be particularly useful

because more than one-half of persons under correctional supervision are on probation. ONDCP may be

particularly interested because drug use among the high-risk population of probationers is one of its analytic

priorities and ONDCP may wish to design and fund an analytic program that would fully mine this rich data

source.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 61

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Survey of Inmates in Local Jails Approximately once every 5 years

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph.D., Statistician

Bureau of Justice Statistics

810 Seventh St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Telephone No.: (202) 307-0757

Fax No.: (202) 307-0128

e-mail: harlowc@ojp.usdoj.gov

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To describe the characteristics of inmates in local jails.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated in written reports, spreadsheet files, and public use files. Public use files are available

from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/home.html). Written reports

that include drug-related information are disseminated to the BJS Drugs and Crime mailing list of 27,500.

Reports and spreadsheets are available from the BJS website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). Subscribers to

JUSTINFO (5,540 users) are notified of each release and updates of electronic files. Data are disseminated to

policymakers at all levels of Government, the media, researchers, educators, students, and the general public.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Public use data will be available online through the

Internet, and, upon request, on data tapes, and local jails.

CD-ROM (Compact Disc-Read Only Memory).

Written reports are available from the BJS website

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs) in Acrobat Portable

Document Format and ASCII text. Some data will be

available in spreadsheets in WK1 format.

For the 1996 survey, 6,133 jail inmates from 431

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Data were collected through personal interviews conducted from October 1995 through March 1996. The

sample for the 1996 survey was selected from 3,328 jails enumerated in the 1993 National Jail Census. The

sample design was a stratified two-stage selection. In the first stage, six strata were formed based on the size of

the male and female inmate populations. In two strata, all jails were selected; in the remaining four strata, a

systematic sample of jails was selected proportional to the population size of each jail. In the second stage,

interviewers visited each selected facility and systematically selected a sample of male and female inmates

using predetermined procedures. Depending upon stratum, 1 of every 100 or 83 males and 1 of every 50, 25,

24, or 21 females were selected. The overall response rate was 86.3 percent.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Variables include drug and alcohol use, criminal

history, current offense, sentence length, health care, employment, military service, marital status, HIV

demographic characteristics, socioeconomic infection status, and mental health treatment.

characteristics, parental abuse of drugs or alcohol,

onset of drug use, drug use and childhood living

arrangements, prior physical or sexual abuse, drugrelated crime, and drug treatment.

Other variables included in the survey were pre-arrest
62 Office of National Drug Control Policy

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The data set provides national-level estimates of drug use and treatment of inmates in local jails. With a

substantial increase in funds, the sample of jails and inmates could be expanded to permit over-sampling of

convicted violent offenders to obtain better estimates of the extent and nature of drug-related violent crimes. 

Additional treatment questions could be added to measure the inmates' extent of past or current treatment in

correctional setting.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

BJS' prison and jail surveys and censuses were greatly expanded over the past 15 years to collect as much drugrelated data as possible; at the present time the surveys are collecting the most drug-related information

available. Inmate interviews provide data on the proximity of the crime incident to place of drug use,

thresholds for earlier criminal behavior or drug-using behavior, and gateways to alcohol and drugs. BJS made

extensive use of the 1983 and 1989 jail inmate survey data on drug use and crime, and much of what we know

about the drug-crime relationship is based on the data analysis. ONDCP may consider developing and funding

an intensive analytic program to fully mine the 1996 survey results as rapidly as possible.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 63

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional

Facilities

Approximately once every 5 years

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Bureau of Justice Statistics

Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph.D., Statistician

810 Seventh St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Telephone No.: (202) 307-0757

Fax No.: (202) 307-0128

e-mail: harlowc@ojp.usdoj.gov

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To describe characteristics of State and Federal prison inmates.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated in written reports, spreadsheet files, and public use files. Public use files are available

from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/home.html). Written reports

that include drug-related information are disseminated to the BJS Drugs and Crime mailing list of 27,500.

Reports and spreadsheets are available from the BJS website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). Subscribers to

JUSTINFO (5,540 users) are notified of each release and updates of electronic files. Data are disseminated to

policymakers at all levels of Government, the media, researchers, educators, students, and the general public.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Public use data are available online through the

Internet, and, upon request, on data tapes, CD-ROM prisons and 6,572 inmates in 53 Federal facilities.

(Compact Disc-Read Only Memory), and computer

diskettes. Written reports are available from the BJS

website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs) in Acrobat Portable

Document Format and ASCII text. Some data are

available in spreadsheets in WK1 format.

For the 1991 survey, 13,986 inmates from 277 State
64 Office of National Drug Control Policy

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The sample for the 1991 State survey was selected from 1,239 State prisons that were enumerated in the 1990

Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities or were operating after the census' completion. The

sample for the Federal survey was selected from a universe of 95 federal prisons operating in March 1991. The

sample design for both surveys was a stratified, two-stage selection. In the first stage, Federal and State

correctional facilities were each separated into two sampling frames: one for prisons with male inmates and one

for prisons with female inmates. Prisons holding inmates of both sexes were included on both lists. For the

State survey, prisons were stratified into eight strata as defined by census region (i.e., Northeast, Midwest,

South, and West) and facility type (i.e., confinement and community based). All prisons with 1,950 or more

men were selected from the male frame and all prisons with 380 or more women were selected from the female

frame. The remaining prisons in the male frame were grouped into equal size strata of approximately 2,600

males and then further stratified by security level. The remaining prisons in the female frame also were grouped

into strata of approximately 574 females. A systematic sample of prisons was then selected within strata on

each frame with probabilities proportional to the size of each prison. For the Federal facility the 26 largest

prisons holding men and the 6 largest holding women were selected with certainty. The remaining 55 male

facilities were stratified into 19 roughly equal size strata based mainly on security level (high, medium, low,

minimum, and administrative). The eight female facilities were stratified into two strata by security level. One

facility was selected form each of the 21 strata, with probability proportionate to size. In the second stage,

interviewers visited each selected State facility and systematically selected a sample of male and female inmates

using predetermined procedures. The overall response rate was 93.7 percent. For the Federal facilities a

systematic sample of inmates to be interviewed was selected for each facility from the Bureau of Prisons' central

list using a random start and a total number of interviews based on the size of the facility and the sex of the

inmates held. The overall response rate was 93.4 percent.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Includes use of drugs and alcohol, self-reports on

criminal activity, demographic data, drug treatment, categories. Other variables include citizenship,

drug testing, victim's use of drugs or alcohol, family parents in prison, victim characteristics, victimbackground, gang membership, drug-related crime, offender relationships, injury to victims, HIV

use of weapons, and needle sharing. infection status, participation in prison programs, and

The drug-related variables are reported for all offense

security level of the prison.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The data set provides national-level estimates of drug use and treatment of inmates in State prisons. State and

Federal surveys were again conducted in 1997 and will be available in 1999. With a substantial increase in

funds, the sample of prisons and inmates could be expanded to permit over sampling of convicted violent

offenders to obtain better estimates of the extent and nature of drug-related violent crime. Additional treatment

questions could be added to measure the inmates' extent of past or current treatment in correctional settings.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

BJS' prison and jail surveys and censuses were greatly expanded during the past 15 years to collect as much

drug-related data as possible. At present the surveys are collecting the most drug-related information available. 

Inmate interviews provide data on the proximity of the crime incident to the place of drug use, thresholds of

earlier criminal behavior or drug-using behavior, and gateways to alcohol and drugs use. BJS made extensive

use the 1991 survey data and data analysis during a 5-year period. However, BJS was unable to replicate or

shorten that 5-year analytic period for the 1997 survey data. ONDCP may consider developing and funding an

intensive analytic program to fully mine the 1997 survey results, including the new drug-related variables first

collected in 1997, as rapidly as possible.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 65

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Survey of Justice Expenditure and Employment

(CJEE)

Annually from 1971–79; 1985; 1988; 1990

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Sue Lindgren, Statistician

Bureau of Justice Statistics

810 Seventh St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Telephone No.: (202) 307-0760

Fax No.: (202) 616-1351

e-mail: lindgren@ojp.usdoj.gov

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

The surveys provide basic information about the financing and staffing of the criminal justice system at all

levels of government for the separate criminal justice sectors of police protection, prosecution and legal

services, judicial, public defense, corrections, and a residual “other” category. It provides the variable passthrough data required for the allocation of State grants under the BJA Bryne Memorial formula grant program.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated in written reports, spreadsheet files, and public use files. Public use files are available

from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/home.html). Written reports

that include drug-related information are disseminated to the BJS Drugs and Crime mailing list of 27,500.

Reports and spreadsheets are available from the BJS website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). Subscribers to

JUSTINFO (5,540 users) are notified of each release and updates of electronic files. Data are disseminated to

policymakers at all levels of Government, the media, researchers, educators, students, and the general public.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Public use data are available online through the

Internet, and, upon request, on data tapes, CD-ROM from all State governments and a total of 8,867 local

(Compact Disc-Read Only Memory), and computer governments (i.e., 3,042 county governments,

diskettes. Written reports are available from the BJS 4,693 municipalities, and 1,132 townships).

website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs) in Acrobat Portable

Document Format and ASCII text. Some data are

available in spreadsheets in WK1 format.

The most recent survey (1990) included information

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The survey was accomplished using two methods of data collection: field compilation and mail canvassing. 

Trained field representatives compiled expenditure and employment data from the governments' own records

for all States, 72 counties, and 49 municipalities. Other units in the sample were canvassed by mail. Response

for the field-compiled units was 100 percent. For the mail canvass units, the response rate was 87 percent.
66 Office of National Drug Control Policy

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

No drug-related variables are included in these data

sets. However, BJS has requested a budget type of function and character and object (e.g., direct

enhancement for fiscal year 1999 that would allow the current, capital outlay, intergovernmental, and

collection of data for 1998–99; with additional employment information by full-time equivalent, fullresources, that survey could be modified to also time only, part-time, and October payroll).

collect State and local drug control expenditures as

was done in 1990–91 for ONDCP by the U.S. Census

Bureau, which used the CJEE sample and modified

data collection procedures. A similar BJS data series,

the Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts

program presents data for 1980–94; it is not possible

to modify that series to collect drug control

expenditure data.

Included were basic criminal justice expenditure by

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The survey is based on a sample and the national totals and State-level estimates are subject to sampling error. 

The totals do not contain fringe benefits data because they cannot be consistently collected for all governments.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

See above drug-related variable discussion.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 67

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Survey of Youth in Custody, 1987 1987; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention plans fiscal 1998 funding to support

methodological development for a new survey in the

future.

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

1987: Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

Subsequent: Office of Juvenile Justice and Corrections Statistics

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Bureau of Justice Statistics

Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., Chief

810 Seventh St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Telephone No.: (202) 616-3277

Fax No.: (202) 307-0128

e-mail: becka@ojp.usdoj.gov

Joseph Moone

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention

810 Seventh St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Telephone No.: (202) 616-3643

Fax No.: (202) 307-2819

e-mail: moone@ojp.usdoj.gov

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To describe the characteristics of juveniles and young adults in long-term, State-operated correctional

institutions.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated in written reports, spreadsheet files, and public use files. Public use files are available

from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/home.html). Written reports

that include drug-related information are disseminated to the BJS Drugs and Crime mailing list of 27,500.

Reports and spreadsheets are available from the BJS website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). Subscribers to

JUSTINFO (5,540 users) are notified of each release and updates of electronic files. Data are disseminated to

policymakers at all levels of Government, the media, researchers, educators, students, and the general public.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Public use data are available online through the

Internet, and, upon request, on data tapes, CD-ROM and young adults in 50 facilities in 26 States.

(Compact Disc-Read Only Memory), and computer

diskettes. Written reports are available from the BJS

website (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs) in Acrobat Portable

Document Format and ASCII text. Some data are

available in spreadsheets in WK1 format.

1987 interviews were conducted with 2,621 juveniles

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The 1987 sample design was a stratified sample based on the size of the correctional facility. Long-term and

State-operated facilities with institutional environments were included in the sampling frame. Excluded from

the survey were locally operated institutions, State facilities not designed for secure custody, and all short-term

or privately-operated facilities and institutions. The sample resulted in interviews of 1-in-4 long-term, Stateoperated institutions and approximately 1-in-10 residents nationwide. The overall response rate was 89 percent.
68 Office of National Drug Control Policy

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

1987 data included use of drugs and alcohol, age at

first use, frequency of use, and drug-related crime. for all offense categories. 1987 data also include selfMost of the 1987 drug-related variables are reported

reports on criminal history and demographic data.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The 1987 data set provides national-level estimates of drug use and criminal activity among juveniles and

young adults in long-term, State-operated correctional institutions. It does not include data on juveniles housed

in less-restrictive facilities. It is a national sample and can provide no State-level or local data. The BJS data

are now 11 years old. Comparability of 1987 data and data planned for collection by OJJDP is unknown.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

BJS's prison and jail surveys (which served as a model for the 1987 youth in custody survey) were greatly

expanded over the past 2 decades to collect as much drug-related data as possible; at present the series are

collecting the maximum amount of drug-related information available. Data collected on youth in 1987 (or

possibly in a future survey) can provide data on the proximity of the crime incident to drug use, whether

criminal behavior or drug-using behavior commenced earlier, and gateway issues of alcohol and drugs, but

OJJDP plans to include such drug-related data are unknown.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 69

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Business Responds to AIDS Benchmark Survey Baseline 1995; repeat in 1998-2000 as resources

permit

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Cynthia Jorgensen, Dr.P.H.

DCPC/CDC

MS K-57

Atlanta, GA 30333

Telephone No.: (770) 488-3094

Fax No.: (770) 488-4627

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To monitor worksite policies and practices related to HIV/AIDS and compare them with a selected number of

other health issues.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Through scientific conferences and publications.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

The data is not yet available for public use. Data was obtained from a sample of 2,252 worksites

across the country.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Stratified random sample of 2,252 worksites representing 6 industrial classification and 5 size strata. 

Computer-assisted telephone interviews of directors of health promotion or human resources with a 78 percent

response rate. Data weighted to represent all U.S. worksites with 15 or more employees.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Drug and alcohol use policies and drug and alcohol

education at the worksite; illegal drug testing of job practices, with several other issues (e.g., cancer,

applicants. worker safety and health, nutrition, physical activity,

Most of the variables focused on AIDS policies and

etc.).

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: There is a wide range of information collected on a variety of health promotion topics but

particularly detailed information on AIDS-related practices and policies. The design mimicked ODPNP's 1992

Worksite Survey to allow some comparisons.

Limitations: There is limited detailed information available on other health issues. Limited comparison to

1992 data possible.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Data will be useful in tracking changes in alcohol and drug policies and practices at the worksite.
70 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

1991 National Health Interview Survey of Drug and

Alcohol Use (NHIS-DAU)

A one-time survey (1991)

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS),

Division of Health Interview Statistics, Centers for Division of Health Interview Statistics

Disease Control and Prevention, in collaboration with National Center for Health Statistics

the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Presidential Bldg., Rm. 850

Administration (formerly with the National Institute 6525 Belcrest Rd.

on Drug Abuse) Hyattsville, MD 20782

Owen Thornberry, Director

Telephone No.: 

Fax No.: 

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

The primary purpose of the NHIS-DAU was to collect data to study relationships between drug use and the

various health status indicators provided by the National Health Interview Survey. Although the DAU was not

intended to provide estimates of the prevalence of drug use, such estimates can be produced from the data.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data tapes and documentation are available upon written request to the Division of Health Interview Statistics,

NCHS, Presidential Building, Rm. 850, 6525 Belcrest Rd., Hyattsville, MD 20782. Additional information is

available upon request.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Data are available in flat files. Tapes are available at

1600 bytes per inch (BPI), 6250 BPI, or on magnetic interview for the basic health questionnaire of

cartridge format. 46,761 households. The NHIS-DAU questionnaire

The 1991 NHIS sample encompassed complete

was completed by 21,174 persons ages 18–44. The

sample for the DAU was a subset of the sample

selected for the 1991 NHIS special topic

questionnaire on Health Promotion and Disease

Prevention (HPDP). Within each NHIS sample

household, one adult age 18 or older was randomly

selected to be interviewed for several special topic

questionnaires, including HPDP and DAU. If the

sample person was in the age range of 18–44, he or

she was given the DAU to complete.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The NHIS is a cross-sectional household interview survey based on a multistage-area probability sample. 

While the interviews are conducted in person, the NHIS-DAU component was self-administered to ensure

confidentiality of responses. No proxy responses were allowed.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

These include alcohol, prescription medicine,

inhalants such as glue, amyl nitrate, poppers and health status and limitation, acute and chronic

aerosol sprays, hallucinogens (e.g., LSD, PCP, peyote, conditions, and health care utilization.

mescaline), heroin, marijuana, and cocaine.

Variables include a broad range of health variables,
Office of National Drug Control Policy 71

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The NHIS-DAU has a large sample size, allowing for stratified analysis by race, gender, and socioeconomic

groups. Limitations include a response rate of 75.5 percent, which is lower than the basic NHIS core of 95.7

percent. Nonresponse was highest among young black males.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

The NHIS-DAU can be linked to general health data and other information obtained in the NHIS to allow

extensive analyses to answer questions relevant to drug policy.
72 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

1992 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care

Survey Emergency Room Department Data

A one-time survey

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention Ambulatory Care Statistics Branch

Linda McCraig

Division of Health Care Statistics

National Center for Health Statistics

6525 Belcrest Road

Hyattsville, MD 20782

Telephone No.: (301) 436-7132

Fax No.: (301) 436-5452

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To provide information on health care provided by hospital emergency departments to the population of the

United States.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated annually through reports to the general public and to all public health constituents. A

summary of data was reported in L.F. McCaig's National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1992

Emergency Department Summary and Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics, No. 245 (a 1994 NCHS

publication). Data are also available on computer tape from the National Technical Information Service.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

See previous item. The survey collected emergency department data from

437 hospitals. The number of patient record forms

completed was 36,271.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

A nationally representative sample of hospitals was selected from the SMG Hospital Market database. Hospital

staff were asked to complete patient record forms for a systematic random sample of patient visits during a

randomly assigned 4-week reporting period. Data were collected from December 2, 1991 through December

27, 1992. Medical coding was performed by NCHS.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

One question on the patient record form asked: “Is

the problem alcohol- or drug-related?” Possible codes expected source of payment, major reason for visit

included (1) neither, (2) alcohol-related, (3) drug- (illness or injury), cause of injury, patient's complaint

related, and (4) both. and symptoms, physician's diagnosis, urgency of

Demographic information about patient included the

visit, diagnostic screening services, procedures,

medication ordered, disposition of visit, and providers

seen during visit.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The major strength of the data system is that it provides data on a representative sample of patient visits to

hospital emergency room departments. There is limited information on how the visit is related to drug use. 

More detailed information is available from the Drug Abuse Warning Network. However, an advantage of this

data system is that detailed coding of the physician's diagnoses are available.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 73

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

The data system provides a nationally representative measure of the adverse consequences of drug use; that is,

information on hospital emergency department visits that are drug related.
74 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

National Maternal and Infant Health Survey (NMIHS) Periodically

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention Division of Vital Statistics

Followback Survey Branch

National Center for Health Statistics

6525 Belcrest Rd., Rm. 840

Hyattsville, MD 20782

Telephone No.: (301) 436-7464

Fax No.: (301) 436-5830

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To monitor maternal and infant mortality, morbidity, health, and nutrition.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data have been disseminated through various reports within the public health and scientific community. A list

of approximately 100 reports that have used the NMIHS can be obtained by writing or calling the Followback

Survey Branch.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Data are available on computer tape from the National

Technical Information Service. 3,309 women who had late fetal deaths, and 5,332

Survey consists of 9,953 women who had live births,

woman who had infant deaths.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The NMIHS is a followback survey in which survey respondents are identified through State vital records and

surveyed to obtain more detailed information regarding the event (i.e., birth or death) recorded by the State

registration process. Questionnaires were mailed to mothers identified from birth certificates and certificates of

fetal and infant deaths. Blacks were oversampled. Vital records were sampled from each State and independent

registration area. After receiving permission from respondents, information was obtained from hospital records

and prenatal care providers. Data from these sources are linked to information in the vital records.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

These include alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and

cocaine use by the mother before and during pregnancy history, pregnancy complications, mother's

pregnancy. and father's education, occupation, racial and ethnic

Other variables include information on prenatal care,

background, well baby care, and infant feeding

methods.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The major limitation of this data set regarding marijuana and cocaine use during pregnancy is that use was

underreported. The survey methodology (i.e., self-response to a mailed questionnaire) did not include any

special methods to reduce concern among respondents about reporting on such a sensitive issue.

The strengths are that information is available on a broad range of factors that influence infant health and that

the survey is nationally representative and has a large sample size.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

The survey provides limited information about illicit drug use and tobacco and alcohol use during pregnancy.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 75

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

National, State, and Local Youth Risk Behavior

Surveys (YRBS)

Biennially (spring)

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and

Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Division of Adolescent and School Health

Prevention National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and

Laura Kann, Ph.D.

Health Promotion

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

4770 Buford Highway, N.E., MS-K33

Atlanta, GA 30341

Telephone No.: (770) 488-5330

Fax No.: (770) 488-5665

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To measure priority health-risk behaviors among representative samples of high school students.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Summary reports are disseminated to State and local health and education agencies, national health and

education organizations, academia, and the general public. The national survey data are available from the

National Technical Information Services. The State and local data are available from the State and local

education agencies conducting the surveys.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Data are available on diskette. National survey: approximately 12,000 each.

State and local surveys: approximately 2,000 each.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Representative samples of students in grades 9–12 are selected at the national, State, and local levels. The selfadministered multiple-choice questionnaire is administered in the classroom during a regular class period. 

Survey procedures are designed to protect the students' privacy by allowing for anonymous participation. The

1997 questionnaire contains 84 items. Extensive edit checks are conducted to increase the consistency of the

data.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Cigarette use (ever, currently, frequently, age at first

use, source of cigarettes, on school property, quit injuries, sexual behaviors, dietary behaviors, and

attempts); smokeless tobacco use (currently, on physical activity.

school property); alcohol use (ever, currently, age at

first use, on school property, episodic heavy

drinking); marijuana use (ever, currently, age at first

use); crack use (ever); inhalant use (ever); steroid use

(ever); other illegal drug use (ever); injected drug use

(ever)

Behaviors related to unintentional and intentional
76 Office of National Drug Control Policy

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: (1) Comparable national, State, and local data are available; (2) the YRBS is not just a categorical

drug survey (data on other and often interrelated priority health risk behaviors also are available); (3) the

surveys are ongoing, allowing trend analysis; (4) school-based surveys are cost effective; and (5) school-based

surveys are anonymous providing maximum protection and privacy to youth.

Limitations: (1) Not all possible States and cities participate; and (2) not all participating States and cities have

obtained generalizable data.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

The data can be used to track drug behaviors over time; make comparisons among national, State, and local

samples of youth; demonstrate the interrelationship between drug-related behaviors and other priority health

risk behaviors; and modify health policies and programs for youth accordingly.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 77

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

National Vital Statistics System, Mortality Data Annually

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention Division of Vital Statistics

Harry Rosenberg

National Center for Health Statistics

15525 Belcrest Road, Rm. 840

Hyattsville, MD 20782

Telephone No.: (301) 436-8884, ext. 175

Fax No.: (301) 436-7066

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To provide official national vital statistics data on deaths nationwide.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated annually through various reports to the general public and to all public health

constituents. The major reports include Vital Statistics of the United States and the Monthly Vital Statistics

Report: Advance Report of Final Mortality Statistics.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Data are accessible through public use data sets

available on tape as well as CD-ROM (Compact Disc- deaths per year.

Read Only Memory), various reports and tables, and

electronically through CDC WONDER. Two

commonly used public data files are the Compressed

Mortality File and the Multiple Cause Mortality Data.

Data are gathered from the approximately 2 million

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Vital records filed in State vital statistics offices are provided through State-operated registration systems. 

Nearly 100 percent of deaths are registered in the United States. The underlying cause and contributing causes

of death are listed on the death certificate. The cause of death is coded according to the International

Classification of Diseases (ICD). The ninth revision of the ICD has been used from 1979 to the present.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Cause-of-death variables include causes related to

misuse of psychoactive drugs. The ICD codes that are

used to define drug-related deaths are 292, 304,

305.2–305.9, E850–E858, E950.0–E950.5, E962.0,

and E980.0–E980.5.

Demographic information and locality of death.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The major strength of the data system is that it includes all deaths that occur in the Nation. The major

limitations include the following: (1) Deaths related to drug use are underestimated because the cause-of-death

sections of most death certificates are not filled out with enough specificity and (2) there is a lack of specificity

regarding drugs related to the death. The number of drug-related deaths identified through this data system may

be very small for some geographical areas, resulting in unstable rates for particular subgroups of the population. 

More stable rates can be obtained by combining data from more than 1 year.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

The data system provides a measure of adverse consequences of drug use that is representative of the Nation as

a whole and is available at the State level.
78 Office of National Drug Control Policy
Office of National Drug Control Policy 79

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination

Survey (NHANES III), 1988-1994

Intermittent (nonfixed intervals of data collection)

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention Division of Health Examination Statistics

Cliff Johnson, Special Assistant

National Center for Health Statistics

Presidential Bldg., Rm. 850

6525 Belcrest Rd.

Hyattsville, MD 20782

Telephone No.: (301) 436-7068, ext. 174

Fax No.: (301) 436-5431

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

Research and general purpose statistics.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Distributed (on release) by the National Technical Information Service, Department of Commerce, 5285 Port

Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, or phone (703) 487-4650/fax (703) 321-8547. All other inquiries

may be directed to the Data Dissemination Branch, NCHS, (301) 436-8500.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

All data are available on CD-ROM. Approximately 30,000. Black Americans and

Mexican Americans were oversampled (30 percent

each of the entire sample population), allowing for the

examination of risk factors that may explain racial

and ethnic differences. Persons under 5 years and

over 60 years were sampled in large numbers due to

the need for descriptive data on the health status of

those population groups.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

A stratified multistage probability design was used.
80 Office of National Drug Control Policy

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

All examinees ages 12 and older were questioned in

the Mobile Examination Center (MEC) performed include: alcohol and tobacco use and

Questionnaires about lifetime and past-month usage exposure; physical activity; vitamin, mineral, and

of marijuana and cocaine. In Phase 2 of NHANES III medicine usage; social support; employment; 14-hour

(1991-1994), anonymous urine testing was included dietary recall; physicians exam; oral health; central

in the MEC examination in order to detect the nervous system tests; spirometry; bone density;

presence of marijuana, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), gallbladder ultrasound; and ECG, blood, and urine

opiates (morphine and codeine), and stimulants assessments.

(amphetamine and methamphetamine) among

examinees ages 18–59. Urine specimens were

randomly numbered so they could not be linked with

the examinee identification numbers. Limited

demographic data including age (in 20-year

categories), sex, race or ethnicity, sampling location,

and educational level were included with the random

numbers on protected data files. The identical random

numbers and the associated demographic variables

were assigned to the HIV serum, so that the

association between drug use and HIV status could be

examined.

Health history questions asked and examinations

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Because individual identifiers are removed, there will be no restrictions on the use of Public Use Data Tapes

from NHANES III.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Anonymous testing of urine samples in Phase 2 will produce prevalence data on the use of marijuana, cocaine,

PCP, opiates, and stimulants among examinees ages 18–59.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 81

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Chemical Handlers Enforcement Management System

(CHEMS)

Daily

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Frank Moreno, Program Manager

Drug Enforcement Administration

Washington, DC 20537

Telephone No.: (202) 307-7191

Fax No.: (202) 307-4702

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

CHEMS is used to capture and maintain identification data on chemical companies as mandated by the

Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1988, as well as to keep track of the importation and exportation of

regulated chemicals.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are used for internal use for DEA investigative and regulatory matters and are disseminated to the U.S.

Customs Service for import and export control.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

DEA's model M204 database management system. Approximately 10,000 records of U.S. and foreign

companies that handle controlled chemicals. Also,

approximately 6,000 import/export declarations are

filed each year.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Data are collected from DEA investigative reports and from import/export declarations filed by the chemical

industry.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

CHEMS tracks companies that handle chemicals

which can be used to produce drugs.

None available.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

It keeps track of every company in the United States that might be a source of chemicals used in clandestine

drug manufacture and provides a method to prevent the diversion of control chemicals and their import and

export.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

CHEMS helps prevent the clandestine manufacture of illicit drugs by preventing the diversion of chemicals

used by drug traffickers.
82 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Computerized Asset Program System (CAPS) Daily

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Darcy Floyd, CAPS Program Manager

Assets Forfeiture Section

Office of the Chief Counsel

Drug Enforcement Administration

Washington, DC 20537

Telephone No.: (202) 307-7639

Fax No.: 

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

CAPS is DEA's automated record system for tracking asset seizure and forfeiture activity. The system is used

to track the lifecycle of an asset from seizure through disposal.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

DEA M204 CAPS users have access to up-to-date information on the lifecycle of an asset because of its online

capability. Various inventory, management, and statistical reports are available on an as-needed basis.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

CAPS is written in M204, Version 2.1. System data

are available in hard copy, on 9-track tapes, or in elements.

ASCII files.

CAPS records contain an average of 165 data

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Seizure information is collected through the use of the DEA Form 453, “Record/Receipt of Seized Asset.” The

453 is used as the source document for reporting seizures for forfeiture or abandonment activity. Seizures

reported through DEA's field offices are validated at the division office level before and after CAPS data entry. 

The Asset Forfeiture Section maintains a daily audit of updated data to insure quality data integrity. Each

record is validated by a quality control unit prior to the archival of each seizure file.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

The CAPS data field “NGDEP” contains coding for

DEA's Geo-Drug Enforcement Program. The five- asset lifecycle. CAPS contains data fields on case

position code can be parsed into specific drug information, asset details, party/notification details,

information areas tracked by DEA. Those areas court/judicial forfeiture details, custody, probable

include the nature of the investigative target, other cause, petition details, and forfeiture.

agencies' involvement, the primary controlled

substance or commodity involved, and violator

classification.

CAPS was designed from 1982 to 1983 to track the

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

CAPS' principal strength is that it organizes DEA's tracking of asset seizure and forfeiture information into one

system. The system is available to any M204 user with CAPS privileges. CAPS limitations are its design and

the amount of data collected. CAPS' original design did not provide for greater flexibility, and the system could

not keep pace with changes in the overall asset removal program. DEA's plans to revise CAPS were absorbed

into the development of the Consolidated Asset Tracking System by the Department of Justice.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 83

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

CAPS can report information on the type of assets seized according to drug investigation classifications. This

information can be used to track trends in the dollar value seized, numbers of asset types, and volumes of assets

seized by DEA or referred to other law enforcement agencies for forfeiture.
84 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Defendant Statistical System (DSS) Ongoing data collection

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Hunter W. Peil, Chief

Statistical Operations Unit

Drug Enforcement Administration

Washington, DC 20537

Telephone No.: (202) 307-8265

Fax No.: (202) 307-7915

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

The database stores information for all defendants arrested by DEA, including the defendants' dispositions.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Summary data are published semiannually and distributed to DEA managers in the Headquarters and field

offices. All DEA field offices have access to and may query the DSS via a generalized query capability for

standard reports. DEA Headquarters also uses a separate, powerful query capability to generate a wide variety

of statistical reports.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Printouts, as well as responses to standard queries that

are returned to the monitor from which each query DEA. In recent years, DEA has made 22,000 to

was made. DEA Headquarters uses Table Producing 25,000 arrests per year, and the database includes

Language (TPL) to generate most printed reports; TPL information for arrests made from fiscal year (FY)

gives the user complete control of the components of 1986 to the present and arrests from FY 1976 to FY

data tables. 1985 for which dispositions have not been reported.

Each DSS record corresponds to each arrest made by

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Personal History Reports prepared on every DEA defendant are source documents for the DSS. The copy of the

report submitted to the DEA Headquarters Investigative Records Unit is used for DSS data entry.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

The principal drug involved in the case in which the

arrest was made, the major drug the defendant was demographic information on the defendant (e.g., race,

involved with, and the principal violation committed ethnicity, sex, date of birth, citizenship), and

by the defendant. information on the arrest and offense ((e.g., date of

The DEA case in which the arrest was reported,

arrest, place of arrest). Disposition information

includes the jurisdiction (Federal or State), the

disposition (e.g., acquitted, convicted, dismissed, or

declined), and the disposition date. If the defendant is

convicted, the database will include the defendant's

sentence or term.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths include accuracy, the inclusion of the defendant's disposition, and the flexibility of the report

generator used by DEA Headquarters.

The principal limitation to non-DEA users is that the DSS database contains information only on DEA arrests.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

None available.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 85
86 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Federal-wide Drug Seizure System (FDSS) Monthly

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) manages the

database. Statistical Analysis Unit

Carolyn Hoffman, Chief

Drug Enforcement Administration

Washington, DC 20537

Telephone No.: (202) 307-8270

Fax No.: (202) 307-7916

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

The FDSS was designed to meet a specific need defined by the National Drug Policy Board: to provide

aggregate statistics on drug removals performed by the Federal Government within U.S. jurisdiction. This need

arose because of frequent instances when more than one Federal agency is involved with or has custody of a

single drug seizure. Each agency maintains its own records on such activities, which overlap the contents of

other agencies' similar records; therefore, Federal drug removal activity is significantly overstated.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Summary data are published semiannually and are distributed to Federal managers.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Printouts, as well as responses to standard queries that

are returned to the monitor from which the query was Identification Number (FDIN) that corresponds to

made. each seizure made by a Federal agency. Since the

Each FDSS record tagged with a Federal Drug

system became operational in fiscal year 1989, there

have been 4,000 to 6,500 FDIN seizures per year.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

FDSS data are based upon extracts of drug removal information from databases maintained by DEA, U.S.

Customs, and the U.S. Coast Guard. In these databases, records of drug removals that exceed established

threshold weights include a unique number, the FDIN, which is assigned to a drug removal case by the first

Federal agency having custody of the drug. The FDIN is provided to any other Federal agency that has

involvement in or takes custody of the drug seizure for inclusion in its database. When data from agencies are

entered into the FDSS, the presence of more than one record for the same seizure is determined by the FDIN. It

should be noted that the extracts from those agency systems include all drug removals, both those with and

without FDINs.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Each record in the FDSS has fields for the type of

drug, quantity and unit of measure, how the drug was

identified (i.e., laboratory analysis, field test, or visual

examination), how the weight was determined (i.e., in

a laboratory, via scale or balance, or estimated), data

collected, place collected (State only), and FDIN.

None available.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 87

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The FDSS provides information on Federal drug seizure activity.

Because the system was designed to provide summary information, there is limited information on each

individual seizure. Furthermore, because the FDSS is a combination of data from several databases, with drug

identity and weight sometimes based on visual examination and estimation, the statistics are not as precise as

those based solely on laboratory analysis.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

The FDSS helps to inform national drug policy be providing long-range trends on the nature and extent of

Federal drug seizures.
88 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence

(STRIDE)

Ongoing data collection

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) James H. Crockett, Chief

Laboratory Support Section

Drug Enforcement Administration

Washington, DC 20537

Telephone No.: (202) 307-8785

Fax No.: 

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To maintain an inventory of drug exhibits submitted to DEA laboratories.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Summary data are published semiannually and distributed to DEA managers in its headquarters and field

offices. All DEA field offices have access to and may query STRIDE via a generalized query capability for

generalized reports. DEA headquarters also uses a separate, more powerful query capability to generate a wide

variety of statistical reports.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Data are available in printouts, including responses to

standard queries that are returned to the monitor from laboratories using source documents from special

which the query was made. agents and forensic chemists for over 40,000 exhibits

Information is input at each of the eight DEA

of drug evidence per year. The system has been

operational since 1971.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

See response to item above.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

STRIDE contains all the information from the

laboratory analysis of each exhibit. There are exhibit was acquired.

approximately 60 data elements of information

concerning each exhibit, such as data collected, place

collected, how acquired (e.g., purchased, seized), price

if purchased, name of the drug, potency of the drug,

adulterants and dilutents found, and how the exhibit

was packaged.

One variable is the DEA case from which the drug

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

STRIDE can provide detailed information on a large volume of Federal drug removals over a relatively long

period of time. However, its data are limited because (1) the system includes little information about State and

local activities that comprise an important element of the Nation's drug control efforts and (2) DEA's formal

mandate is to focus enforcement activities on distinct geographical areas (such as trafficking areas with

numerous high-volume heroin and cocaine dealers).
Office of National Drug Control Policy 89

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

STRIDE information is used as an investigative tool by agents in the field and provides a database which is

used to analyze both strategic and tactical intelligence, establishing drug-trafficking patterns as well as

detecting the appearance of new drugs.

STRIDE helps inform national drug policy by providing indicators of drug availability in the form of long-term

trends in the prices and purities of drug exhibits.
90 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Uniform Crime Reports/Age, Sex, and Race of

Persons Arrested

Monthly

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal

Justice Information Services Division Programs Support Section, Module E-3

Ben Brewer, Chief

Federal Bureau of Investigation

1000 Custer Hollow Road

Clarksburg, WV 26306

Telephone No.: (304) 625-2000

Fax No.: (304) 625-3566

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To measure law enforcement response to crime and to provide data concerning the age, sex, and race of

perpetrators.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Summary information is published annually in Crime in the U.S. Disaggregated data are provided upon request.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Available in publications, printout, or magnetic tape

format. Tapes are in EBCDIC (Extended Binary- 16,000 law enforcement agencies.

Coded Decimal Interchange Code) and are available

in various specifications.

The data set is not a sample; data are collected from

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Data are supplied voluntarily by law enforcement agencies across the country on a monthly basis. FBI staff

perform various edit checks.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Variables include arrests for drug abuse violations;

breakdowns for sale/manufacture and possession; and The data set also includes all other crimes except

drug types, including heroin or cocaine and their traffic violations.

derivatives, marijuana, synthetic or manufactured

drugs, and other dangerous, nonnarcotic drugs.

These include age, sex, and race of persons arrested. 

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Data are supported by records of local law enforcement agencies; not all agencies supply data for all 12 months

of each year.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

It describes the characteristics of drug arrestees.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 91

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Baseline Interview A one-time data collection effort for baseline

background information as part of a longitudinal

project evaluating the Bureau of Prisons' residential

drug treatment programs (see Methodology for

details).

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the National

Institute on Drug Abuse Research Department

Bernadette Pelissier, TRIAD Project Director

Federal Correctional Institution

P.O. Box 1000

Butner, NC 27509

Telephone No.: (919) 575-4541, Ext. 512

Fax No.: (919) 575-6341

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To provide baseline information on Federal inmates to be used in conjunction with a multisite, drug treatment

evaluation project.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data have been disseminated in a BOP publication titled BOP's TRIAD Study Helps Confirm Need for Drug

Treatment Programming in Federal Prisons. This report is available to criminal justice professionals and to the

general public.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

FoxPro and Prodas (a SAS-like PC software package)

data sets

The sample size is 528 inmates.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Interviews were held with inmates by a research analyst. A random sample of inmates at 14 Federal institutions

representing the various BOP institution security levels was interviewed. The participants were representative

of the entire inmate population with respect to race and inmate security level. Women were purposely

overrepresented to obtain enough subjects for data analysis.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Research subjects are asked about alcohol and drug

use history for 14 drug categories. This history history, employment history, sentence length,

includes age of first use, frequency of use during the criminal history, incarceration history, and mental

last free period before current incarceration, use at health.

time of arrest, types of drugs used in combination, and

self-attempts to stop use. In addition, questions are

asked about current and previous drug/alcohol

treatment and problems associated with drug/alcohol

use.

These include social demographic background, family

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: The comprehensive nature of the information on each individual, including social and educational

background, employment history, criminal history, incarceration history, drug use history, and treatment

history. Data set is computerized.

Limitations: Information is based primarily on self-report data collected in a prison setting.
92 Office of National Drug Control Policy

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

It provides extensive drug use history information for a sample of Federal incarcerated offenders. Can provide

some insight into the life course of drug-abusing offenders and the interconnection between drug use and

criminal activity.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 93

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Intake 1 A one-time data collection effort as part of a

longitudinal project evaluating the Bureau of Prisons'

residential drug treatment programs (see

Methodology for details).

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the National

Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Research Department

Bernadette Pelissier, TRIAD Project Director

Federal Correctional Institution

P.O. Box 1000

Butner, NC 27509

Telephone No.: (919) 575-4541, Ext. 512

Fax No.: (919) 575-6341

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To provide background information on research subjects involved in a multisite drug treatment evaluation

project.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data have not yet been disseminated as followup data collection is not yet completed and previously collected

data is in the process of being cleaned. Data will be disseminated in the form of a series of reports to BOP

administrative staff and to NIDA and will be distributed to criminal justice professionals and the general public

through presentations at conferences and through publications in professional journals.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

FoxPro data sets as well as SAS PC data sets. The current sample size is 2,772 and estimated total

sample size is 3,000. Baseline data collection began

in the fall of 1991 and was completed by the end of

1995. Followup data collection continues into 1998.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Data were collected through interviews with inmates by a research analyst. Interviews were conducted with a

sample of inmates who were near release and were participating in residential drug treatment programs at

18 selected research sites. In addition, inmates who did not volunteer for drug treatment and had been screened

through self-reports for previous drug use comprised the comparison group subjects who were interviewed at

over 30 prisons when they were close to being released.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

All research subjects are asked about drug use history

for 11 drug categories (including alcohol). This employment history, sentence length, criminal

history includes the age of first use, frequency and history, incarceration history, and health status.

duration of use during heaviest period of use,

frequency of use during the last free period before

current incarceration, use at time of arrest, types of

drugs used in combination, and self-attempts to stop

use. In addition, questions are asked about current

and previous drug/alcohol treatment. A sample of

1,000 treatment subjects also were interviewed using

the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS) for drug

abuse and dependence.

These include social demographic background,
94 Office of National Drug Control Policy

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: The comprehensive nature of the information on each individual, including social and educational

background, employment history, criminal history, incarceration history, drug use history, and treatment

history. Data set is computerized.

Limitations: It is not necessarily representative of the entire prison population due to nonresponse and sample

selection criteria and is based primarily on self-reported data collected in a prison setting.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

It provides extensive drug use history information for a sample of Federal incarcerated offenders. Can provide

some insight into the life course of drug abusing offenders and the interconnection between drug use and

criminal activity.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 95

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Residential Treatment Eligibility Interview Continuous, beginning June 1995

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Beth Weinman, Coordinator

Drug Treatment Program

Federal Bureau of Prisons

320 First St., N.W., NALC #401

Washington, DC 20534

Telephone No.: (202) 633-2214

Fax No.: (202) 724-5848

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To determine the eligibility for admission to residential drug treatment programs.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are distributed to drug treatment staff at the institution where admission is being sought.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Hard copy only, which is kept in the inmate's file. Unknown. The size is estimated to be at least 2,000

within one fiscal year based upon current waiting list

for admission to residential drug treatment programs.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The interview is administered by a drug treatment specialist to every inmate who requests admission to a

residential drug treatment program in the BOP. The data is self-reported but is verified by information from

pre-sentence investigation reports or other corroborating information obtained from the probation officer or the

treatment facility.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

These include drug use for 11 drug categories

(including alcohol), including frequency of use in last

12 consecutive months on the street, age of first use,

and total duration of use. In addition, there is a listing

of the symptoms used to make a DSM-IV diagnosis of

abuse or dependence as well as items on drug

treatment history.

Occupation and education.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: It allows DSM-IV diagnosis.

Limitations: It is not an automated database, no information on length of heaviest use, prone to errors in selfreported data and in official records, and does not include drug-using individuals who do not volunteer for

residential treatment.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Although limited to volunteers for residential treatment, the data could provide a profile of the various types of

Federal criminal offending drug users in need of treatment. With a cross reference to the automated database

for all inmates with information on sentence length and incarceration history, it could provide a profile not only

of drug use history but also the severity of criminal history.
96 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities,

1991

A one-time survey (Summer 1991)

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Christopher A. Innes, Ph.D.

Office of Research and Evaluation

Federal Bureau of Prisons

320 First St., N.W., NALC #202

Washington, DC 20534

Telephone No.: (202) 724-3121

Fax No.: (202) 633-2668

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To interview inmates on their criminal history, drug and alcohol use history, social and family background, and

adjustment to prison.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

A report was published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the data tape was archived at the Criminal Justice

Archive in Michigan.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

ICPSR at the University of Michigan provides the

data in a variety of machine-readable forms. representative of the BOP sentenced inmate

6,500 inmates were interviewed in a sample

population.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Face-to-face interviews are conducted under contract by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

These include self-reported drug and alcohol use

history, past and current drug treatment experiences, criminal history, adjustment to prison, and medical

and involvement of drugs at the time of the current information.

offense.

These include demographic and family background,

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: It is a representative sample of the BOP sentenced population with detailed self-report data on a

variety of topics.

Limitations: Data are only available for 1991.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

The survey provides detailed information on the BOP inmate population and is used extensively by the Bureau

to inform planning and policy development. It is a frequent source of information for testimony to Congress

and for responses to other requests for information about the BOP's inmate population.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 97

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program Quarterly

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

National Institute of Justice (NIJ), Office of Justice

Programs Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program

K. Jack Riley, Ph.D., Director

National Institute of Justice

633 Indiana Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Telephone No.: (202) 616-9030

Fax No.: (202) 307-6394

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

NIJ established the ADAM program in 1997 to provide an objective assessment of the drug problem among

those arrested and charged with crimes. Prior to this, the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program collected data. 

On a quarterly basis, samples of arrestees in 23 cities across the United States are interviewed and asked to

provide urine specimens that are tested for evidence of drug use. Urinalysis results can be matched to arrestee

characteristics to help monitor trends in drug use. The ADAM program will operate in 75 cities by 2000.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

The data are made available to the public through NIJ's Data Resources contractor (currently ICPSR in Ann

Arbor, Michigan). Currently, all DUF data through 1993 are available through ICPSR. Data for each site are

provided to each site on a quarterly basis.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

The files are usually provided as machine-readable

files, typically SPSS-PC system files with variable site collects quarterly data from 200–250 adult male

and value labels included. arrestees, 100–150 adult female arrestees, 100–150

Varies somewhat from site to site. Generally, each

juvenile male arrestees (at 12 sites), and a smaller

sample of female juvenile arrestees (at 8 sites). Taken

together, the 1993 data comprised 20,550 adult male

arrestees, 8,070 adult female arrestees, and a smaller

sample of juvenile male and female arrestees.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Arrestees are not selected randomly, though some sites approach a complete census of arrestees in the

catchment area during the times that data collection is conducted. Quarterly data collection occurs roughly

during the same weeks of the quarter each year at each site.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

These include self-report, treatment history, drug

injection history new trends in drug use (reports on booking data (precinct of arrest, top offense at arrest,

the street), and urinalysis for drug use. Some use has law enforcement agency making arrest, time since

been made of additional self-report information and arrest, self-reported arrest history), and emergency

other bioassays, such as hair testing. room visits in the last year.

Variables include basic demographics, official

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Urinalysis and general access to the “fresh” arrestee population are the greatest strengths of these data. 

Weaknesses are the lack of random sampling and the different catchment areas at various sites.
98 Office of National Drug Control Policy

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

This is an important data set for drug policy. The urinalysis of fresh arrestees helps inform us about the link

between drug use and other criminal behaviors. Data help identify emerging drug trends.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 99

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey

(NLAES)

One-time study

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,

National Institutes of Health Division of Biometry and Epidemiology

Bridget F. Grant

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

Willco Building, Suite 514

6000 Executive Blvd., MSC-7003

Bethesda, MD 20892-7003

Telephone No.: (301) 442-7370

Fax No.: (301) 443-8614

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

The purpose of the NLAES was to measure the prevalence of alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence in

the United States using clinically derived measures of disorders as defined in current psychiatric nomenclatures

(DSM-IV) and statistical classifications (ICD-10). The NLAES is an important data source for the analysis of

the correlates of drug use, abuse, and dependence; he size and characteristics of the population needing

treatment; alcohol and drug use among special populations; and the comorbidity of alcohol and drug use

disorders with clinically defined mental disorders.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Major results of the NLAES have been disseminated to the research community worldwide through over 60

publications in major peer-review journals and presentations at numerous national and international meetings

and conferences. Most of this research is substantive as opposed to purely descriptive. The Division of

Biometry and Epidemiology (DBE) advertised widely the availability of the NLAES data set and has provided

it to hundreds of interested parties with the alcohol and drug treatment, prevention, and research communities

worldwide. Special tabulations of the data have been conducted by the DBE upon request from the media and

U.S. Congress. The data have been used as the basis in the development of numerous World Health

Organization survey instruments designed for cross-cultural use. NLAES data users include public health

professionals, national and international agencies, and academic institutions.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

NLAES data results are available in printed format, as

described above, and as a public use data tape in

ASCII format.

43,862 interviews in 1992

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

All interviews were conducted person-to-person with randomly selected persons. The NLAES is a

representative sample of the United States noninstitutionalized population, ages 18 and older. Blacks and

young adults (ages 18–29) were oversampled, and the response rate was approximately 95 percent. The NLAES

was preceded by two test-retest studies conducted in the general population to determine the reliability of all of

its data elements. To our knowledge, the conduct of test-retest studies to determine reliability is unique to this

Federal survey.
100 Office of National Drug Control Policy

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence

(including frequency, patterns and onset of use, and

onset, recency, and duration); severity of alcohol and

drug abuse and dependence (both defined according to

the DSM-IV, DSM-III-R, DSM-III, and ICD-10

diagnostic criteria); and drug and alcohol treatment

utilization.

None available.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: The NLAES includes (1) a large nationally representative sample that permits precise estimates by

age, sex, and ethnicity; (2) reliably and valid measurement of data elements, including clinically defined DSMIV alcohol and drug use disorders; and (3) reliable measures of physical and psychiatric comorbidity related to

substance use disorders.

Limitations: The target population excluded adolescents and some high-risk populations (e.g., group homes

and prison inmates), and direct estimates are not possible for most States.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

The NLAES provides detailed data with demonstrated reliability on the prevalence of alcohol and/or drug use,

abuse, and dependence in the United States, including data on their associated risk factors, consequences, and

interrelationships, thereby providing a more rigorous scientific basis for the development of strategies for

alcohol and drug use, abuse, and dependence prevention and intervention and the determination of unmet

treatment need.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 101

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Substance Abuse Treatment Study (SATS) Planned as a one-time data collection

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,

National Institutes of Health Treatment Research Branch, Division of Clinical and

Margaret Mattson, Public Health Analyst

Prevention Research

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

6000 Executive Blvd. Suite 505

Rockville, MD 20892-7003

Telephone No.: (301) 443-0796

Fax No.: (301) 443-8774

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

SATS is designed to develop methods for substance abuse treatment and recording the content and process of

treatment and to obtain information from a sample of treatment facilities from which national estimates can be

made about the content and process of treatment. The survey will collect information from about 100 treatment

facilities through interviews with facility managers and clinical staff, questionnaires completed by clinical staff,

direct observation of group treatment sessions and the physical and social milieu of treatment, and collection of

data about clients from facility records. In terms of the ONDCP reporting requirements under area (D) of the

Crime Control Act, SATS will collect data on the status of drug treatment in the United States in the following

area: treatment content that will improve our knowledge of how substance abuse funds are being spent and the

mix of services being provided.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

When available, data will be disseminated through final reports, special studies, and public-use data files.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

No data available. A sample of about 100 facilities (about 1 percent) will

be surveyed from a universe of about

12,000 treatment providers. All the clinical staff of

the 100 sample facilities (about 600 total) will be

asked to complete a staff questionnaire (about

1 percent of all clinical staff). About 500 treatment

groups will be observed and the clinical staff leading

or supervising these groups will be interviewed; the

size of the treatment group universe is not known. 

The size of the sample of clients about whom data

will be collected from facility records has not yet been

determined.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

SATS consists of the following components: (1) a sample of substance abuse facilities will be visited and the

providers will be interviewed; (2) questionnaires will be distributed for completion by all clinical treatment

staff at the sampled facilities; (3) a sample of treatment group meetings at the sampled facilities will be

observed by a trained observer who will record the group activities and topics on a special form and interview

the clinical staff member responsible for supervising each group; (4) the observers will complete questionnaires

about the physical and social milieu of each sampled facility; and (5) site visitors will record data from facility

records about a sample of treatment clients.
102 Office of National Drug Control Policy

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Drug-related variables will include drug treatment

type, treatment services provided, drugs used during group treatment sessions, expenses, and revenue

treatment, clinical diagnosis, and drug use history. sources. Clinical staff characteristics will include

Facility characteristics will include staffing, types of

treatment activities, attitudes toward and beliefs about

treatment, and substance abuse recovery status. 

Treatment group characteristics will include group

focus, issues treated, and type of leadership. Physical

and social milieu will include neighborhood

characteristics, physical characteristics of the facility,

rules governing conduct of clients, and social

interactions among clients and between clients and

staff.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The strengths of the SATS data set will include the ability to make national estimates about substance abuse

treatment services. The limitations include the inability to make State or local area estimates.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Implications for drug policy include detailed knowledge about the content and process of substance abuse

treatment and information about the effects of managed care on length of treatment programs and the types of

services provided. SATS will develop methods of observing and recording treatment process and content that

can be used in future studies.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 103

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health One-time study conducted in three stages (Fall 1994;

Spring, Summer, and Fall 1995; and Spring and

Summer 1996)

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development (NICHD) and 17 other Federal agencies Carolina Population Center

J. Richard Udry, Principal Investigator

123 West Franklin Street, University Square

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Chapel Hill, NC 27516-3997

Telephone No.: (919) 966-2157

Fax No.: (919) 966-6638

e-mail: URL:udry@unc.edu

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To study health-related behavior of adolescents in grades 7 through 12, with a focus on examining causes of

behavior and the influence of social context.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Public use data sets will be distributed (on release) by Sociometrics Corporation, 170 State Street, Suite 260,

Los Altos, CA 94022-2812; (415) 949-3282, (415) 949-3299 (fax), URL:socio@socio.com. Public use data

sets will contain data for one-half of the core sample, selected randomly, and one-half of the oversample of

African-American adolescents from well-educated families (i.e., one parent with a college degree), for a total

sample size of about 6,500. Restricted use data, which will include the entire core and African-American

samples, the oversamples, the genetic samples, and the school administrator questionnaires, will be distributed

to certified researchers who commit to maintaining limited access through a contract with the Carolina

Population Center.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

The public use data sets will be available on CDROMS in ASCII format that can be read by many cases in the second stage; 14,800 in the third stage.

statistical software programs.

Approximately 90,000 cases in the first stage; 20,745

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

In the in-school phase (Fall 1994), questionnaires were administered to students in high schools and associated

middle schools identified through a stratified random sample of all high schools in the country. School

administrators at each school completed a questionnaire on school characteristics and policies. In the in-home

phases (Wave I, Summer and Fall 1995), interviews were conducted with a stratified sample of students

enrolled in participating schools (core sample) and with selected oversamples of students. A separate interview

was conducted with a parent of each adolescent in Wave I. Information about community and neighborhood

characteristics was independently compiled and linked to the individual data. The in-home sample design

includes a genetic sample, a saturation sample of all adolescents attending selected high schools, and

oversamples of Chinese, Cuban, and Puerto Rican students, students from high-education black families, and

disabled students. For further information on the design, consult the Add Health website at http://

www.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth.
104 Office of National Drug Control Policy

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

The in-school survey includes questions about risk

behaviors, expectations for the future, self-esteem, activities, and peer networks.

and health status. The in-home survey includes

questions about decisionmaking processes, criminal

activities, and substance use. Substance use questions

include cigarette smoking and smokeless tobacco use;

alcohol consumption and binge drinking; perceived

consequences of alcohol use; use of marijuana,

cocaine, inhalants, and other illicit drugs; and

injection drug use (including needle sharing). It also

contains questions on substance use in relation to

driving, violence, and sexual behavior and questions

on access to substances in the home.

Other variables include friendships, extracurricular

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: The sample is large and is representative of the entire U.S. junior high and high school populations. 

It is longitudinal in order to assess how people change their behaviors within changing social environments. It

explores the effect of social context (e.g., families, peer groups/social networks, schools, and communities) on

behavior.

Limitations: It does not include individuals who are not enrolled in schools at the beginning of the study; thus,

its findings may not be generalizable for youth who have dropped out due to behavioral or other social

problems. It does capture dropouts over time.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Provides information on the effect of social environment (e.g., peer pressure and family background) on

adolescent choices with respect to substance abuse and other risky behaviors.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 105

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Community Epidemiology Work Group (CEWG) Not a data collection system. The CEWG is a

network of researchers who meet semiannually.

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National

Institutes of Health Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research

Nicholas Kozel, Associate Director

National Institute on Drug Abuse

5600 Fishers Lane, Rm. 9A-53

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-6543

Fax No.: (301) 443-2636

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

The CEWG meets semiannually with the primary objective of providing ongoing community level public health

surveillance of drug use and abuse, principally through CEWG representative's reports of analyses of local

epidemiologic and research data.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

NIDA publishes proceedings from each meeting along with a companion Highlights and Executive Summary

volume. These reports are distributed to Federal, State, and local officials, researchers, and service providers. 

Summaries are also made available through the NIDA Director's Report which is prepared for NIDA Advisory

Council Meetings and through the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Not applicable—not a data collection system.

20 metropolitan areas. Published reports only, as described above.

Not applicable—CEWG representatives come from

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Each CEWG representative utilizes available data for his/her locality. These include, for example, national data

sets such as the Drug Abuse Warning Network and Drug Enforcement Administration price/purity data,

treatment data from State data systems, local school surveys, focus group research, local ethnographic studies,

and local police reports.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Not applicable—not a data collection system

CEWG reports include, but are not limited to,

analyses of drug type; age, race/ethnicity, and sex;

price and purity; HIV seropositivity among injecting

drug users; routes of administration; drug

combinations; drug trafficking; drug-related deaths;

and drug-related emergency room cases.

Not applicable—not a data collection system.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Not applicable—not a data collection system.

Strengths: Local-area specific information, up-to-date, and identifies emerging drug abuse patterns. 

Limitations: Because reports are community-based (a major strength), information is not necessarily consistent

across areas.
106 Office of National Drug Control Policy

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Identifies emerging problems which can be targeted for intervention before they spread and/or become

epidemic in proportion. Identifies geographic variations in the nature and extent of problems and thus the need

for community-based and tailored response.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 107

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS) A one-time survey

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National

Institutes of Health Chief, Services Research Branch

Bennett Fletcher, Ph.D.

Division of Clinical and Services Research

National Institute on Drug Abuse

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-4060

Fax No.: (301) 443-2317

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

Research on drug abuse treatment outcomes.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, presentations at professional meetings, and agency

publications.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Data are not currently available for secondary

analysis. treatment in 99 treatment programs in 11 cities

The sample is based on 10,010 adult intakes to

nationwide and approximately 3,000 12-month

followups.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

DATOS is a longitudinal prospective study of adults entering drug abuse treatment programs. The sample of 99

programs is drawn purposively from 4 modalities (i.e., methadone, short-term inpatient, long-term residential,

and non-methadone outpatient). Programs are selected to represent stable, typical community-based drug abuse

treatment programs. Self-report data were collected at intake on 10,010 individuals, at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months

during treatment, and at 12 months after treatment termination. Urine samples were obtained from a random

sample of followup subjects. Intake data were collected during 1992-1993, and followup data were collected

during 1992-1995.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

DATOS collects comprehensive data on drug use. 

DSM-IIIR diagnoses of abuse and dependence are services received; diagnoses of anxiety, depression,

also obtained for alcohol, cocaine, and heroin. and antisocial personality disorder, and other

These include treatment history; type and amount of

indicators of mental health status; behavioral and

cognitive functioning; physical health indicators; HIV

risk behaviors; involvement in illegal acts; criminal

justice status; education/training; indicators of

motivation to change; ASI variables;

employment/financial support/income; income data;

religiosity/self-concept; and

demographics/background variables.
108 Office of National Drug Control Policy

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: DATOS is the best, most comprehensive, and most up-to-date source of data on outcomes of drug

abuse treatment as it is typically delivered in community-based treatment programs.

Limitations: The generalizability of the study is limited to the treatment modalities in the study, larger

metropolitan areas, and generally larger and more stable treatment programs. The findings will be limited to

drug abusers who seek treatment and will not address whether treatment would be effective for drug users who

choose not to seek treatment. Similarly, the long-term outcomes of drug abusers who enter treatment in

DATOS may not be generalizable for drug users who do not enter treatment. Self-report data may be subject to

social desirability, recall, or other biases.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

NIDA will rely heavily upon DATOS in describing the evolving treatment system, describing current drug

abuse treatment populations, examining treatment outcomes, investigating relationships between client and

program factors, estimating the cost-effectiveness of drug abuse treatment in comparison with alternatives,

identifying research gaps, and setting future research agencies.

DATOS has the potential to make significant multifaceted contributions in a wide range of research and policy

areas, including questions on drug abuse treatment outcomes; relationships between client factors, program

factors, and outcomes; health services research questions; policy questions regarding drug abuse treatment

funding and systematic improvement; and questions of methodological interest. DATOS will address questions

regarding drug abuse treatment effectiveness and health services research and will identify research questions

and provide findings that will have fundamental and timely significance in upcoming national policy

discussions regarding the role of treatment in addressing the problem of drug abuse.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 109

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

The Monitoring the Future Study Annually

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National

Institutes of Health (this survey is supported by a Research Branch

grant sponsored by NIDA) Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research

Arthur Hughes, Chief, Epidemiology 

National Institute on Drug Abuse

5600 Fishers Lane, Rm. 9A-53

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-6637

Fax No.: (301) 443-2636

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

One of the major purposes of the Monitoring the Future Study is to assess the current drug use situation and

related trends among young people. The basic size and contours of the illicit drug use problem among young

Americans is necessary for rational public debate, policymaking, and resource allocation. This study also

monitors a great number of factors which are used to help explain the changes observed in drug use. Among

the research objectives of the Monitoring the Future Study are: determining which young people are at risk for

developing various patterns of drug abuse, gaining a better understanding of the lifestyles and values associated

with drug use, determining the aspects of the social environment associated with drug use, and evaluating the

maturational factors associated with drug use.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data from this study are published in a two-volume series report each year. Volume I includes data and trends

for 8th, 10th, and 12th graders, and volume II includes data on the college students and young adults that

comprise the longitudinal portion of the study. Prior to the release of published reports, a press release is sent

out each December which involves the principal investigator and many top-level Government officials (e.g., the

Secretary of Health and Human Services). This press release always highlights the most important findings and

provides a basic set of tabulations from the most current survey year. These findings are then disseminated to

the public through the newspaper and television. There are two sizeable mailing lists used to disseminate the

annually produced series reports. One mailing list is maintained by the principal investigator and the other is

maintained by NIDA. The mailing lists include university libraries, researchers, congressional officials,

government employees, and individuals. The NIDA list was created from people calling and requesting data

from this study.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

The data are available in printed (two volumes each

year), machine-readable, and tape format. graders surveyed each year and approximately 9,000

There are approximately 50,000 8th, 10th, and 12th

young adults and college students.
110 Office of National Drug Control Policy

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

This multistage random sampling procedure is used for securing a nationwide sample of 8th, 10th, and 12th

graders each year. Stage 1 of the sampling is the selection of particular geographic areas, Stage 2 is the

selection (with probability proportionate to size) of schools in each area, and Stage 3 is the selection of students

within each school. The 8th, 10th, and 12th graders are given a self-administered questionnaire in the spring of

each school year. Students are given flyers explaining the study about 10 days before administration. 

Generally, the questionnaires are administered in classrooms during the normal class period. The young adults

and college students are surveyed by mail. Because many questions are needed to cover all the topic areas in

the study, the questionnaire content for seniors is divided into six different forms (five forms were used

between 1975 and 1988). About one-third of each questionnaire consists of key or “core” variables which are

common to all forms. For 8th and 10th graders, there are four questionnaire forms.

The study design has included followup surveys for subsamples of each senior class since 1976. Subsequent to

the addition of 8th and 10th graders to this study in 1991, there have also been followup surveys of 8th and 10th

graders. These followup surveys are conducted in 2-year intervals. From each senior class, there are

approximately 2,400 students chosen. The 2,400 students are split into two equal groups. One group is

surveyed every even year and the other group of 1,200 is surveyed every odd year. The study design includes

seven followup data collections. The mailed followup survey includes $10 for the respondent.

Consistency in trend data are checked by comparing data from schools participating in the current and previous

year (50% overlap by design) with the entire sample. The validity of self-reported drug use is always a concern. 

This study has a longitudinal portion so consistency of reported drug use can be evaluated over time. The

investigators have found a high degree of validity for reported drug use. They also evaluate such things as

“construct validity.” This means that self-reported drug use relates in consistent and expected ways to a number

of other attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and social situations.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

There are too many drug-related variables to list. In

addition to demographic information, a few important set. Examples are the user's grade level at first use for

variables which are known to relate to drug use are the substances surveyed, general health, personality

perceived harm, perceived availability, and social variables, leisure activities, religiosity, feelings

disapproval variables. towards school, future plans, drug using behavior of

There are many other variables included in this data

friends, behavior in school, deviant behaviors, and

victimization questions.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Major strengths of the Monitoring the Future Study include management by the same group of principal

investigators from the University of Michigan since 1975. This study is designed to measure changes from one

time period to another. Accordingly, the measures and procedures have been standardized and applied

consistently across each data collection. Although there have been some modifications and additions over

time, many of the questions have been included since 1975. Other strengths include a very low student refusal

rate and an extensive set of questions on a wide range of drug types and related attitudes.

A major weakness of this survey is the exclusion of school dropouts since the inception of this study. Since

dropouts are thought to have higher rates of drug use than students in school, this may result in an

underestimation of use. Also, absentees on the day of administration are excluded. Absentees may include

students at higher risk of drug use. The addition of 8th and 10th graders in 1991 was a response to the problem

of dropouts. According to statistics from the Department of Education, there are very few dropouts at the 8th

grade level. The majority of dropouts don't leave school until after the 10th grade. Another weakness is the

lack of oversampling for African-American and Hispanic students. Because of the small numbers of minority

students, data for these students is published in the form of 2-year moving averages.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 111

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

This data set is the major source of drug use and related attitudes in our country among secondary school

students.

Each year, data from this study are used in the preparation of the National Drug Control Strategy. Monitoring

the Future data is also used to monitor several of the Healthy People 2000 drug and alcohol use objectives. The

1994 survey year showed dramatic increases in marijuana use. These findings stimulated a prevention

campaign and a conference on marijuana.
112 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

National AIDS Demonstration Research Project Monthly (from January 1988 through June 1991)

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National

Institutes of Health Community Research Branch

Helen Cesari, Program Official

National Institute on Drug Abuse

5600 Fishers Lane, Parklawn 9A-42

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-6720

Fax No.: (301) 480-4544

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To assess the efficacy of interventions in reducing drug and sexual risk-taking behaviors among out-oftreatment, noninstitutionalized drug users and their sexual partners.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data were disseminated to each grantee on magnetic tape.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Machine-readable SAS and SPSS data sets on CDROM49,621 baseline cases

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Sample design: Convenience sampling

Time frame: Baseline data collected from January 1988 through June 1991; followup was conducted at

6-month intervals

Data sources: Face-to-face interviews; blood tests

Data checks: Internal reliability was assessed

Data types: Demographics, lifetime and 6-month risk behavior data, HIV test results

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Variables include drug types, usage history, current

usage, frequency of usage, and route of cleaning, treatment history, mobility, sexual behavior,

administration. and health data.

These include demographics, needle sharing and

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Major strength: This is a unique database of out-of-treatment injection drug users and their sexual partners at

high risk for HIV transmission.

Major limitation: This is a convenience sample primarily targeted at heroin and cocaine injectors and their

sexual partners. Also, data are relatively old (i.e., 1988 through 1991).

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Research has indicated that community-based street outreach programs have been effective in recruiting hardto-reach, currently not-in-treatment injection drug users and crack smokers, facilitating behavior change,

reducing needle and—to a lesser extent—sex risk behaviors, influencing not-in-treatment users to seek drug

treatment, and reducing the likelihood of users acquiring or transmitting HIV infection. The interventions

stemming from this effort could be replicated by State, county, and/or community organizations in an effort to

further reduce the spread of HIV in the heterosexual population. The overall policy impact could be extensive

in terms of the potential cost savings in health care dollars for averting increases in new AIDS cases,

particularly in settings where the interventions have been implemented.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 113

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

National Cooperative Agreement for AIDS

Community-Based Outreach/Intervention Research

Program

Monthly (to continue through the year 2000)

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National

Institutes of Health Community Research Branch

Helen Cesari, Program Official

National Institute on Drug Abuse

5600 Fishers Lane, Parklawn 9A-42

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-6720

Fax No.: (301) 480-4544

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

Monitor drug, needle, and sexual risk behaviors and rates of HIV seroprevalence and seroincidence among notin-treatment, noninstitutionalized IDUs, and users of crack cocaine and other drugs; evaluate the efficacy of

experimental interventions designed to prevent, eliminate, or reduce HIV risk behaviors and avert HIV

infection; and respond rapidly to emerging HIV-related issues and implement interventions to prevent the

further spread of AIDS by reducing drug use, needle-sharing, and sexual risk-taking behaviors among out-oftreatment, noninstitutionalized drug users.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated to each grantee semiannually by diskette or CD-ROM.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Machine-readable SAS and SPSS data sets on disk or

CD-ROM.

Over 29,264 baseline cases as of November, 1997.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Sample design: Targeted sampling.

Time frame: Baseline data collection began in January 1992; followup was conducted at 6 months and

3 months for 6 of the 23 sites.

Data sources: Face-to-face interviews; HIV blood tests and urinalyses.

Data checks: Self-reported drug use validated by urinalyses; internal reliability has been assessed.

Data types: Demographics; lifetime and 6-month (and 3 months for 6 of the 23 sites) risk behavior data;

HIV test results; intervention process data.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

These include drug types, usage history, current

usage, frequency of usage, and route of cleaning, treatment history, sexual behavior, health

administration. data, arrest history, income, and employment.

These include demographics, needle sharing and

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Major strength: This is a unique database of out-of-treatment injection drug users and crack cocaine users at

high risk for HIV transmission.

Major limitation: This is a convenience sample primarily targeted at injection drug users and crack cocaine

users.
114 Office of National Drug Control Policy

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

There is compelling evidence from community-based HIV prevention trials that interventions, including streetbased outreach and HIV testing and counseling, have led to dramatic decreases in risk-reduction behaviors

among not-in-treatment drug users. It is plausible, based on the consistency of reports across studies which

indicate reductions in risk behavior, that intervention programs have resulted in the reduction in use of

contaminated injection equipment and high-risk sexual practices among drug users, thereby limiting the spread

of HIV infection. The overall impact could be extensive when considering the number of new AIDS cases that

have been averted as a result of these interventions and the potential cost savings in health care dollars

associated with treating AIDS and the secondary infections in patients afflicted with the disease.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 115

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

National Pregnancy and Health Survey (NPHS) A one-time study

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National

Institutes of Health Epidemiology Research Branch

Arthur L. Hughes, Chief

National Institute on Drug Abuse

5600 Fishers Lane, Rm. 9A-53

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-6637

Fax No.: (301) 443-2636

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To provide extensive information on the nature and extent of substance abuse among women delivering liveborn infants in the United States.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

A NIDA press briefing on the results of the NPHS was held on 9/12/94 at the National Conference on Addiction

Research in Women. A final report was made available in 1996. The report was disseminated to health care

providers and various members in the research community.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Currently, no public use data file is available. 2,613 women (respondents).

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The sample design for the NPHS consisted of a two-stage selection process. A stratified random sample of

private and public hospitals were first selected. Only hospitals with >200 annual births in the 48 contiguous

States were eligible. The sampling frame consisted of 2,860 hospitals representing about 3,600,000 births using

the 1990 SMG Hospital Market database. These hospitals accounted for about 95 percent of all births in the

contiguous United States. All Federal Government hospitals, except for large IHS hospitals, were excluded as

very few deliveries took place. A random sample of mothers delivering live births at these hospitals who met

survey eligibility criteria was selected. In total, there were 2,613 respondents from 52 participating hospitals in

both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. Data were weighted to represent over 4 million mothers in the 50

States and the District of Columbia.

In the participating hospitals, the interviewer selected and approached women for the survey while they were

still on inpatient status, between 6 to 36 hours after delivery. Data on obstetrical history and demographic

characteristics were first obtained via an interviewer-administered questionnaire. Then a self-administered

questionnaire containing questions on substance abuse was given. Both English and Spanish versions of the

questionnaire were available for use. A consent was sought for a urine test and to abstract both the mother's and

infant's medical records. In six selected hospitals, consent was also sought to collect and test hair samples. 

Data collection took place between October 1992 and August 1993.

Estimates are based on self-reported use and cover prenatal use of a number of illicit drugs, cigarettes, alcohol,

and the nonmedical and medical use of certain prescription medications that may have psychotherapeutic

effects.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

These include marital status, education, employment

status, method of hospital payment, number of available on the Interviewer Administered

prenatal visits, age, race/ethnicity, residence, income, Questionnaire.

hospital site, and urine test results.

Data on obstetrical history and medical conditions are
116 Office of National Drug Control Policy

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: The NPHS is the first probability survey specifically designed to provide extensive information on

the nature and extent of substance abuse among women delivering live-born infants in the United States. The

NPHS was motivated by the growing concern about the use of drugs by pregnant women and by the inadequacy

of previous efforts to assess the problem, particularly at the national level.

Limitations: Only 1,178 of 2,613 women consented to urine testing (a 45 percent response rate). Also only

1,622 blinded urine specimens were collected. Thus, a detailed assessment of validity of self-report and

nonresponse bias could not be performed.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

This data will provide valuable information to practitioners and policymakers on the need for drug use

screening before and during pregnancy (or at least screening for cigarettes and alcohol use—this is important

since women who use these substances are more likely to use illicit drugs than those that do not).
Office of National Drug Control Policy 117

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

The Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Drug Study

(DC*MADS)

A one-time survey

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National

Institutes of Health Community Research Branch

Elizabeth Y. Lambert, Health Statistician

Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research

National Institute on Drug Abuse

5600 Fishers Lane, Rm. 9A-42

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-6720

Fax No.: (301) 480-4544

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

The purpose is twofold: (1) To estimate the prevalence, correlates, and consequences of drug abuse among all

types of people residing in one metropolitan area of the country during one period of time and (2) to develop a

methodological model for similar types of research in other metropolitan areas of the country.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated in the project's final reports through mailing lists, inquiries, and notices in NIDA Notes

and announcements to researchers, policymakers, treatment providers, clinicians, and others who are interested

in the findings.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

DC*MADS consists of a number of component

studies, each of which represents a separate subgroup. the homeless and transient, n=908; for the

For example, there is a separate study for the institutionalized, n=1,203; for the household and

homeless and transient population, the nonhousehold, n=4,658; for women giving birth in

institutionalized, women giving birth in D.C. D.C. hospitals, n=1,020; for opinion leaders, n=162;

hospitals, treatment clients, young adults, adult and for newly admitted treatment clients, n=640; for

juvenile offenders, opinion leaders, and the D.C. area young adults, n=201; and for adults and juvenile

household and nonhousehold populations combined. offenders, n=349 and 198, respectively.

The data sets for the homeless and transient

population, household and nonhousehold population,

and women giving birth, are available from the

National Technical Information Service. The data are

in machine-readable format and on disk and tape for

use with a number of statistical software packages

such as SUDAAN, SAS, and WESVAR.

The sample size (n) varies by component study. For
118 Office of National Drug Control Policy

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Most of the DC*MADS studies were conducted in 1991 and 1992. Most of them involved multistage,

population-based sampling designs, with sample frames developed for the specific population subgroup under

study. For example, the sample frame for the institutionalized included all individuals residing in institutions in

the D.C. metropolitan statistical area but not for persons in military institutions and homes for the aged. 

Similarly, the sample frame for the homeless and transient population included all persons who met the

definition of “literally homeless” or “at risk of being homeless” based on staying the prior night in a shelter,

encampment, or street, or on using a soup kitchen. Most of the studies involved interviewer-administered

questionnaires, although the study of women giving birth in D.C. hospitals involved a self-administered drug

use section to ensure confidentiality and privacy of self-report. Some of the studies used secondary data

sources to supplement the self-report data, such as the use of medical record data to validate self-reports in the

study of women giving birth, or institutional records to supplement respondent self-reports in the

institutionalized study. These data were accessed only after the respondent gave informed consent.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

These include lifetime, past year, past month drug use

of illicit and licit drugs. income and insurance, use of treatment services,

Variables include psychological and physical health,

criminal history, education, employment, and

demographic characteristics.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

DC*MADS is a broadly scoped effort to assess drug abuse among all types of people in one metropolitan area,

to develop overall drug use prevalence estimates for populations traditionally underrrepresented or excluded in

household surveys, and to develop a model for similar research in other large and small urban centers. Its

limitations are that it occurred in 1991-1992 (the data are relatively old), it focused on only one metropolitan

area (the data cannot be generalized to other metropolitan areas in other regions of the country), it is based on

self-report (therefore subject to underreporting, misreporting, or distortion by respondents), and its estimates

apply to a local area (i.e., precautions are essential to protect the identity of participants, be they institutions or

individuals).

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

DC*MADS demonstrates a replicable methodological approach for developing representative estimates of the

epidemiology of drug abuse among all types of people, regardless of their residential setting, in a metropolitan

area. The key domains in DC*MADS were the homeless, the institutionalized, and the household. A major

finding with policy implications from this research is that, when data are aggregated for populations from each

of the three domains, the overall prevalence estimates for drug use differ only marginally from those that would

be obtained from the household population alone. However, when the data are examined closely, the

nonhousehold (i.e., homeless and institutionalized) populations have significant and disproportionate

representation among the crack cocaine, heroin injection, and needle use subgroups. These findings indicate

that, while their overall size is small relative to the household population, the nonhousehold population is large

relative to the numbers of extensive and intensive drug users in the metropolitan area.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 119

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

The Dynamics of Deviant Behavior, National Youth

Survey cover respondents' adolescent years); subsequent

The first five interviews were conducted annually (to

interviews have been conducted once every 3 years

(to cover their early adult years).

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) (Violence

and Traumatic Stress Research Branch, Division of Interpersonal Violence Research Program

Epidemiology and Services Research) (this research Violence and Traumatic Stress Research Branch

has been supported primarily by research grants from Division of Epidemiology and Services Research

NIMH) National Institute of Mental Health

James Breiling, Ph.D., Head, Perpetrators of

5600 Fishers Lane, Rm. 10C-24

Rockville, MD 20857

E-mail: JBREILIN@nih.gov

Telephone No.: (301) 443-3728

Fax No.: (301) 443-1726

Principal Investigators:

Delbert S. Elliott, Ph.D.

David Huizinga, Ph.D.

Institute of Behavioral Science

University of Colorado

Campus Box 442

Boulder, CO 80309-0442

Telephone No.: (303) 492-1266

Fax No.: 

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

The research program utilized a prospective longitudinal study of a nationally representative sample of

American males and females to describe and explain variations in the onset, prevalence, incidence, and course

(i.e., escalation and desistance) of delinquency, substance abuse, certain mental health problems and service

use, criminal behavior, and family violence.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated in project reports, journal articles, and books. In addition, the data from the first six

waves of data collection have been deposited with the Social Science Data Archives at the University of

Michigan, from which they are available for secondary analysis. The archive reports that this data set has been

one of the most popular ones in its collection, with four to five requests per month.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

On diskette and machine-readable formats with

excellent documentation (see above). ages 11–17 who were selected to constitute a

The study began in 1976 with a total of 1,725 youth

nationally representative sample of American males

and females.
120 Office of National Drug Control Policy

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

This research utilizes a prospective, longitudinal, multiple cohort design with a nationally representative sample

of American males and females ages 11–17 at the beginning of the study and followed through 1994. Of the

original 2,360 eligible subjects, 73 percent agreed to participate at the beginning of the study. The loss rate for

nonparticipants by age, sex, and race was proportional to their representation in the general population. Faceto-face, confidential, structured interviews of the participants have been the primary source of data; in addition,

juvenile and adult arrest records have been obtained.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Measures of drug use include self-reports of drugrelated behavior (e.g., selling marijuana, being drunk), depression, family violence, and a wide variety of

as well as personal use of alcohol, marijuana, other problem behavior as well as socioeconomic and

hallucinogens, amphetamines, heroin, cocaine, and sociodemographic variables.

barbiturates. Explanatory variables reflect a test of an

integrated sociological model for explaining the

initiation to, escalation in, and desistance from

delinquent behavior.

Other measures include delinquency, sex offending,

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: These include a prospective longitudinal sample representative of American males and females,

inclusiveness of offenses/substances, psychometrically robust interview measures, and official records of

delinquency and criminal behavior.

Limitations: As a prospective longitudinal study, the data obtained are specific to particular years, the sizes of

subsamples can become too small for strong comparisons and limitations are inherent in self-report interviews. 

For greater detail, see Huizinga, D., and Elliott, D.S. 1986. “Reassessing the Reliability and Validity of SelfReport Delinquency Measures.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 2:293-327.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

The implications for drug policy pertain to, among others, the relationship among substance abuse,

delinquency/crime, mental health concerns, common and different explanatory variables, and conventional

approaches to prevention and treatment. See especially: Elliott, D.S., Huizinga, D., and Ageton, S.S. 1995.

Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; and Elliott, D.S., Huizinga, D., and Menard,

S. 1989. Multiple Problem Youth: Delinquency, Drugs and Mental Health Problems. New York, NY: 

Springer.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 121

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

National Survey of Expenditure for Drug Control

Activities of State and Local Governments

One-time survey at this time: 1990 and 1991 data.

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive

Office of the President Office of Planning and Budget

John Carnevale, Director

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Executive Office of the President

Washington, DC 20500

Telephone No.: (202) 395-56725

Fax No.: (202) 395-6729

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

The survey provides basic information on the financing of drug control efforts by State and local governments

and the separate drug control efforts in the criminal justice sectors, including police protection, prosecution and

legal series, public defense, corrections, and health and education.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated in written reports. As described below, other forms of dissemination are being

considered. Data are disseminated to policymakers at all levels of government, the media, researchers,

educators, students, and the general public.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

To date, the survey data are available in printed

reports only, although electronic access is being governments (3,042 county governments, 4,693

explored. municipalities, and 1,132 townships).

All State governments and a total of 8,867 local

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The survey was accomplished using three methods of data collection: (1) field compilation, (2) office

compilation, and (3) mail canvassing. Trained field representatives compiled expenditure and employment data

from government records for all States, 25 large counties, and the 25 largest municipalities (in terms of criminal

justice expenditures in 1990). Specialized office compilation procedures were used for 680 units (large local

governments that were not field compiled), and mail canvassing. Response for the field-compiled units was

100 percent; for the office compiled units, 90 percent; and for the mail canvass units, 85 percent.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Included are expenditures for drug-related criminal

justice activities and expenditures (both within and (e.g., direct current, capital outlay, intergovernmental

without criminal justice) for drug treatment and drug expenditure, and revenue).

education/prevention.

Data are available by basic accounting classifications

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The survey is based on a sample, and the National totals and State-level estimates are subject to sampling error.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

See above Drug-Related Variables discussion.
122 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Alcohol and Drug Services Study (ADSS) 1997 and 1999 Cycles

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration Office of Applied Studies

Anita Gadzuk, Public Health Analyst

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration

5600 Fishers Lane, Rm. 16-105

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-0465

Fax No.: (301) 443-9847

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

ADSS is a national survey to obtain information on substance abuse treatment facilities and patients. The data

will be used to validate the information provided annually by the Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS), to develop

better estimates of the costs of treatment, and to relate treatment services and resources to outcomes. ADSS is

the continuation of the 1990 DSRS and SROS surveys and provides more detailed information on the

organization of the national treatment system and the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Reports on each of the three phases of the survey will be disseminated to participating treatment facilities, to

individuals on the SAMHSA general mailing lists, to requestors, and to those accessing the SAMHSA web

page. Public-use data files will also be provided to requestors and are available through the SAMHSA web

page.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Data will be disseminated through published reports

and public-use files. Hard copy final reports from the enhanced facility universe for collection of facilityPhase I telephone survey are expected to be available level data; 300 facilities were sub-sampled for site

in early 1999. visit to abstract patient-level information on a sample

A sample of 2,400 facilities was selected from an

of over 4,000 patients for follow-up.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

ADSS consists of three phases: (1) a facility-based telephone interview with a representative sample of

substance abuse treatment providers; (2) a record-based survey of patients where patient-level information was

collected on a sample of patients discharged during a 6-month time period; and (3) follow-up personal

interviews with the sample of patients and a comparison group to determine substance use, criminal behavior,

and other functional characteristics. Follow-up began in February 1998.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Drug-related variables include drug treatment type

and patient length of stay in treatment, drug use ownership, accreditation, drug patient workload,

history and urine test results, and source of payment staffing, sources of revenue, and treatment cost. 

for drug treatment. Patient demographic characteristics include such

Facility characteristics include such variables as

variables as age, race, sex, pregnancy status, source of

referral to treatment, and living arrangements. 

Follow-up information includes drug and alcohol use,

criminal behavior, employment status, and health

resource use.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 123

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The ADSS data set includes information that can be used to make national estimates on the availability of

treatment, the characteristics of patients in treatment, the sources of funding for treatment, and the effectiveness

of treatment. The data will not support state or local area estimates.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

ADSS data will expand our capacity to estimate the average length of stay in treatment and annual admissions

to treatment. The data will also increase our knowledge on the public and private sources of funding for

treatment and on the patients who complete treatment. Data from the personal interviews will provide

information on long-term outcomes subsequent to the identified treatment episode.
124 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Annualized Spending Estimates for Mental Health and

Substance Abuse Services

Annually

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration

(SAMHSA) Office of Managed Care

Joan D. Dilonardo, R.N., Ph.D.

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment

Rockwall II, 7th Floor

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-8555

Fax No.: (301) 480-3045

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

Estimates on national health expenditures, produced regularly by the Health Care Financing Administration

(HCFA), provide important information about characteristics and trends in a major component of the nation's

economy and such information is critical to inform discussions of Federal and State policies affecting health

care. Although a few studies have been done from time to time about expenditures for mental health and

substance abuse treatment services, no routine and current source of information regarding the financing and

mental health and substance abuse expenditures exists. This project is designed to fill this information gap. 

This contract effort will result in the first existing annual source of information about national mental health

and substance abuse treatment expenditures and will also allow for comparisons to estimates of national health

expenditures published by HCFA. The first set of estimates is expected to be completed and released in the fall

of 1998, along with projections for 5 years. The estimates are to be revised annually, along with the

projections, so that year-to-year trends in spending for mental health and substance abuse treatment services can

be identified.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Electronic data will not be disseminated; some of the data used to produce these results are proprietary, and

other data sets are already available. A report of the general findings and central estimates will be distributed to

a large audience including policymakers at the Federal and State levels, as well as advocacy organizations, and

to a broad spectrum of persons involved in policy and economic research in private and public academic and

nonacademic settings. A more limited number of technical reports will be distributed to scientific analysts in a

variety of settings. In addition, some portions of the report may be posted on the SAMHSA web site.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Hard copy reports and tables. Not applicable.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

These estimates were derived from use of the following sources: National Health Accounts (1986–94),

National Hospital Discharge Survey (1986–92, 1994), National Hospital Ambulatory Care Survey (1992–95),

National Medical Care Survey (1989–95), National Nursing Home Survey (1985, 1995), National Home and

Hospice Survey (1992), Market Scan (1995), Medicare Claims (1990, 1994), National Medical Care

Expenditure Survey (1987), and Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (1988–94). A technical appendix

describing the methods implemented will be available.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 125

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Cost of treatment services for alcohol abuse/

dependence, treatment services for abuse of drugs were also estimated, with similar breakdowns by

other than alcohol and tobacco, by payor and sector in payor and service sector (public/private, general/

which service was delivered (private/public, general/ specialty providers by type). Limited estimates for

specialty providers by type). Separate limited Alzheimer's and other dementias were also

estimates for tobacco. constructed.

Cost of treatment services for mental health disorders

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: Data created as similarly as possible to HCFA health accounts so comparisons to other types of

health conditions can be made. Projections are based on data created back through 1986 and forward through

2003 so that trends can be observed. These estimates will be revised annually; thus, comparisons of actual

experience can be made and trends identified.

Limitations: These data focus only on the direct costs of treatment of mental health and substance abuse

disorders, not on other comorbidities or health sequelae related to the mental health and substance abuse

disorders, nor on other economic impacts of these disorders. The data precluded identification and

development of expenditures resulting from comorbid substance abuse and mental health disorders.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

This project will provide the best estimate of the number of dollars that the nation currently spends directly on

the treatment of substance abuse (with separate amounts for treatment services related to alcohol abuse and the

abuse of other drugs) and projections of these costs into the future based on current expenditures and policies. 

Annual revision of these amounts will allow trends in national spending to be observed, as well as changes in

the payors and types of providers and settings utilized for substance abuse treatment.
126 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Community Partnership Demonstration Program

Surveys: Student Survey and Adult Community rounds: Spring 1995 and Spring 1996.

Survey

A one-time study. The data were collected in two

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration Health Science Administrator

Shakeh Kaftarian, Ph.D.

Office of Scientific Analysis

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention

Rockwall II, Rm. 630

5515 Security Lane

Rockville, MD 20852

Telephone No.: (301) 443-9136

Fax No.: (301) 443-8532

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

This data set is to be used to evaluate the impact of the Community Partnership Demonstration Program on the

use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs on 8th and 10th graders and adults in the Partnership communities.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

The following distribution channels will be used: (1) presentations to conferences of organizations interested in

community-based substance abuse prevention programs and (2) publications sought in refereed journals

directed at particular constituencies. The final report will be distributed widely throughout the Federal

Government and to State and local health and substance abuse agencies. Aggregated, site-specific data will be

shared with the cooperating school districts and with individual partnerships by request.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Data for dissemination will be in hardcopy form

(frequencies). approximately 400 8th and 400 10th graders

In 24 target and 24 comparison communities,

completed questionnaires, and 300 adults participated

in a telephone interview.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Twenty-four target sites (partnership grants) were selected from the total of 252 grantees based on the type of

participant organizations, population density, and the existence of a partnership prior to the grant. Comparison

sites were selected based on an algorithm of relevant factors. Schools were selected to represent the youth

population of the site. The youth survey was conducted via self-administered questionnaire in the classroom

setting. The adult community survey was conducted by telephone using RDD and other probability sampling

methods.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Variables include use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit

drugs (i.e. marijuana, cocaine, sedatives, stimulants, race/ethnicity, and education.

heroin, inhalants); attitudes of participant, peers and

parents; use by peers, parents and friends; and

perceptions of drug use and availability in

community.

Variables include demographics, such as age, gender,
Office of National Drug Control Policy 127

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The data set's strengths are the diversity of communities and the standardized drug measures comparable to

national studies. The primary limitation is that while the youth and adult samples will be representative of the

communities from which they were drawn, the data cannot be generalized beyond those communities.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

This data set, in conjunction with other sets of data included in the National Evaluation project, will be helpful

in determining the effectiveness of the community partnership concept in alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use

prevention.
128 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Cost Profiles of Substance Abuse Treatment Service

Delivery Units

Annually

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration

(SAMHSA) Office of Evaluation, Scientific Analysis, and

Dr. Ron Smith, Program Evaluation Branch

Synthesis

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment

Rockwall II, Suite 840

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-7730

Fax No.: (301) 480-3144

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To obtain cost data on a wide variety of types of treatment services and client populations.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Exact dissemination vehicles have not been determined since the data are still being collected. Reports will be

disseminated as they become available.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Hard copy reports and tables. 1,200 cost profiles on 650 service delivery units.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

A uniform method for collecting substance abuse treatment cost data was used. Data reflect annual costs. Data

were collected on CSAT-funded demonstration grantees. Data were collected on units of service by units of

measurement. Validity and reliability checks were performed.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Treatment modality, client population characteristics,

units of service, total cost, average client cost. accrual), services provided, staffing levels.

Type of accounting system used by provider (fund or

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The greatest strength is that a uniform data collection and analysis method was used based on commonly

accepted accounting principles. The greatest weakness is that the sample was not randomly drawn.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Analyses of the costs of substance abuse treatment services can be performed on a wide variety of treatment

modalities.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 129

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Cross-Site Data Sets Quarterly

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration

(SAMHSA) Office of Evaluation, Scientific Analysis, and

Dr. Ron Smith, Program Evaluation Branch

Synthesis

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment

Rockwall II, Suite 840

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-7730

Fax No.: (301) 480-3144

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

The purpose of this series of studies is to examine the impact of various types of treatment services provided to

various treatment populations and, where possible, to determine the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of those

services. Types of services include but are not limited to residential, outreach, assessment and referral, wraparound services, and brief interventions. Populations include but are not limited to inner-city residents, women,

ethnic groups, adults, and adolescents.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Dissemination vehicles have not been decided since the data are still being collected. Reports will be prepared

and available for dissemination when data sets are complete and analyses performed.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Hard copy reports and tables. Sample sizes vary by study; samples range from 100

to 50,000 client records.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Sample designs, time frames, selection criteria, and type of data vary by study. All data were collected on

clients served and services provided by SCAT-supported demonstration grants. Although validity and

reliability checks were performed in each study, the procedures used varied by study.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Participation in a substance use treatment program,

substance used, reasons for entering and stopping history, criminal justice history, living situation.

treatment, treatment services received, cost of

treatment services.

Employment history, schooling and training, medical

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The greatest limitation is the variability across data sets. The greatest strength is the aggregate sample size plus

basic substance abuse treatment variables are common to all study data sets.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Provides opportunities for analyses of substance abuse treatment data to augment results from other studies and

provides a large aggregate sample for basic descriptive analyses and possibly more advanced analyses. Exact

implication for drug policy will not be known until data sets are compete and analysis has begun.
130 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), Emergency

Department Component

Continuous

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Janet Greenblatt

Administration

Parklawn Bldg., Rm. 16C-06

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-7981

Fax No.: (301) 443-9847

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

DAWN provides a picture of some of the medical consequences of substance abuse by collecting information

from hospital emergency departments. DAWN records substances associated with drug abuse episodes;

provides a means for monitoring drug abuse patterns trends and the introduction of new substances; assesses

health hazards associated with drug abuse; and generates data for national, State, and local drug abuse policy

and program planning.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated through semi-annual, and special published reports, the Internet, and presentations. 

Special computer runs may also be requested. Data are shared with the Drug Enforcement Administration

(which has current access to the files) and disseminated to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA),

NIDA's Community Epidemiology Work Group, ONDCP, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S.

Congress, State and local health officials, universities, pharmaceutical companies, and the press.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Data are available in report form and Lotus tables. 

Public use files are not currently available but under based on a nationally representative probability

development. sample of over 600 non-Federal, short-stay general

The DAWN emergency department component is

hospitals with 24-hour emergency departments. 

These hospitals account for 14 million emergency

department visits per year. Twenty-one Metropolitan

Statistical Areas (MSAs) were designated for oversampling. Hospitals outside of these 21 areas were

assigned to a national panel and sampled. Data are

weighted to produce national estimates.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Each hospital emergency department involved in the DAWN project has a reporter who is usually part of the

emergency department staff or another unit within the facility. Reporters review emergency department

admissions reports, identify DAWN cases, and record demographic and substance abuse information. To be

included in DAWN, the patient must be 6 years or older and meet four criteria: (1) the patient is treated in the

hospital's emergency department; (2) the presenting problem(s) is induced by or related to drug use; (3) the case

involves the nonmedical use of a legal drug or any use of an illegal drug; and (4) the patient's reason for taking

the substance(s) includes one of the following: dependence; suicide attempt or gesture; or psychic effects.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 131

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Substances involved (a maximum of 4 substances may

be listed); reason for taking substance(s); reason for of patient; patient's home zip code; and disposition

present contact; alcohol involved; form in which from emergency department.

substance is taken; route of administration; source of

substance; and whether the case involved an IV drug

user with HIV/AIDS.

Date of visit; time of visit; age, sex and race/ethnicity

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: The set provides both national and metropolitan area data on drug-related ED episodes and longterm trends; provides detailed information about the drugs that are abused; provides detailed information on

mis-use of prescription and over-the counter drugs, particularly when suicide is involved; and compiles data on

a quarterly basis. Data are used by the FDA and pharmaceutical companies to monitor the abuse of prescription

and over-the-counter drugs.

Limitations: The data set relies on information that is recorded in the medical record; data cannot be compiled

in a timely manner; trauma centers and others parts of the hospital, as well as free-standing emergency facilities,

are not covered; and toxicology test results may not be available at the time of data abstraction. Alcohol-related

emergencies are not covered unless a drug is also involved. Cases are not included unless a person's own drug

abuse contributed significantly to the emergency episode. DAWN is not intended to provide a measure of

prevalence. Total drug episode data may not be a good indicator of illicit drug problems because of

suicide/prescription/over-the-counter drugs are also included, but data for illicit drug episodes can be extracted.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

DAWN provides data on trends in substance abuse related emergency department admissions nationally and

locally, and provides a means to detect new drugs of abuse and changes in pattern of substance abuse

morbidity.
132 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), Medical

Examiner Component

Continuous

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Janet Greenblatt

Administration

Parklawn Bldg., Rm. 16C-06

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-7981

Fax No.: (301) 443-9847

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

The DAWN medical examiner component provides information on the mortality associated with substance

abuse.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated through annual reports, the Internet, and presentations. Special computer runs may also

be requested.

Data are shared with the Drug Enforcement Administration and also disseminated to the National Institute on

Drug Abuse (NIDA), NIDA's Community Epidemiology Work Group, ONDCP, Food and Drug Administration

(FDA), U.S. Congress, State and local health officials, universities, pharmaceutical companies, and the press.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Data are available in printed form. Public use files are

not available because of privacy protection in 41 metropolitan areas report to DAWN. The

considerations. DAWN medical examiner component is not based on

Approximately 146 medical examiners and coroners

a probability sample.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Each medical examiner or coroner office involved in the DAWN project has a reporter who is usually part of the

staff in the administrative office or the toxicology laboratory. Reporters review medical examiner or coroner

records, identify DAWN cases, and record demographic and substance abuse information for each drug-caused

or drug-related case.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Substances involved (a maximum of six substances

may be listed); cause of death; manner of death; home zip code.

factors supporting DAWN case determination; alcohol

involved; route of administration; lab tests used to

identify each drug or substance; and whether the case

involves an IV drug user with HIV/AIDS.

Date of death; age; sex; race/ethnicity; and decedent's

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: The data set covers approximately 62 percent of autopsies performed in the United States, provides

metropolitan area data on drug-related deaths, and allows for trend analysis.

Limitations: ME jurisdictions that report to DAWN reflect neither the universe of medical examiners nor a

nationally representative sample.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 133

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

The reports provide information on local trends, detect new drugs of abuse, and provide some indication of the

extent of hardcore drug use.
134 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Drug and Alcohol Services Information System

(DASIS)

The DASIS has three components: (1) the National

Master Facility Inventory (NMFI), a master list of

organized substance abuse treatment and prevention

programs known to SAMHSA; the subset of NMFI

based providers that are licensed, certified, or

otherwise recognized by individual State Substance

Abuse Agencies is referred to as the National Facility

Register (NFR); (2) the Uniform Facility Data Set

(UFDS), a periodic, annual survey of the providers in

the NMFI; and, (3) the Treatment Episode Data Set

(TEDS), a minimum data set of information about

individuals admitted to treatment, primarily by

providers receiving public funding.

NMFI and TEDS, continuous; UFDS, annual

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Deborah Trunzo

Administration

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301)-443-0525

Fax No.: (301)-443-9847

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

DASIS provides information on the substance abuse treatment delivery system in the United States and on

patients receiving treatment in that system. The NMFI provides a sampling frame for special studies. UFDS

and TEDS contain information on the characteristics of services and admissions to treatment facilities.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Reports include (1) annual reports for UFDS and TEDS that present summary data for that year as well as trend

data; both State-level and national data are included; (2) State Feedback Reports that present summary data in

tablular form and data on individual facilities within that State are sent to each State; (3) the National Directory

of Drug Abuse and Alcoholism Treatment and Prevention Programs, published annually; (4) special ad hoc

analyses.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Data reports and the National Directory are

distributed in printed form and can be accessed publicly and privately funded drug abuse and

through the SAMHSA home page on the Internet. alcoholism treatment and prevention facilities. There

UFDS and TEDS public use data files can also be are approximately 19,500 facilities in the NMFI; of

accessed through the SAMHSA home page. the approximately 16,900 NFR facilities, about

The universe for the NMFI and UFDS is all known

14,100 offer treatment and 2,100 are prevention only. 

The TEDS universe is all substance abuse treatment

facilities that receive funding from State Substance

Abuse Agencies; TEDS includes patient level data on

all admissions to these facilities and contains data on

approximately 1.5 million admissions per year from

1992 to the present.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 135

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The NMFI is updated by periodic enhancements that employ listings of potential substance abuse treatment

providers and by updates of NFR facilities from the States. UFDS is a point-prevalence survey of all facilities

on the NMFI; more limited data are collected from prevention programs. UFDS data are collected by mail

questionnaire; a telephone non-response follow-up is conducted among facilities that do not respond to the

mailed questionnaire. The TEDS minimum data set on patient admissions is transferred electronically from

States to SAMHSA. Some States also maintain a minimum discharge data set. Future plans call for

development of linked admissions and discharge data.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

UFDS contains treatment and prevention facility

location, treatment facility characteristics, services

provided, financial data, and aggregate patient counts. 

TEDS contains patient drug use history, clinical data,

and treatment data.

Patient demographics.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: DASIS contains the only ongoing national census-based data set on substance abuse clients admitted

to facilities that receive public funds. It also contains the only longitudinal national prevention and treatment

program level data set. These data sets provide a foundation for analysis and research on the cost, organization,

structure, and effectiveness of the national treatment system. The NMFI provides a national sampling frame for

special studies, including studies of treatment outcomes. The longitudinal nature of these data permit

monitoring of trends.

Limitations: DASIS is known to omit some treatment units, particulary privately funded units, and some

clients. Attempts to address these gaps are through periodic frame enhancements. DASIS covers speciality

substance abuse providers. It does not include some mental health facilities and omits all treatment provided by

doctors' offices and other settings.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

DASIS provides the only longitudinal national-census-based data on the substance abuse treatment system and

clients in treatment in that system. It is the only data source available to measure and monitor multiple

dimensions of interest to policymakers charged with substance abuse treatment and prevention responsibilities. 

TEDS person-level data permit study of the history and correlates of substance abuse clients in treatment. The

data are also useful as the basis for special studies of clinical effectiveness and treatment, organization,

structure, and financing.
136 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Drug Services Research Survey (DSRS) (1990) One-time (1990). Patient follow-up occurred in the

Services Research Outcomes Study (SROS).

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration Office of Applied Studies

Anita Gadzuk, Public Health Analyst

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration

5600 Fishers Lane, Rm. 16-105

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-0465

Fax No.: (301) 443-9847

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

DSRS was a national survey to obtain information on drug abuse treatment providers and patients to

supplement data from the National Drug and Alcoholism Treatment Unit Survey (NDATUS). It provides

information on substance abuse treatment capacity and utilization, treatment of pregnant women and IV drug

users, and the educational level of treatment personnel. DSRS patient data also provide baseline information

for the SROS follow-up study, which collected outcome data on the DSRS subjects five years after treatment.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

In addition to special reports to DHHS and data tapes to ONDCP and NIDA, final reports have been provided to

U.S. Congress, National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, National Institutes of Health, General

Accounting Office, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, National Association of State Alcohol and

Drug Abuse Directors, APHA, AHSR, the AIDS Commission, university researchers, and other requestors. 

Data were also disseminated through the OAS Connection publication. Public-use data files are available.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Reports are available in printed form. Data files are

available in electronic format (flat or SAS file; facilities in the coterminous United States was drawn

electronic transfer, disk, or tape). from the April 1990 NDATUS census listing for

A stratified random sample of 1,803 treatment

facility level data collection by telephone; of those

facilities, 1,458 were determined to be eligible for

inclusion and 1,183 provided data. At the time of

sample selection, a sub-sample of 146 facilities was

selected for site visit to abstract information from

patient records; 120 of those facilities participated

and were the source of a sample of 2,222 discharged

patients.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

DSRS consists of two components, a facility based telephone interview with a representative sample of drug

treatment providers, followed by a record-based survey of patients discharged from treatment. In the first

phase, facility level information was collected from facility directors. In the second phase, patient level

information was abstracted from records of sampled patients discharged during the 12-month period from

September 1, 1989 through August 31, 1990.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 137

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Drug-related variables include drug treatment type

and patient length of stay in treatment, drug use ownership, accreditation, drug patient capacity and

history, IV drug use, drug testing, and source of workload, waiting list information, staffing, sources

payment for drug treatment. of revenue, and cost. Patient demographic

Facility characteristics include information on

characteristics include information on age, race, sex,

education and occupational status, source of referral

to treatment, and living arrangements.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The data set includes information that can be used to make national estimates on the supply of drug treatment

services, clients in the system, the drugs of abuse, and the sources of payment for treatment. The data will not

support State or local area estimates.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

The data provide a basis for making estimates of average length of stay in treatment and admissions to

treatment, by treatment type. They also provide estimates of the proportion of clients who complete treatment

and the public and private sources of funding for treatment. Follow-up data in SROS will provide a picture of

the long-term outcomes of treatment.
138 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Evaluation of Model Programs for Pregnant and

Postpartum Women and Their Infants (PPWI) delivery, and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months postpartum. 

Outcome Data Set (ODS) and Process Data Set (PDS) Infant growth and development data are collected at 6,

Maternal outcome data are collected at client intake,

12, 18, and 24 months of age.

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration Evaluation Project Officer

Soledad Sambrano, Ph.D.

Office of Scientific Analysis

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention

Rockwall II, Rm. 630

5515 Security Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-9136

Fax No.: (301) 443-8532

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

The evaluation design will assess the impact of intervention strategies implemented by the 13 participating

programs by examining differences in maternal and infant outcomes between treatment and comparison group

participants, assessing changes in substance-using and other behaviors of pregnant and postpartum women and

the birth outcomes and development of their children. The Process Data Set (PDS) will collect data that

describe and categorize programs to provide a context for interpreting findings from the outcome evaluation.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

In addition to a final report and executive summary, a preliminary report of interim findings appropriate for a

wide audience will be prepared at the end of each contract year. The following distribution channels will also

be used: (1) presentations to conferences of organizations interested in maternal substance abuse and

(2) publications sought in refereed journals directed at particular constituencies. The final report will be

distributed widely throughout the Federal Government and to State and local health and substance abuse

agencies.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Raw data will eventually be available in an ASCII file

or an SPSS raw data file; raw data and/or created cross-site evaluation. The expected numbers of

variables can be available on SPSS systems file. client/participants at intake is 1,251 for the treatment

These data would be available on diskette. group and 834 for the comparison group. Delivery

Thirteen grantees are participating in the national

data will be collected on 979 treatment and 653

comparison group clients.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The ODS is a list of data elements to be abstracted from the various forms grantees currently use to collect data

for their projects. Some data will be collected by interviewing women as part of routine project operations. 

These include demographic/lifestyle variables, drug use/treatment history, and pregnancy history. The

remaining variables (i.e., maternal delivery outcomes, infant birth outcomes, infant growth monitoring, and

some services) may be abstracted from other records that have been created by outside service providers such as

hospitals, prenatal clinics, well-baby clinics, and referral treatment agencies.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 139

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

The ODS consists of nine categories of data elements,

one of which includes drug use and treatment history variables, the ODS includes the following categories

variables. These variables assess past and current use of data elements: Demographic/Life Style Variables,

of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs; dates and outcomes of Pregnancy History, Psychological/Parenting

drug toxicologies; family history of drug use; current Assessments, Delivery Outcomes, Birth Outcomes,

household and sexual-partner drug use; history of Infant Growth and Development, Services Received,

drug treatment; and recent treatment episodes. Data and Referrals Received. The PDS contains variables

elements that assess drug and treatment history are on grantee background, organizational characteristics,

collected only at intake. Data elements that assess linkages among service organizations, and client flow.

recent drug use and treatment patterns are collected at

delivery and at the semiannual followup assessments.

In addition to the drug use and treatment history

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: The collection of parallel data on treatment group participants and on comparison group participants

enables a comparison of program impact on women who receive a comprehensive range of gender-specific and

parenting services and women who do not receive these services.

Limitations: Data is not nationally representative of substance-abusing pregnant and postpartum women. 

Conclusions will be limited to women participating in the programs selected for the cross-site evaluation. The

comparison group women on whom outcome data are collected were not randomly assigned and do not

comprise a matched comparison group.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention will use the evaluation study data to influence public policy,

research, and programming as they relate to the provision of women's services. The data produced by this study

will contribute to the body of knowledge concerning methods to reduce factors that increase young women's

vulnerability to initiating alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use and that strengthen their resilience.
140 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Evaluation of a Drug Treatment Enrichment Program

at Job Corps Sites

A one-time study

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration (SAMHSA) Program Evaluation Branch

Ron Smith, Ph.D., Acting Chief

Office of Evaluation, Scientific Analysis, and

Synthesis

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment

Rockwall II, 8th Floor

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-7730

Fax No.: (301) 480-3144

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

The purpose of this study was to examine whether or not enhanced drug treatment services provided to

adolescents in a vocational training program would improve both short-term and long-term outcomes of interest

(e.g., length of time in training, achievements during training, employment, drug and alcohol use).

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

The annual and final reports have been disseminated to CSAT, SAMHSA, and other interested PHS and

government staff.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Data are in development. Contact Dr. Smith for more

information. Intake to drug treatment enrichment program (DTEP)/

Intake Questionnaires = 10,000 (overall)

alcohol and other drugs of abuse (AODA) =

6,510; followup = 1,160

Programs = 8 (4 AODA and 4 DTEP)

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The DTEP demonstration design involves implementation of DTEP in four Job Corps centers which were

matched with four control centers that are providing the standard Job Corps AODA program.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Drug-related variables include participation in an

alcohol or drug addiction treatment program; tobacco, information on school or training programs attended,

alcohol, and drug use; amount paid for drugs; how time spent in jail or prison, and living situation.

drugs were taken; and reason(s) for stopping drug use.

Other variables include employment history and

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The matched centers provide for rigorous comparison of the interventions. The intensity and cost of the

enrichment was rather limited; resultant effects, though they may reach statistical significance, may be small in

size. As the subjects were at Job Corps sites, generalizability of the findings to broader populations is probably

not warranted; however, the data set may reveal important characteristics of late adolescent drug abusers in

similar socioeconomic strata.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Findings include that approximately one-third of students entering the Job Corps tested positive for one or more

drugs, suggesting that drug treatment is an important part of programs for similar populations.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 141
142 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Meta-Analysis of Five Grant Programs Designed To

Reduce Substance Abuse-Related Violence

Annually

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration

(SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Division of Knowledge Development

(CSAP) and Evaluation

Deborah Stone, Ph.D.

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention

Rockwall II, Room 1075

5515 Security Lane

Rockville, MD 20852

Telephone No.: (301) 443-9110

Fax No.: (301) 443-8965

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To analyze data of the five prevention grant programs to see how effective they have been in reducing youth

substance abuse-related violence and which particular components were most effective in this regard.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Report (continuing analysis and discussion of findings): This document synthesizes best practices across

systems for communities to use to help develop strategies to prevent substance abuse-related violence.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Hard copy. Variable; five prevention grant programs.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Not applicable.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Variables include use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit

drugs (i.e., marijuana, cocaine, sedatives, stimulants,

heroin, inhalants).

Vary by grant program.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: Provides information on different populations being assessed for substance abuse-related violence

prevention.

Limitations: Analysis is sporadic and it is difficult to judge when it will be available.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Helpful to CSAP to provide information on models of violence prevention and changes in behavior due to

interventions (outcomes).
Office of National Drug Control Policy 143

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

The National Findings Bank Annually

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Division of Knowledge Development

Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and Evaluation

Stephen Gardner, D.S.W.

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention

Rockwall II, Room 1075

5515 Security Lane

Rockville, MD 20852

Telephone No.: (301) 443-9110

Fax No.: (301) 443-8965

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

A database created by CSAP in 1994 and called the High Risk Populations Findings Bank. The database

consists of all known qualitative and quantitative evidence of success of High Risk Projects.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

The system will be accessible electronically by summer 1998. Access to program information may be obtained

through the SAMHSA Internet World Wide Web site.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Monograph (in press), electronic form

(http://samhsa.gov), and folder (fact sheets).

Not applicable.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Not applicable.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Variables include use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit

drugs (i.e., marijuana, cocaine, sedatives, stimulants, (biological and psychological dispositions, attitudes,

heroin, inhalants); attitudes of participant peers, and values, knowledge, skills, and problem behaviors);

parents; use by peers, parents, and friends; and peer (norms and activities); family (function,

perceptions of drug use and availability in management, and bonding); school (bonding, climate,

community. policy, and performance); community (bonding,

Domain-specific variables including individual

norms, resources, and awareness/mobilization); and

society (norms, policy, and sanctions).

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: Measures effectiveness of models across contexts (information on different populations using the

same instrument); provides valuable information on a wide variety of variables; provides information on

validity and reliability of instrumentation; and helps to identify gaps in data collection process and analyses.

Limitations: Information collection is ongoing and being updated constantly. Should be an informed user.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Provides valuable concise data for prevention planning and policy development.
144 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) Continuous (calendar year survey periods)

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration Alternate Project Officer, NHSDA

Joseph Gfroerer

Office of Applied Studies

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration

Parklawn Bldg., Rm. 16C-06

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-7977

Fax No.: (301) 443-9847

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

The purpose of the NHSDA is to measure the incidence and prevalence of use of illicit drugs, licit drugs used

illegally, alcohol, and tobacco. Besides being used to track overall trends, the NHSDA is an important data

source for the analysis of demographic correlates of substance use, patterns of substance use, relationships of

substance use with other problems, the size and characteristics of the population needing treatment, substance

use among various special populations, and comorbidity of substance abuse with mental health problems.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Three general reports are issued annually summarizing the results of the survey: (1) Preliminary Results from

the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse presents preliminary findings and highlights approximately

seven months after the survey is completed; (2) Population Estimates provides basic prevalence estimates for

all major drugs by such categories as age group, race/ethnicity, and sex; and (3) NHSDA Main Findings

presents information on drug and alcohol use trends; demographic correlates of use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and

tobacco; patterns and problems of drug use; perceptions of the harmfulness of drug use; and the survey

methodology. Special analytic reports, now part of the analytic series published by OAS, address topics of

particular interest (e.g., drug use among youth, drug use and socioeconomic status, incidence of drug use, drug

use in rural areas, drug use among the employed population, and drug use among women).

Special tabulations are produced to respond to unique requests for information. Public use data files are

available to analysts. Selected reports are also available in electronic form via the Internet.

NHSDA data users include: ONDCP, substance abuse policymakers and program directors at all levels of

government, public health professionals, foreign government agencies, academic institutions, and the interested

U.S. general public.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

NHSDA data results are available in printed format, as

described above, and as a complete data file (i.e., 1994–96; 25,000 per year in 1997–98; 70,000 per

Public Use Data Tape). Tapes are available in SAS year starting in 1999.

format for years 1979, 1982, 1985, 1988, and each

year from 1990 through 1996.

18,000 interviews per survey (calendar) year during
Office of National Drug Control Policy 145

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

All interviews are conducted face-to-face within the respondent's home. The respondent universe for the

NHSDA is the United States civilian, noninstitutionalized population, 12 years old and older. 

Each sample dwelling unit is screened to determine if zero, one, or two residents will be interviewed. Callbacks

are made if selected household member(s) are not available at the first visit. Sensitive data are obtained through

self-administered answer sheets; non-sensitive questions are interviewer administered. Respondents are

provided Federal assurances of confidentiality. To ensure consistency of reported data, the complete interview

is conducted according to a specific protocol.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Drug-related variables include age at first use, recency

and frequency of use for each of 12 different drug demographic characteristics, income, program

categories. Respondents are also questioned about participation, employment, health status, access to

problems associated with substance use, attitudes health care, mental health, and criminal behavior and

about drugs, needle using behaviors, and treatment for arrest.

drug and alcohol problems.

General personal information includes socioSTRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: (1) The NHSDA includes a large national probability sample that supports estimates by age group,

race, and ethnicity; (2) format and administration of a questionnaire are structured to ensure that all “core”

variables (to determine substance use prevalence) remain consistent over time; (3) interchangeable module

design permits addition of new topics; and (4) survey results are available six months after data collection.

Limitations: The target population excludes some high-risk populations (e.g., prison inmates and the homeless

not in shelters). Prior to 1999, direct State estimates cannot be produced.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Provides detailed, reliable, and timely data on the prevalence of substance use in the United States, including

data on the consequences and patterns of the nonmedical use of substances. The range of variables makes

possible analyses of a wide variety of policy issues and the addition of special modules extends this capability

to address many policy issues and by adding modules to the questionnaire to address emerging policy

questions.
146 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study A one-time study

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration (SAMHSA) Program Evaluation Branch

Ron Smith, Ph.D., Acting Chief

Office of Evaluation, Scientific Analysis, and

Synthesis

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment

Rockwall II, 8th Fl.

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-7730

Fax No.: (301) 480-3144

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

This evaluation study will help determine the status of drug treatment in the United States by assessing the

impact of enhancements funded in fiscal year (FY) 90 and FY 91 by the Office for Treatment Improvement

(now CSAT) on the success of substance abuse treatment programs.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Annual reports have been disseminated to CSAT, SAMHSA, and other interested PHS and Government staff.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Data are in development. Contact Dr. Smith for more

information. Programs = 300+ at Level 1; 65 at patient level.

Patients = 4,400

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The sampling universe is all services delivery units (SDUs) (defined as a single treatment modality delivered at

a single geographic site) that received demonstration funding from OTI (now CSAT) in FY 90 and FY 91. Each

SDU provided information on services, funding, and staffing twice during the field period. SDU data are

collected via paper and pencil.

Nearly 6,600 patients were selected from participating SDUs for three interviews at different points in time: (1)

intake to treatment; (2) exit from treatment; (3) 1 year posttreatment. Selection criteria were (1) treatment

modality, (2) OTI demonstration program, and (3) geographic distribution. All patient data are collected in

CAPI format.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Drug-related variables include reason(s) for going to

treatment, reason(s) that might make it hard to get locked up/detained, education, living arrangements,

treatment, drug use, money spent on drugs, needle and criminal justice involvement.

use, and alcohol use treatment history.

Other variables include reason(s) for being in jail/

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

This is the largest study of patients in public sector treatment in the country, but it is not based on a national

probability sample of treatment units. The selection criterion was OTI grants; therefore, the overall results will

not be generalizable to the entire publicly funded treatment sector.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 147

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Of central interest will be the impact of federally funded enhancements of existing treatment programs. An

examination of results in terms of the four main treatment modalities and outcomes for thousands of clients in

public sector treatment will provide policy-relevant information on effective successful treatment mechanisms. 

A preliminary final report has been disseminated. Analyses are continuing.
148 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Predictor Variables Data is collected at four points during a 24-month

period. Follow-up data are being collected FY1998.

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Division of Knowledge Development and Evaluation

Abuse Prevention (CSAP). Center for Substance Abuse Prevention

Soledad Sombrano, Ph.D.

Rockwall II, Room 1075

5515 Security Lane

Rockville, MD 20852

Telephone No.: (301) 443-9110

Fax No.: (301) 443-8965

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To enhance knowledge about preventing abuse and determining kinds of interventions that will be effective in

changing the developmental path for children at risk of substance abuse and linking them with appropriate

developmental stages. The effectiveness of interventions at a child's next developmental stage is dependent on

when a specific intervention or combination of interventions is provided.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data is aggregate form are disseminated through papers presented at appropriate conferences and referreed

journals specific to child development and substance abuse prevention. Data on follow-up studies of children

in the PV program will be generated to inform the prevention field.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Hard copy, reports, and papers delivered at

conferences.

Varies; there are 10 grantees and 1 coordinating site.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Paper and pencil and op-scan forms. Instruments were developed just for this study.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Variables include use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit

drugs (i.e., marijuana, cocaine, sedatives, stimulants, patterns of behavior in childhood and adolescence

heroin, and inhalants); attitudes of participants, peers that are predictive of more serious adult disorders,

and parents, use by peers, parents, and friends; and including substance abuse: (1) social competence,

perceptions of drugs use and availability in (2) self-regulation, (3) school bonding and academic

community. achievement, and (4) parental/caregiver involvement.

To study four behavioral characteristics and/or

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: Provide information on substance abuse prevention by determining kinds of interventions that are

effective in changing the developmental path for children at risk. Measures the effectiveness of specific

interventions. Collects a wide range of data.

Limitations: Data are still being collected.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Provides CSAP with empirical evidence for planning and policy development on developmental issues;

precursor data concerning onset of substance abuse with the domains of the individual, family and community.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 149

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Services Research Outcomes Study (SROS) One-time, 1995-1996

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration Office of Applied Studies

Barbara A. Ray, Ph.D., Public Health Analyst

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration

Parklawn Bldg., Rm. 16-105

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301)-443-0747

Fax No.: (301)-443-9847

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

Data collected by SROS are being used to assess the content and success of treatment programs available in

1990. A sample of 3,047 patients identified as discharged from treatment for drug or alcohol problems between

September 1, 1989, and August 31, 1990, were interviewed to determine their status before and after the

targeted treatment episode. SROS was the first drug and alcohol treatment outcome survey to be based on a

national probability sample of treatment providers.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

The final report was received in August 1997. Release of the study is expected by July 1998.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Distribution of the data set by Internet and by CDROM will follow release of the final report in 1998. discharged from substance abuse treatment programs

A printed report will also be available. were interviewed.

1,799 patients of the identified 3,047 persons

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The 3,047 patients were selected from the stratified probability sample of 120 treatment programs that

participated in Phase II of the Drug Services Research Study (DSRS). Five years after discharge, of the original

120 treatment programs, 99 participated in the SROS. Roughly 5 years after discharge, field interviews were

completed with 1,799 (59 percent) of the patient sample. An additional 273 (9 percent) of the sampled patients

were decreased. Interviews were supplemented by a urine drug test for willing participants; about 80 percent of

those interviewed agreed to the urine testing.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

The survey was concerned with drug treatment

outcomes. In addition to sociodemographic history from the respondents, and financial

information, the interview focused on the behavior of information from the treatment programs was also

patients before and after the 1989-90 treatment obtained.

episode with respect to drug and alcohol use, criminal

behavior, employment, living arrangement, treatment

history, and general health status.

Information on ethnicity, education, child custody
150 Office of National Drug Control Policy

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

A major strength of the SROS is its status as the first nationally representative long-term outcome study of drug

and alcohol treatment. Based on information in DSRS, clients were selected from programs that represented the

national picture in 1989-90, before Federal funding increased dramatically. Previous studies have selected

respondents primarily from urban treatment facilities. A second strength of the SROS is that it follows clients

over a long period of time. The loss of almost one-half the sample because of death, refusals, and inability to

locate limits substantially the utility of the data. 

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

These data will be the best national estimate of treatment impact after five years. Between FY 1989 and FY

1992, Federal funding for drug treatment increased 92 percent. National measures of drug and alcohol

treatment outcomes that are subsequent to the SROS may use it as a baseline against which to measure changes

in national treatment effectiveness and cost.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 151

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

State Needs Assessment Studies Data on substance abuse treatment needs are

submitted annually by States in their Substance Abuse

Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant

applications, and in individual study final reports as

studies are completed.

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration Scientific Analysis Team

Herman Diesenhaus, Ph.D., Leader

Office of Evaluation, Scientific Analysis, and

Synthesis

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment

Rockwall II Bldg., Rm. 840

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-9128

Fax No.: (301) 480-3144

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To determine the need for substance abuse treatment services on a State and sub-State level to ensure the most

effective allocation of SAPT Block Grant funds to meet treatment needs.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are disseminated to State policymakers (e.g., Governor's office, legislature) by State substance abuse

agencies; data are disseminated by CSAT to SAMHSA, other PHS agencies, and Departmental officials through

briefing memoranda, reports, and other written communications.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Data is generally submitted in hard-copy reports and

in either hard-copy Block Grant applications or household survey, school survey, Drug Use

diskette applications using special software (BGAS Forecasting-type study) being conducted by the

[Block Grant Application System]) provided to the States.

States by CSAT.

Sample sizes vary by type of study (e.g., telephone

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Methodology varies by type of study being conducted.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

All States must incorporate data elements that will

enable a determination of DSM-III-R dependence to populations and other special populations (i.e.,

be made for the following core drugs: marijuana, women, homeless, criminal justice, and racial, cultural

alcohol, cocaine (including crack), heroin, and and ethnic groups) are targeted by many States.

hallucinogens (including PCP).

Variables vary by type of study. High-risk

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths and weaknesses vary by type of study. A “family” of studies is generally supported in each State so

that the limitations of a given study methodology can be compensated for by another approach.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Studies will provide more accurate data on substance abuse treatment needs, especially at the sub-State level

and for specific population groups, than is currently available.
152 Office of National Drug Control Policy
Office of National Drug Control Policy 153

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Violence Data Exchange Team Network Varies according to each team/community

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Division of Knowledge Development and Evaluation

Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention

Deborah Stone, Ph.D.

Rockwall II, Room 1075

5515 Security Lane

Rockville, MD 20852

Telephone No.: (301) 443-9110

Fax No.: (301) 443-8965

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To collect data on local indicators of substance abuse and violence.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

This is an ongoing effort to identify substance abuse-related violence trends in local communities. Aggregated

site-specific data will be shared via a network of teams. At present there are 28 communities nationally which

compose this network. Additionally, the following distribution channels will be used: (1) presentations to

conferences of organizations interested in substance abuse-related violence prevention, and (2) publications

sought by refereed journals directed at particular constituencies.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Hard copy at present (1998). Not applicable.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Twenty-eight teams presently collect data at the local level on five core indicators of substance abuse- related

violence. By 2001, it is expected that approximately 70 VDETs (distributed in all regions, States, and/or major

metropolitan areas of the country) will be trained so that a nationwide network can be established. Teams are

trained using a curriculum developed for this purpose; training occurs during a 21⁄2-day workshop.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Variables include use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit

drugs (i.e., marijuana, cocaine, sedatives, stimulants, violence are (1) number of substance abuse-related

heroin, and inhalants). homicides, (2) number of substance abuse-related

Five core indicators of substance abuse-related

suicides, (3) number of domestic violence

perpetrators under the influence of a substance at the

time of arrest, (4) number of substance abuse-related

child abuse reports, and (5) number of substance

abuse-related juvenile arrests.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: Provides data on a wide variety of substance abuse-related violence at the local and/or community

level; helps identify trends and changes in trends for substances sometimes difficult to track; and provides data

which often are very difficult to get.

Limitations: Teams must be trained to collect data; data collection process is not standardized; data collectors

must be highly motivated, (there are no monies presently available to pay for this collection process); and

analyses across local communities begin 6/25/98.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

This has the potential to be highly informative at both the community and national level.
154 Office of National Drug Control Policy
Office of National Drug Control Policy 155

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

World Health Organization Cross-National Study of

Health Behavior Among Youth: U.S. Component

(WHO/SAMHSA Survey)

A one-time survey

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration Office of Applied Studies

Beatrice A. Rouse, Ph.D., Senior Epidemiologist

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration

Parklawn Building, Rm. 16-105

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone No.: (301) 443-8005

Fax No.: (301) 443-9847

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

This study constitutes U.S. participation in a multinational study. The purpose of the survey is to obtain

national estimates of drug and alcohol use prevalence and frequency of use by children in grades 6, 8, and 10. 

The survey will also collect data on mental health problems, experience with violence, and the need for

treatment among major race/ethnic groups.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data will be disseminated through reports, presentations, and publications to the public; health professionals;

and other agencies and interested organizations. Information will be disseminated to health educators, teachers,

family physicians, and parents. Interested Federal groups outside SAMHSA include the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, Department of Education, Department of Transportation, Health Resources Services

Administration's Maternal and Child Health Bureau, National Institute on Child Health and Human

Development, National Institute on Mental Health, and the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

and Health Planning and Evaluation. Data will also be shared with WHO and researchers in other countries.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Preliminary data only. Not yet available for

distribution.

About 21,000 students.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The study is comprised of a national, representative probability sample of public- and private-school students in

grades 6, 8, and 10. The sample frame will be stratified by region, urbanicity, and minority composition. 

Schools will be selected in each PSU with probability proportional to the weighted measure of enrollment by

race/ethnicity. All students in a selected classroom will be administered the self-report questionnaire in a group

setting with appropriate safeguards for anonymity. The design will produce separate reliable estimates by grade

and the following racial/ethnic groups: black non-Hispanic, white non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific

Islander students.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Drug-related variables include alcohol, tobacco,

marijuana, and other drug use at least once, in past 30 violence, mental health issues, and supports available

days, and on school property; help sought and at home or school.

received; desire to stop using; availability of drugs on

school property; riding in a car with driver under the

influence of alcohol or drugs; and carrying weapons

while using drugs or alcohol.

These include general health, injuries, exposure to
156 Office of National Drug Control Policy

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: Includes first national data on mental health of children; national data on Asian and other race/ethnic

groups of children; cross-national comparisons with other 27 WHO participating countries; national educational

goals; Healthy People 2000; and drug policy issues related to school children.

Limitations: Data is gathered only on children in grades 6, 8 and 10; a one-time survey.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

The policy-relevant information to be provided by this survey includes: the extent that the students are in a

drug-free, violence-free school or neighborhood environment; the perceived need of students for drug

treatment; the types of adults to whom students go for help with drug problems; and the relation of drug use to

physical and mental health, vehicle safety, and violence.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 157

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Worldwide Survey of Substance Abuse and Health

Behaviors Among Military Personnel

Once every 2 to 4 years

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

U.S. Department of Defense Coordinator for Drug

Enforcement Policy and Support and Assistant Office of the Coordinator for Drug Enforcement

Secretary of Defense/Health Affairs Policy and Support

Leonard Wolfson, Senior Policy Analyst

The Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301-1510

Telephone No.: (703) 693-1917

Fax No.: (703) 693-7588

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To assess substance abuse and other health behaviors of military personnel.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

To the military services and any other interested parties.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Printed format available. Approximately 25,000.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Survey team members administered a questionnaire in group settings worldwide over a 6-week period. 

Respondents (25,000) were randomly selected from within paygrades at 63 locations worldwide.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

These include drug use within the past 30 days, views

on the danger of illegal drug use, and views on the variables (e.g., use of tobacco, exercise, diet, AIDS

deterrent effect of drug testing. awareness).

These include various health-related behavioral

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The greatest strength is its comprehensiveness in sampling the target population. Its weakness is that it is a

self-report.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

The survey is a good measure of counterdrug program effectiveness in the military with implications for

counterdrug program modification.
158 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Interagency Counterdrug Performance Assessment

Working Group (ICPAWG)

Compiled quarterly

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

U.S. Interdiction Coordinator LCDR M. Greene

U.S. Interdiction Coordinator

2100 Second St., Room 3600

Washington, DC 20593-0001

Telephone No.: (202) 267-6637

Fax No.: (202) 267-4723

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

The ICPAWG maintains a database of noncommercial drug smuggling activity and interagency interdiction

performance against those events.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Data are provided to all working group members, who represent DOD, U.S. Coast Guard, Drug Enforcement

Administration, U.S. Customs Service, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Additionally, any U.S. agency or

their contractors will be provided with the data upon request, based on a need-to-know (data are classified as

confidential).

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Microsoft Excel format, available on diskette or on

the ADNET. smuggling events are recorded. Data collection began

All known noncommercial air and maritime drugin Fiscal Year 1991.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Representatives from U.S. agencies responsible for the interdiction of noncommercial air and maritime drug

smuggling meet quarterly and compile a list of “known events” to document the occurrence of aerial or

maritime movements of drugs, and interdiction efforts against those movements. Known events are established

by combining all-source intelligence and operational data. For a suspected drug movement to meet known

event criteria, there must be either physical proof (e.g., a drug seizure) or high confidence based on various

indicators.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Data include type and quantity of drugs that are

known to have been transported. conveyance(s) and route used; (2) whether the

Other variables include (1) type of smuggling

smuggling event was detected, monitored, or

interdicted; (3) interagency assets that participated in

the effort; and (4) related intelligence.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: Interagency consensus—data are accepted as the standard record of interagency efforts against

noncommercial air and maritime drug smuggling.

Limitations: (1) Does not record smuggling in commercial conveyances (e.g., in shipping containers or

passenger airlines); (2) does not include land transport; and (3) does not record smuggling in small quantities

(personal use size).
Office of National Drug Control Policy 159

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

It records performance of ICPAWG in general and various assets in specific against known noncommercial air

and maritime drug smuggling.
160 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

1993 National Household Education Survey, School

Safety and Discipline Component was administered in 1991, 1993, 1995, and 1996. The

The National Household Education Survey (NHES)

School Safety and Discipline component was

conducted only in 1993.

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics National Center for Education Statistics

Kathryn Chandler

555 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20208

Telephone No.: (202) 219-1767

Fax No.: (202) 219-1728

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

The School Safety and Discipline data set collects information on school environment, school safety, school

discipline policy, and alcohol and other drug use and education. The component sampled parents of students in

grades 3 through 12 and youth in grades 6 through 12.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

NCES has produced six publications using data from the School Safety and Discipline component that were

disseminated to groups of people in a variety of interest areas. In addition, the data are available to users on

CD-ROM, and some data analysis can be requested from the National Education Data Resource Center.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

The NHES CD-ROM provides an Electronic

CodeBook (ECB) that allows the user to select (grades 6 through 12).

variables to be extracted and analyzed. Youth Interviews: 6,504 (grades 6 through 12).

Parent Interviews: 2,563 (grades 3 through 5); 10,117

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The NHES is a telephone survey of the survey of the civilian, noninstituionalized population conducted using

random-digit-dialing (RDD) methods. Data are collected using computer-assisted telephone interviewing that

occurred from January through April 1993. Two instruments were used to collect data—a screening interview

(to determine eligibility) and an extended interview administered to parents and no more than two children per

household.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Drug-related variables include students' perception of

drug use; peer approval of drug use; availability of drug use and drug education, safety, and overall

drugs at school and on school grounds; and instances school discipline.

when drug use interfered with learning. Questions

also included students' participation in alcohol and

drug education programs and their perception of the

main prevention message.

Other variables on the data set pertain to alcohol and

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

A major strength of the data set is that it collects information from parents and youth which allows for

comparisons between the two groups. A limitation of the data set is that the data are collected through selfreporting.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 161

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Preliminary findings from analysis conducted on the School Safety and Discipline component highlight the

problems of substance availability, peer approval of substances, and witnessing alcohol and drug use at school. 

The study suggests the importance of the message in alcohol and drug education and transmitting the message

clearly to students. Results also suggest that peer approval varied by type of substance. For instance, larger

peer approval of alcohol than marijuana was reported.
162 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Public Housing Drug Elimination Outcome

Monitoring Form

Semiannually

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) Community Safety and Conservation Division

Sonia Burgos

Office of Public and Indian Housing

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Rm. 4206

Washington, DC 20410

Telephone No.: (202) 708-1197

Fax No.: (202) 401-7965

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Not ready to disseminate yet; still in-house.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Hardcopy and DOS formats. All Public Housing Drug Elimination Program

(PHDEP) grantees; approximately l,100 per year.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Housing authorities are sent a form to be completed and returned semiannually for them to report on a variety of

variables. The hardcopy is then keyed-in to an existing database.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

All PHDEP funds are to be targeted to a drug or drugrelated crime problem; therefore, essentially all

PHDEP activities are antidrug activities.

None available.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: Ongoing data will allow HUD to accurately measure the effectiveness of the PHDEP funds on

desired results, such as decreases in UCR crimes.

Limitations: It is difficult to enforce correct and universal submission of data.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Evidence of program effectiveness could assist Administration and Congress support of the program. 

Comparing the effectiveness of several elements of the program could assist in targeting the funds in an

effective manner.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 163

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Public Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP)

Grant Awards

Annually

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) Community Safety and Conservation Division

Sonia Burgos

Office of Public and Indian Housing

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Rm. 4206

Washington, DC 20410

Telephone No.: (202) 708-1197

Fax No.: (202) 401-7965

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To publish the PHDEP funds awarded to public and Indian housing authorities after competition.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Information available upon request.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Hard copy and computer DOS format. Universal; no sampling.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Figures are keyed-in when the application arrives and modified, if necessary, and transferred from the

application database.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

All funds must be targeted to some antidrug or

antidrug-related crime purpose. for which the funds will be used, as follows: local

The funds are broken down according to the purposes

law enforcement reimbursements, contracted or

housing authority security, housing authority police

departments, volunteer resident patrols, investigators,

physical changes to enhance security, and drug

prevention.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: This is the only data set HUD has with figures broken down in the same categories since fiscal year

1992.

Limitations: It only measures projected expenditure of Federal funds by a housing authority on a variety of

drug-related crime problems. These are not the only funds housing authorities use to support any of the above

eight purposes. It only measures activity by public and Indian housing authorities.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

These figures can help measure any shift of interest or of focus by public and Indian housing authorities in the

United States (e.g., from law enforcement to prevention).
164 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Public Housing Drug Elimination Youth Sports Grant

Awards

Annually

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) Community Safety and Conservation Division

Sonia Burgos

Office of Public and Indian Housing

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Rm. 4206

Washington, DC 20410

Telephone No.: (202) 708-1197

Fax No.: (202) 401-7965

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To publish the funds awarded to public and Indian housing authorities after competition.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Information available upon request.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Hard copy and computer DOS format. Universal; no sampling.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Figures are taken from YSP applications.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

All funds must be targeted to a sports, recreational,

and cultural opportunity for youth in the application. to which the funds will be used, as follows: local law

This opportunity is to have an antidrug focus. enforcement reimbursements, contracted or housing

The funds are broken down according to the purposes

authority security, housing authority police

departments, volunteer resident patrols, investigators,

physical changes to enhance security, and drug

prevention.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: This is the only data set HUD has with figures broken down in the same categories since fiscal year

1992.

Limitations: It only measures projected expenditure of Federal funds by a housing authority on a variety of

youth-related prevention programs. These are not the only funds housing authorities use to support any of the

above eight purposes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

These figures can help measure any shift of interest or focus by public and Indian housing authorities in the

United States.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 165

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Public Housing Law Enforcement and Security

Personnel Form

Annually

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) Community Safety and Conservation Division

Sonia Burgos

Office of Public and Indian Housing

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Rm. 4206

Washington, DC 20410

Telephone No.: (202) 708-1197

Fax No.: (202) 401-7965

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To measure the levels of different types of HUD funds housing authorities use to pay for law enforcement and

security officers.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Within HUD.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Hardcopy. Universal, but not yet complete.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Housing authorities are sent a form to be completed and returned once a year for them to report the number of

staff and the amount of HUD funds (broken down by funding type).

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

There are no specific variables. Law enforcement and

security personnel are hired for a wide variety of enforcement and security efforts in public housing.

purposes, none specifically for antidrug-related crime.

It measures HUD contribution to local law

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: It assists HUD in long-term policymaking.

Limitations: It is difficult to enforce correct and universal submission of correct data.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

The data could assist HUD and other Federal agencies in decisions regarding allocation of law enforcement

resources.
166 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth79 (NLSY79) The basic survey, which covers a wide range of

socioeconomic topics, was conducted annually from

1979 through 1994 and biennially thereafter. Recent

drug use information is available for 1988, 1990,

1992, and 1994.

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

The Bureau contracts with the Ohio State University Director of Longitudinal Research

to manage the surveys and provide user services. The Bureau of Labor Statistics

data collection for the NLSY79 is undertaken by the 2 Massachusetts Ave., N.E.

National Opinion Research Center (NORC). PSB, Rm. 4945

Supportive funding for the drug-use data collection Washington, DC 20212-0001

was provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse Telephone No.: (202) 606-7386

in 1988, 1992, and 1994. Fax No.: (202) 606-6425

Michael W. Horrigan

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

NLSY79 data are used to examine a variety of policy issues, such as employment and earnings of workers in the

labor market; educational experience and the transition from school to work; training programs and training in

the workplace; relationships between the workplace and the well-being of the family and family transitions;

geographic mobility; drug and alcohol use; juvenile delinquency and criminal behavior; and fertility and

childbearing, especially the problems of adolescent fertility on both mothers and their children.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

The NLSY79 is used by economists, sociologists, and other researchers in government, the academic research

community, and private organizations. The data set and documentation are available to the public by contacting

(1) NLS Public User's Services, Center for Human Resource Research, Ohio State University, 921 Chatham

Lane, Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio 43221-2418, (614) 442-7366, e-mail USERSVC@OHSTHR; (2) National

Longitudinal Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics, 2

Massachusetts Ave., N.E., PSB, Rm. 4945, Washington, DC 20212, (202) 606-7405.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

The data are available on CD-ROM (Compact DiscRead Only Memory) and magnetic tape. The CD- 12,686 young men and women who were ages 14 to

ROM includes a software extraction program. The 22 when they were first interviewed in 1979. It

magnetic tape is in ASCII and EBCDIC (Extended includes oversamples of blacks, Hispanics,

Binary-Coded Decimal Interchange Code) formats. economically disadvantaged whites, and youth in the

The NLSY79 is a nationally representative sample of

military. The military oversample was discontinued

after the 1984 survey, and the economically

disadvantaged white oversample was discontinued

after the 1990 survey. In 1996 the total number of

respondents eligible for interview was 9,964, and of

these, 8,636 were interviewed at a response rate of

87.0 percent.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 167

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The NLSY79 is a survey that enables researchers to study in detail longitudinal experiences of this particular

age group as well as the disparate life course experiences of such groups as women, Hispanics, blacks, and the

economically disadvantaged. The sample is derived from households through area-probability sampling. The

survey consists of annual personal interviews from 1979–94 (except 1987, which was conducted by telephone). 

Preceding the data collection, interviewers are given training with particular emphasis placed on resolving

sensitive issues such as drug use. From 1979–92, the method of data collection was paper and pencil, and after

1992, data were collected using computer-assisted interviews.

A comprehensive pretest is carried out approximately 3 months before the regular survey. This pretest includes

a heterogeneous group of respondents to assure that the responses of individuals from different social, ethnic,

geographic, and socioeconomic backgrounds can be evaluated. On the basis of pretest results, the various

questionnaire items, particularly those questioned for the first time, are evaluated with respect to question

sensitivity and validity.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Special drug supplements were included in the 1988,

1992, and 1994 NLSY79 surveys. These supplements following topics: current labor-force status, work

include questions on age of first experience, employers and jobs, gaps in employment,

marijuana/hashish/cocaine use, lifetime use, most training, educational status and attainment, military

recent use, and use in the past 30 days. Also included service, health limitations, marital history, fertility,

is information on respondents' use of prescribed and income and assets, household composition, and

nonprescribed sedatives, tranquilizers, stimulants, and geographic residence.

painkillers.

Other drug use variables can be found in the fertility

series in 1988, 1990, 1992, and 1994. This series

includes questions on use of marijuana or cocaine

during the 12-month period before a pregnancy.

The NLSY79 contain core sets of questions on the

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The NLSY79 has several features that make it an exceptional database for many types of analyses. Three of

particular importance are the breadth of information collected, the event-history format (i.e., the notation of the

dates and events in work history), and the high retention rate. The longitudinal nature of the data allows for

examination of the causes and consequences of certain types of behavior over time. Limitations of the data set

are that the results are specific to the particular age cohort, and sample sizes for some types of analyses can be

small, particularly when examining certain subgroups.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

The data can be used to analyze the relationship between drug use and numerous behaviors, such as labormarket outcomes, marital status, and fertility. The longitudinal nature of the data allows researchers to

determine causal effects of drug use, rather than correlations, which is often the case when using cross-sectional

data. Policy implications depend on the nature of the research conducted using the data (for example, see Drug

Use Among Youth, GAO report/HRD-94-24, December 1993).
168 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Quarterly Report on Testing for Alcohol and Other

Drugs of Abuse (AODA)

Quarterly 

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, Job Corps National Medical Director

Charles R. Hayman, M.D.

or

Barbara Groves, R.N., Nurse Consultant

Job Corps

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Rm. N-4507

Washington, DC 20210

Telephone No.: (202) 219-5556

Fax No.: (202) 219-5183

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To provide findings of alcohol/drug testing to the Job Corps Community.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

Job Corps centers and operators, regional offices, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture/USDI.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Printed only. 13,000 to 15,000 per quarter.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Testing is done at each Job Corps center (total of 113 centers), which sends a statistical report to the national

office for tabulation and analysis by a contractor. All new students are tested within 48 hours of enrollment. 

Students who test positive are retested within 45 days and are dismissed from the program if they still test

positive in accordance with Job Corps' policy of zero tolerance for violence and drugs.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

None needed for quarterly report. No other variables are included.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The data show use trends currently and during past years. Testing for drugs is done by one nationally

contracted laboratory.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

The data particularly show that, for applicants entering the Job Corps in the last 61⁄2 years, approximately

30 percent have been using marijuana, and less than 5 percent have been using hard drugs.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 169

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Survey of Employer Anti-drug Programs One-time survey

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Policy, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Director of Longitudinal Research

Michael Horrigan

Bureau of Labor Statistics

2 Massachusetts Ave., N.E.

PSB, Room 4945

Washington, DC 20212-0001

Telephone No.: (202) 606-7386

Fax No.: (202) 606-6425

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

The purpose of this survey was to collect information on the incidence of drug-testing and employee assistance

programs in private industry.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

The results of the survey were released by BLS in January 1989 as Report 760, “Survey of Employer Anti-drug

Programs.”

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

The data are available in printed tables found in BLS

Report 760, “Survey of Employer Anti-drug the BLS's Unemployment Insurance Address File,

Programs.” supplemented with the Federal Railroad

A sample of 7,502 establishments were selected from

Administration's list of railroad establishments.
170 Office of National Drug Control Policy

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The survey was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, a potential respondent was asked to complete a

short questionnaire. This questionnaire, BLS 380A, included questions asking if the establishment had a drugtesting program and/or an employee assistance plan. If the establishment had either, a second (followup)

questionnaire was sent to the respondent, including one of the following: BLS 380B, if there was a testing but

no employee assistance program; BLS 380C, if there was an employee assistance program, but no testing

program; or BLS 380D, if there was both a testing and an employee assistance program. Initial solicitation for

the BLS 380A phase of the survey was conducted by mail. The first contact to solicit followup data was usually

conducted by mailing forms B, C, or D. However, Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing was also

employed, in particular, for nonrespondents and for edit reconciliation.

The principal feature of the survey's sample design was its use of stratified, systematic sampling with a ratio

estimator. The establishments were stratified into 400 sample strata, defined by 5 geographic regions, 10

Standard Industrial Classification groupings, and 8 employment size classes.

Upon completing the initial design of survey questions, eight local business establishments were selected for

participation in a questionnaire pretest. Following the pretest and subsequent modifications to the survey, an

operations test was conducted using a sample of approximately 100 establishments.

In an attempt to measure the magnitude of nonsampling errors that are caused by such problems as definitional

difficulties of the questionnaire and misinterpretation of questions, a response analysis survey was conducted. 

A sample of 95 randomly selected sample establishments with 50 employees or more, selected from the usable

establishments that indicated they had neither a drug-testing or an employee assistance program. The response

analysis survey was designed to probe these respondents on their establishments' programs and policies that

may relate to drug testing or employee assistance and to evaluate whether the definitions of “drug-testing

program” or “employee assistance program” were understood by the respondent in the same way they were

defined in the questionnaire.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Number and percent of establishments with drugtesting programs stratified by 5 geographic regions, 8 and employee assistance program data are reported by

employment size classes, and 10 industry divisions; geographic region, employment size, and industry.

number and percent of establishments with employee

assistance programs stratified by 5 geographic

regions, 8 employment size classes, and 10 industry

divisions; type of drug testing policy (test all

employees, job applications, specific occupations,

employees suspected of drug use; these variables are

also stratified by region, size, and industry);

sponsorship of employee assistance programs (e.g.,

management, union, joint sponsorship); source of

employee assistance program (e.g., internal,

contracted out); and features of employee assistance

programs (e.g., telephone hotline, educational

awareness program, assistance for family members,

counseling services, referral services, followup

services).

As mentioned in the previous item, the drug-testing

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

The data provide nationally representative estimates of the incidence of both drug testing and employee

assistance programs with detail by type of programs, as well as by region, employment size, and industry.

The main weakness is the lack of information on the duration and intensity of these programs or any measures

of their effectiveness (or lack thereof).
Office of National Drug Control Policy 171

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

These data help to inform the policy debate by providing data on the degree to which private industry is

adopting drug-testing and employee assistance programs. In order to assess the magnitude of the problem, one

necessary piece of information is the degree to which it is recognized by private business as a problem and the

nature and magnitude of their response to it.
172 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Workplace Module to National Household Survey on

Drug Abuse (NHSDA) Workplace Module was included only in 1994 and

While the NHSDA is conducted annually, the

1997. Questions on drug testing were included in

1998.

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

The NHSDA is sponsored by the Substance Abuse

and Mental Health Services Administration Office of Applied Studies

(SAMHSA). The Workplace Module was included in Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

the NHSDA as a result of a collaborative effort among Administration

SAMHSA, the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL), 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 16C-06

and the U.S. Small Business Administration Rockville, MD 20857

(USSBA). Telephone No.: (301) 443-7981

Janet Greenblatt, Survey Statistician

Fax No.: (301) 443-9847

e-mail: jgreenbl@samhsa.gov

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

The purpose of the employment module is to measure the proportion of users of illicit drugs and abusers of

legal drugs and alcohol (substance abusers) who are in the workforce. Workplace characteristics (e.g., type of

industry, size of establishment, occupation of individual), prevalence of workplace substance abuse programs,

and the workplace behavior of individuals (e.g., absenteeism, workplace accidents, voluntary and involuntary

turnover), are compared for labor force participants who are and are not substance abusers. Furthermore, the

attitudes of abuser and nonabusers of substances regarding workplace drug or alcohol testing programs are

examined and compared.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

NHSDA reports are provided to members of Congress, pertinent State and local government agencies, large and

small employers, chambers of commerce and employer groups, service providers, researchers, and any other

interested parties. Data from the 1994 NHSDA are available through the World Wide Web at

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/samhsa. A report on the 1994 NHSDA, called “An Analysis of Worker Drug Use

and Workplace Policies and Programs” (DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 97-3142), is available on the Internet at

http://www.samhsa.gov or from the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI) at 1-

800-729-6686.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Data are available in electronic format on the Internet

and in printed format from NCADI (see above for However, the Workplace Report was based on a

Internet addresses and NCADI telephone number). sample of 7,055 NHSDA respondents, ages 18–49,

The 1994 NHSDA had a sample size of 17,809. 

who reported that they were working full-time at the

time they were interviewed.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

For a methodology of the NHSDA, see page 146 of this report. The Workplace Module is collected only for

labor force participants interviewed by the NHSDA.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 173

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

All the drug-related variables collected by the

NHSDA (including recency of use, frequency of use, income, health status, and criminal behavior and

problems associated with substance abuse, and arrests, among a wealth of other information.

treatment for drug and alcohol problems) are linked to

employment-related variables (i.e., size of

establishment, type of industry, occupation,

workplace accidents, turnover, prevalence of the

major workplace substance abuse programs, and

worker attitude toward drug and alcohol testing in the

workplace).

The NHSDA collects information on demographics,

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Strengths: It includes a national random sample, broad population coverage, large sample size, ability to link

variables of module to all variables collected by NHSDA (permitting socioeconomic analysis).

Limitations: Data are based on self-reporting with no external validation; there is difficulty in obtaining

information on size of establishment from workers. Because this is a general population survey, it cannot

produce estimates of the number of establishments that have workplace drug prevention programs, only the

number of employees exposed to these programs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

The set provides information on the labor market behavior of substance abusers and explores the correlation

between substance abuse and turnover rates, workplace accidents, and workplace substance abuse programs. It

also reveals the attitudes of workers regarding workplace drug and alcohol testing programs.
174 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Foreign Drug Seizure and Arrest Data Collected throughout the year, reported annually on

March 1 in the International Narcotics Control

Strategy Report (INCSR)

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

U.S. Department of State W. Kenneth Thompson, Special Advisor

INCSR/Certification

Bureau for International Narcotics and Law

Enforcement, Rm. 7334

Department of State

Washington, DC 20520

Telephone No.: (202) 647-0458

Fax No.: (202) 736-4885

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

To indicate trends in overseas drug seizures and arrests.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

The data initially were disseminated to the Department of State and coordinated throughout the CN community;

eventually they were issued in the annual INCSR.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

Data are maintained on an MS Excel Spreadsheet, but

eventually will be published in print form. overseas, we have no reliable way of determining the

Because this information comes from local authorities

sample size.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

Data are collected by U.S. Embassies overseas from local authorities and reported to Washington.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

This depends on the prevailing drug in the reporting

country. authorities and honesty of reporting.

These include the level of effort of host country

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

This data set is useful in determining a general trend in both prevalence of drug trafficking and supply, as well

as the level of effort of local government authorities. Its major limitation is the inability to verify the data

specifics.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

It helps indicate how seriously foreign countries are approaching the drug control issue, and it gives an

approximate idea of the quantities of drugs transitting given areas.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 175

Federal Data Set Inventory Form

TITLE OF DATA SET: FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION:

Illicit Crop Estimates Annually

SPONSORING AGENCY(IES): POINT(S) OF CONTACT:

U.S. Department of State; Agricultural Research

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service, OIRP

(ARS/USDA); Drug Enforcement Administration; and U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Defense. 10300 Baltimore Blvd.

Eric Rosenquist, National Program Coordinator

Bldg. 005, Rm. 102, BARC WEST

Beltsville, MD 20705

Telephone No.: (301) 504-5605

Fax No.: (301) 504-5298

PURPOSE OF THE DATA SET:

The data set establishes an empirically based measure of worldwide illicit drug cultivation and production,

which directly impacts the illicit drug supply. Measurements are taken of illicit opium poppy and coca leaf/

coca alkaloid production.

HOW AND TO WHOM THE DATA ARE DISSEMINATED:

The Secretary of State is required under Public Law 481 (the Foreign Assistance Act) to report these data

annually to Congress.

AVAILABLE FORMATS: SAMPLE SIZE OF DATA SET:

The data are published annually in the State

Department's International Narcotic Control Strategy

Report. They also are reported in individual agency

bulletins and reports and in peer-reviewed

monographs. Publications and journals produced by

USDA/ARS on illicit crop estimates are unclassified

and subject to the peer-review process. Foreign

researchers cooperating in the process have also

published data and research findings, and these are

available to the research, law enforcement, and

foreign affairs community.

Not applicable.

METHODOLOGY (SAMPLE DESIGN, TIME FRAME, CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION, SOURCES OF DATA,

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CHECKS, AND TYPE OF DATA COLLECTED):

The data are resultant from two separate systems: (1) satellite and aerial-sensed remote photographic imagery,

and (2) models of crop growth, biomass, and alkaloid yield, based upon laboratory experiments and field

observations. The fusion of imaging data, which measures hectares under cultivation, to yield estimates

produces worldwide production estimates.

Yield estimates have been completed in Thailand, Laos, and Bolivia. Ongoing research is directed toward

Burma and Peru, with future estimates planned in Columbia and possibly India.

DRUG-RELATED VARIABLES: OTHER VARIABLES:

Not applicable. Not applicable.
176 Office of National Drug Control Policy

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA SET:

Estimates are expensive and time-consuming; political/military factors limit access to many regions (e.g.,

Afghanistan, Tadjikistan, northwest Pakistan). Technical limitations include cloud cover, which reduces

quality imagery and gentic variability, increasing the complexity of illicit drug crop models. The basic

technology, however, is well understood and has been proven in applications to agriculture, forestry, natural

resource conservation, and pest control.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DRUG POLICY:

Illicit crop estimates are a direct measure of supply because they represent raw material for the production of

drugs such as cocaine and heroin. Change in the worldwide scope of illicit production has long-term

implications regarding the ultimate availability of illicit drugs.
Office of National Drug Control Policy 179

APPENDIX B

FORUM ON INTEGRATING INFORMATION

AND DRUG CONTROL POLICY
 The reader should note that this meeting took place in the fall of 1995, and recommendations recorded in this report 1

of the proceedings may not reflect changes in design or procedure that may have taken place since then.

Office of National Drug Control Policy 181

FORUM ON INTEGRATING INFORMATION AND

NATIONAL DRUG POLICY1

The overarching goal of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is to reduce

drug use and related social and health consequences in the United States. To achieve this goal,

ONDCP coordinates activities of Federal agencies that pertain to drug problems. By coordinating

these activities, ONDCP is able to make accurate assessments of the extent of the drug problem

and is better positioned to develop an appropriate national drug policy. 

To assist in formulating national policies, ONDCP solicits the expert views and opinions of

outside sources. On November 4-5, 1995, in Boston, Massachusetts, ONDCP convened a Forum

with approximately 40 drug research experts. The purpose of the Forum was to seek

recommendations from researchers and decisionmakers on how ONDCP can best use existing drug

control and drug use data resources to perform the following activities:

! Document the magnitude and scope of the drug problem; 

! Make specific policy decisions regarding illicit drugs; and

! Evaluate policy efficacy and consequences

In addition, the Forum sought to identify gaps and shortcomings in the existing national drug data

systems that impede the pursuit of the overall objective of national drug control policies. 

Salient comments and recommendations from the forum have been grouped into the

following categories: information needed to guide policy, primary recommendations for

improvement of the collection and analysis of drug-related data, recommendations for changes or

additions to existing data sets, recommendations for elimination of data sets, and general

comments on the integration of data and policy.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

182 Office of National Drug Control Policy

INFORMATION NEEDED TO GUIDE POLICY

Participants discussed the types of data that should be available for policymaking,

including leading, concurrent, and lagging indicators of drug use; data on the consequences of

drug use; subgroups of the drug-using population; outcome measures of drug intervention; and

projections or estimates of future use. Comments on each type of data are provided below.

Leading, Concurrent, and Lagging Indicators of Drug Use

One attendee suggested using direct measures of drug use (e.g., surveys and studies of

general or special populations), saying that direct measures are useful methods of systematically

measuring and monitoring aspects of use such as prevalence, frequency, age of initiation, and

mode of administration. Indirect measures of drug use (e.g., data collected from social agencies,

coroners, hospitals, and the legal system) also are important, presumably because they are

indicators of use or levels of addiction.

The same attendee added that there is a connection between time and drug use. He

suggested policymakers should identify leading, concurrent, and lagging indicators of drug use. 

One leading indicator is access or availability of a drug. Another leading indicator is public

awareness of a drug, but this indicator could be difficult to measure. Indicators such as peer

norms and perceived benefits of use often are concurrent rather than leading indicators. Indicators

of consequences of use, such as treatment admissions and hotline calls, are lagging indicators

because there can be several years between initiation of use and consequences of use. In general,

attendees agreed that drug policy needs to be guided by what the Federal Government expects to

occur across the Nation.

Data on the Consequences of Drug Use

Several attendees addressed the need to measure the consequences of illicit drug use. The

importance of measuring the harm of drug use was recognized, but it was questioned whether

measures exist that can survive congressional scrutiny. The need to define the relationship

between drug use and its consequences also was noted. One attendee noted the small amount of
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

Office of National Drug Control Policy 183

reliable data available at the Federal level regarding the relationship between drug use and health

consequences such as sexually transmitted diseases and HIV (human immunodeficiency virus). 

The closest the Federal Government comes to collecting such information is the CODAP (Client

Oriented Data Acquisition Process) demonstration project study. Another attendee said the reason

the relationship is difficult to define is that most drug-related research uses a cross-sectional

design, but the problem of drug abuse is longitudinal. There are Federal longitudinal data

systems, but they need to be analyzed, and supplemental data collections on drug use should be

conducted. Another attendee suggested that one way to study this issue is to research

consequences in specific communities using a common scale. Other attendees added that data

should be collected on the following consequences:

! Health consequences.—These include infectious diseases such as hepatitis and

tuberculosis, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS (acquired immune deficiency

syndrome), drug-exposed births, chronic illnesses such as cancer, mental illness, child

neglect that results in medical problems, violent injuries and other health issues of

crime, domestic violence, depression, and suicidal tendencies.

! Social and economic costs to the user and society.—These include trauma and

emergency room costs, loss of earnings, loss of employment productivity, receipt of

Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI) or Aid to Families with Dependent Children,

medical benefit utilization, and costs to friends and families of drug users.

! Criminal and supply-side consequences.—These include the supply and demand of

drugs; dealer prevalence; guns and drug abuse; drug distribution, production, and

transit; and money flows.

One attendee asked how ONDCP will use measures of the consequences of drug use to

prove ONDCP is achieving its goals. For example, one consequence of drug use is tuberculosis. 

The City of Baltimore has implemented a nursing program that has reduced the rate of

tuberculosis, but this has had no effect on substance abuse.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

184 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Subgroups of the Drug-Using Population

Attendees discussed and identified three subgroups of the drug-using population to aid in

program planning: (1) those who are at risk for using drugs, (2) those who are using drugs but are

not having problems associated with their use, and (3) those who are using drugs and have

multiple problems. One attendee stated that current data systems are not sensitive enough to

capture these populations. Another attendee agreed, saying the number of users identified by the

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) is small. Two attendees defended those

data systems: one said that the Government does not miss all addicts or abusers with data sets

such as the NHSDA, and the other said that even if the number of users identified is small, it can

still be used to extrapolate distribution to obtain further estimates in areas where there is hardcore

use. Another attendee noted that there is diversity even within specific drug-using populations

such as the cocaine-addicted population, and information regarding their characteristics is limited.

Outcome Measures of Drug Intervention

One attendee commented on the need to focus on appropriate outcome measures, including

prevention of use, changes in attitudes toward use, and reductions in drug use at later ages. 

Another person agreed, noting that in evaluating prevention programs, there should be measures of

mediating behaviors such as school performance and self-esteem. If programs can demonstrate

improved school performance by students, they also can state that the risk of drug use will be

reduced for those students.

One attendee said that treatment effectiveness is often measured by methadone use, which

is a process measure. She suggested information is needed on methadone dosage, other services

provided with methadone treatment, and treatment attendance. Another attendee agreed that there

is little information on the services provided in treatment programs.

One attendee commented that there is not much systematic data collection on prevention

efforts. There are good measures of crime prevention but not drug prevention. Outcomes for both

prevention and treatment should be explored. Another attendee said that one problem with

collecting outcome-oriented data is the time between an intervention and its outcome, during
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

Office of National Drug Control Policy 185

which other factors can have an effect on the outcome. Another problem is that multiple

prevention programs take place simultaneously, so identifying the effects of a single program is a

challenge.

One attendee commented that when reviewing the goals of the 1995 National Drug

Control Strategy, she found herself asking the question, “Compared to what?” In other words,

there are data for prevalence of use in 1992 and 1995, but what also is needed is a sense of what

prevalence would have been in 1995 had there not been a National Drug Control Strategy from

1992 to 1995. Another attendee commented that identifying what would have happened in the

absence of policy is easier at the State level than at the national level. For example, if one State

implements a cigarette-smoking intervention and there is no change in use in that State, but the

rest of the Nation experiences an increase in use during that same time period, the national

increase can demonstrate the effectiveness of that smoking intervention.

PRIMARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE COLLECTION AND

ANALYSIS OF DRUG-RELATED DATA

Attendees often mentioned the need to improve the methodology, validity, analysis, and

dissemination of data. Their comments are summarized below.

Obtain a General Understanding of the Scope of the Problem

One attendee said that too much research money is spent on precision that does not further

decisionmaking. Another attendee agreed, saying there could be three different estimates. 

However, if all three estimates demonstrate that the problem is large, then the size of the problem

is what will have an impact in the policy arena. Another attendee said there is no need for a “body

count” because it is already clear the public service system is chronically underfunded; the focus

should be on funding services.

One attendee defended the need for a credible estimate of consumption in the Nation,

saying that in order to determine how much money to spend on the drug problem, the Federal

Government needs to know how large the drug problem is. He noted the NHSDA estimate that
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

186 Office of National Drug Control Policy

there are 600,000 hardcore users nationwide, but ONDCP used models and inferences from other

data to demonstrate that the number of hardcore users is closer to 2 million. However, the

attendee added, it is easy for researchers to point out assumptions, standard deviations, and other

caveats in their estimates. Another attendee disagreed, saying that researchers should not point out

caveats because doing so undermines the credibility of the data.

Two attendees said that it is less important to have accurate data than to have reliable

indicators of trends in drug use. Another attendee questioned whether the data available are

accurate enough to identify trends. For example, if the estimated number of hardcore cocaine

users changes from 2 million to 2.2 million, is that really a growth in the drug problem?

Conduct Secondary Analysis of Existing Data Sets

Attendees discussed the importance of secondary analysis. One attendee noted that most

research funds are directed toward primary data collection rather than secondary analysis of

existing data sets. For example, there are no analyses reported on whether someone who tried

cocaine at the ascent of the epidemic was more likely to become addicted than someone trying

cocaine at the descent of the epidemic. In general, drug-related data are difficult and expensive to

gather, and research dollars may be put to better use analyzing available data. Another attendee

questioned whether the data available are sufficiently valid for secondary analysis.

Study Drug Abuse in a Broader Social Context

Some attendees commented on the tendency to collect drug-related data in a vacuum with

little regard for the interpretation of the impact of extant socioeconomic conditions. However,

drug use is a dynamic situation influenced by social conditions and social policies, especially

during this current climate of changing emphases on social programs. Drug use should not and

cannot be disaggregated from the root of the problem. There has been no mention by the Federal

Government of how these changes will manifest themselves in terms of drug problems.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

Office of National Drug Control Policy 187

Use Biological Markers as Validity Checks

One attendee noted that the accuracy of the data must be the driving force and that it is

important to improve the validity of survey responses, particularly since drug use is a stigmatized

behavior. Another attendee agreed, noting that it can take years to publish results from large

surveys due to manipulation of data, but the greater concern is whether the data going into the

survey are correct to begin with and whether people who are affected by drug use are willing to

respond to survey questions. The first attendee responses by saying that rather than trying to

“manipulate what comes out of people's mouths,” the Federal Government should verify survey

responses through the use of sweat patches, saliva testing, or other technologies that provide

biochemical evidence of drug use. He said such testing would be a low-cost add-on to current

survey efforts. One person noted that the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) system uses biological

indicators, but similar data are not collected for persons with diseases such as hepatitis. The

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have attempted to make synthetic estimates but have

been unable to collect biological samples along with survey data.

Other attendees pointed out problems with the use of biological markers. One attendee

argued that many such markers have not been validated yet. Another attendee agreed that

improving the validity of biological markers will be a long-term process, but it is a fundamental

element of the estimation process. One attendee suggested performing a toxic screen on a subset

of patients admitted and identified in the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), but another

attendee argued that this would be a costly effort.

Disseminate Data in a More Timely Fashion

A few attendees commented on the length of time it takes to test, implement, and report

results on program evaluations; many studies take 3 to 5 years. One attendee said that Federal

agencies have an opportunity to share information earlier but do not out of fear that funding will

be lost if projects do not show initial success. Another attendee noted that as data systems become

more computerized, information will become available sooner. For example, the Drug Evaluation

Network Study receives information on treatment admissions throughout the country via laptop

computers. From this information, samples can be taken from each type of treatment modality,
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

188 Office of National Drug Control Policy

and short-term followup studies can be conducted. Another attendee commented that he would

like to see more data released earlier to Government contractors and grantees for data comparison

and analysis.

Assess Data Sets and Other Indicators in Combination

Several attendees commented that policymakers should use composite indicators to assess

the drug situation. To do this, the challenge then becomes how to reconcile the data given the

different instrument designs (e.g., DAWN and DUF) and then come up with the “big picture” to

justify agency budgets before Congress. One attendee compared this to economic or consumer

price indicators. Another attendee agreed that triangulation of data sets is useful. Many data

sources viewed alone are weak; however, viewed collectively, they have greater insight and

validity. Another attendee noted as an example that an increase in emergency room episodes

could be due to an increase in purity or a change in use. Comparing emergency data with purity

and prevalence data can help identify the cause. Another attendee noted that by overlapping data

sets, data collectors will become more accountable for their findings. Another attendee agreed that

duplicate data sets impose accountability and validity on data systems, but there is some

duplication that can be eliminated. The attendee added that there is a careful tradeoff to be made

between duplication and validity.

One attendee commented that the Federal Government is dealing with a system of overload

due to the various data systems' nonintegration. The attendee added that ONDCP does not have

the authority to make the kinds of institutional changes that would lead to greater integration. 

There also was a general consensus that there is too much of a focus on gross numbers and not

enough emphasis on anecdotal data or ethnographic research to enhance the overall picture.

Develop Data Sets With Greater Integration and Interface

One attendee suggested that both the analysis and the collection of data should be

integrated. For example, hospitals from which DAWN data are collected should be located in

cities that also are DUF sites.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

Office of National Drug Control Policy 189

Other attendees commented on the need for data sets to be compatible. One attendee

commented that such information is being integrated in some States at the client level. He noted

that it would be difficult for the Federal Government to integrate such data at the national level

unless States have an infrastructure for linking data. Another attendee noted that one State uses

unique identifiers of individuals in criminal justice and treatment databases. He suggested States

with such systems allow researchers to conduct capturerecapture analyses. States should be

assured that the confidentiality of individuals in the system will be protected.

Aggregate or Disseminate Data to States and Communities

Several attendees commented that the Federal Government has a tendency to collect data

from State- and community-based organizations but does not routinely make such data available

for policymaking or service planning at those levels. More investment should be made in

improving the State and local infrastructure, upon which we depend for data. Even treatment and

prevention experts are not always aware of the latest findings. They suggested that when the

Federal Government sponsors the gathering of State and local data, the Government should

disseminate that data or establish a structure for State and community programs to continue

monitoring progress in those areas.

Another attendee suggested States and communities from which data are being collected

should be involved in the data collection process from the beginning. She mentioned as an

example the National Institute on Drug Abuse Cooperative Agreement Program, which has held

small workgroups with communities as well as orientation sessions with study cohorts. These

efforts can make the process more meaningful to the participants and can contribute to the

reliability and validity of the collected data.

One attendee noted that the DUF program collects data at the community level and is

working on methods to make the data more comparable at the national level. She suggested that

there may be other information at the State and local level that can be aggregated upward to the

national level. Another attendee agreed, saying that the Federal level is the natural level to

consider collecting data; however, since the drug problem is naturally disaggregated, information

should be aggregated up from the community to the Federal level. One attendee pointed out that
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

190 Office of National Drug Control Policy

there are some data collected at the community level, such as the Parents' Resource Institute on

Drug Education surveys.

Research the Effectiveness of Treatment Modalities

One attendee noted that there are data showing that treatment is effective, but a good

database does not exist that describes the dynamics of treatment effectiveness with variables such

as the number of users in treatment for the first time, the number of users who have received

treatment before, the number of individuals who reduce drug use, and the number of individuals

who end drug use. Another attendee pointed out that it is not enough to show what works in

treatment but rather what works for whom—people respond differently to different treatments. 

Another attendee suggested not assessing treatment as a whole but comparing treatment within

modalities. One attendee commented that comparing modalities at the national level can be

difficult because of variations among States. For example, not all States have therapeutic

community programs. A few attendees pointed out that Congress and the general public tend to be

skeptical of treatment and of research showing its effectiveness. One attendee pointed out that

methadone treatment has a success rate of 30 to 80 percent, but Congress focuses on the

30-percent rate. It is important, therefore, to look at who is delivering treatment under what

circumstances in order to effectively evaluate success. One attendee supported using a

quantitative index of drug use and functionality, such as the Addiction Severity Index, for

individuals in treatment.

Use Multiple Methods and Sources for Gathering Data

One attendee suggested conducting a meta-analysis of existing studies. Another attendee

cautioned that meta-analysis cannot be conducted unless evaluation studies have common

measures and designs. She suggested that agencies make recommendations to grantees regarding

measures and designs of demonstration programs so that meta-analysis can be conducted. One

attendee recommended conducting more exploratory studies to a “capture the full flavor” of the

drug situation. Another attendee responded that it is often difficult to obtain funding for

exploratory research because of scientific skepticism. One attendee encouraged the continued use

of multiple methods such as epidemiology and ethnography along with other qualitative and

quantitative methods.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

Office of National Drug Control Policy 191

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES OR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DATA SETS

In addition to the recommendations already mentioned, participants suggested the

following changes or additions to data sets in response to the question, “If you could make one

change or addition to a data set, what would it be?”

! Oversample the NHSDA so that probability samples represent a number of cities.

! Conduct the Monitoring the Future (MTF) study every other year and use the second

year funds for indepth analysis.

! Conduct Bureau of Justice Statistics surveys more often than once every 5 years.

! For DUF use a more representative catchment area, such as a Metropolitan Statistical

Area or a Primary Statistical Unit.

! Emphasize collecting data from infrastructures where data are used to make decisions.

! Continue to standardize criminal justice data collection and coding to make

it compatible with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Incidence-Based

Reporting System data set.

! Give priority to obtaining information that establishes linkages, such as the relationship

between price and use.

! Differentiate between powder- and crack-cocaine in various levels of data.

! Track the number of full-time employee resources applied to the drug effort.

! Obtain measures of the Government contribution to the drug problem through

programs such as SSI.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

192 Office of National Drug Control Policy

! Conduct evaluations of programs funded through block grants, such as long-term

treatment programs.

! Conduct more surveys like DC*MADS (District of Columbia Metropolitan Area Drug

Study) in other cities around the country.

! Collect data on general attitudes toward consumables.

! Give the Drug Enforcement Administration “all the resources they need” for pricepurity research, particularly for scientific buys.

! Use DAWN to help identify the relationship between drugs and violence, particularly

domestic violence.

! Recognize Department of Transportation records of drug-test results as a data set.

! Conduct the NHSDA every other year, and report DAWN and DUF data quarterly.

! Do pilot study of counties collecting Children's Protective Services, DAWN, and DUF

data to identify individuals in all three data sets.

! Include in DASIS (Drug and Alcohol Services Information System) variables for client

identification and the services the client received.

! Conduct a study on how policymakers inform themselves about the drug situation.

! Have DUF test for alcohol as well as other drugs.

! Focus on the incidence of AIDS among hardcore users.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

Office of National Drug Control Policy 193

! Prepare a drug statistics handbook.

! Give 10 to 20 small grants for secondary analysis of data sources.

! Give greater funding to developing models of the drug problem.

! Develop an interagency workgroup to identify special research projects in need of

funding.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ELIMINATION OF DATA SETS

Participants made the following recommendations in response to the question, “If you

could recommend eliminating one data set, which would it be?”

! Reduce the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) to 30 pages of

tables, and stop publishing separate NNICC (National Narcotic Intelligence Consumers

Committee) reports.

! Eliminate either the INCSR or the MTF.

! Combine Department of Justice surveys of arrestees, probationers, and incarcerated

populations; instead of conducting it as a one-time survey, conduct an ongoing study of

a smaller sample.

! Consider data quality a primary criteria in eliminating data sets.

! End satellite research.

! Instead of collecting DUF and DAWN data quarterly, conduct one-time DUF and

DAWN surveys.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

194 Office of National Drug Control Policy

! Cut NHSDA and MTF budgets in half, and conduct the surveys over 2 years, but

publish yearly reports.

! Eliminate the National Drug Intelligence Center.

! Conduct the MTF survey on one grade per year.

! Ask for MTF longitudinal data to be released, or eliminate funding for it.

! Fold MTF into the NHSDA.

GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE INTEGRATION OF DATA AND POLICY

Participants made observations on the nature of drug-related data and policymaking,

including the relationship between information and knowledge, flaws in the definitions of users,

problems in interpretation of data, and difficulties in supply-side data collection. These comments

are outlined below.

There is Considerable Information But Little Knowledge About the Drug Problem

Three individuals commented that there are considerable data on the drug situation but

little understanding of what the data mean. One attendee used the term “information overload.” 

Another attendee commented that there is a “massive amount of data already out there,” but for

policy formulation it is important to have not only information on the drug problem but also

knowledge about what those data mean. The comment also was made that until the data

integration issue is addressed, the Federal Government should not create new data sets. For

example, if supply increases, what effect does that have on consumption? Which populations are

affected? One attendee commented that Congress agrees that there is not enough knowledge of

the drug problem. This is evidenced by Congress passing the Crime Control Act, which asks

ONDCP to create a picture of the drug problem and present evaluative data.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

Office of National Drug Control Policy 195

One attendee talked of the “signal-to-noise ratio”: the available data does provide

knowledge on the drug problem; it is simply a matter of extracting and consolidating that

knowledge. He acknowledged that some data are a few years old, but there are enough studies to

present basic information and identify information that needs to be clarified.

There Are Flaws in the Definitions of Different Levels of Use

One attendee noted that researchers have difficulty defining terms such as a lifetime,

“current,” and “hardcore” use. For example, one study counts hardcore users and current users

separately even though hardcore users also are current users.

Two attendees noted that the definition of a hardcore user—an individual who uses drugs

at least once per week—does not match the actual level of drug use by a hardcore user. One

attendee commented that a hardcore addict uses drugs 25 to 30 times per week and will probably

never use drugs less often than once per week. One attendee suggested daily use would be a better

characterization of a hardcore user; another attendee suggested asking a user the number of times

in the past week he or she used drugs.

Two attendees outlined the problems associated with obtaining quantitative measures of

hardcore use. One attendee pointed out that most surveys conducted by the Federal Government

ask about past-month use. Another attendee pointed out that in a survey sample, the number of

people who use drugs daily is too small for making generalizations, but the number who use drugs

once per week is measurable. He also pointed out that quantitative frequency is not recognized in

the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, revised fourth edition) as an indicator of severity

of the drug problem.

The Use of Data for Policy Decisionmaking Is Fragmented and Raises Skepticism

There was some skepticism about the manner in which data are used to influence policy. 

Some attendees believed that policy is rarely informed by data, while others believed that

policymakers are focused more than ever on obtaining accurate data for making policy decisions.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

196 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Some attendees believed the problem for policymakers is their interpretation of the

available data. Attendees commented that even when policymakers accept data showing the size

and trend of the problem, that does not mean they will agree with researchers on the approach to

solving the problem. One attendee gave as an example a Swedish study that demonstrated that

methadone treatment had a 75-percent success rate; based on this information, politicians

considered ending methadone programs because the programs constituted unfair competition with

drug-free programs. Another attendee cited a study in the City of San Antonio that showed

treatment admissions increasing in the city as crime rates decreased, and treatment admissions

decreased as crime rates increased. Nevertheless, the City of San Antonio did not increase

treatment funding.

Other attendees commented that they believe the problem is systemic. One attendee

pointed out that while the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress do read

research on the effectiveness of drug control strategies and use that research in making decisions,

the entire decisionmaking process is marginal and fragmented. At OMB decisions on the drug

budget are split among 27 budget examiners; on Capitol Hill decisions are divided among 9

committees each in the House and Senate. In addition, drug-related research must demonstrate

that it is more effective and takes higher priority over other expenditures to receive funding. One

attendee noted that this means the system is working against itself. Another attendee pointed out

that this system makes agencies and programs less accountable for their measures of drug policy

effectiveness because they become accountable only to their specific objectives.

Current Supply Measures Are Not Highly Effective for Policymaking

One attendee pointed out that U.S. estimates of international drug crop production tend to

be conservative—often five times lower than estimates at the local level. One problem is the fact

that surveillance technology lags behind crop production technology. Another attendee agreed,

saying that at this time, “gut-level guesses are more accurate than photointerpreter data.” One

attendee believed this was an example of the need for a range of measures.

Another problem in collecting supply data is the illegal nature of drug trafficking. One

attendee pointed out that law enforcement officials cannot passively monitor drug trafficking; once
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

Office of National Drug Control Policy 197

they are aware of a drug delivery, they must act on that information. Another attendee noted that

when officials make a seizure, they do not know how that affects the drug trafficking network

until another seizure is made.

Suggestions for new measures of supply reduction include number of labs destroyed,

information on money laundering, and amount of asset forfeiture seizures as a measure of law

enforcement effectiveness.

NEXT STEPS

Mr. Carnevale informed participants that their comments and recommendations will be

incorporated into a report to be submitted to the Director of ONDCP by the DCRDE advisory

Committee. All participants will receive a copy of the final report. In addition, Mr. Carnevale

plans to convene smaller working groups to study this issue further.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

198 Office of National Drug Control Policy

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Sherrie Aitken, Ph.D. Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.

CSR, Incorporated Director

Suite 200 Bureau of Justice Statistics

1400 Eye Street, N.W. 633 Indiana Avenue, N.W. (#1142)

Washington, DC 20005 Washington, DC 20531

M. Douglas Anglin, Ph.D. Patrick Clawson, Ph.D.

Adjunct Associate Professor Institute for National Strategic Studies

UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute Marshall Hall

Drug Abuse Research Group Ft. McNair

1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 763 Washington, DC 20319-6000

Los Angeles, CA 90024-3511

George Bigelow, Ph.D. University of Missouri—St. Louis

Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Campus 598 Lucas Hall

5510 Nathan Shock Drive 8001 Natural Bridge Road

Baltimore, MD 21224-6823 St. Louis, MO 63121

David Boyum Patricia Ebener

Botec Analysis Corporation Survey Director

10 Fawcett Street Department of Social Policy

Cambridge, MA 02138 RAND Corporation

Alfred Blumstein, Ph.D. Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138

The Heinz School

Carnegie-Mellon University Kim English

Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Colorado Division of Criminal Justice

Jay Carver, Director 700 Kipling Street

D.C. Pretrial Services Denver, CO 80215

Room 310

400 F Street, N.W. Thomas Feucht

Washington, DC 20001 National Institute of Justice

Jonathan Caulkins, Ph.D. Washington, DC 20531

Carnegie-Mellon University

School of Urban and Public Affairs Steven Flynn

Pittsburgh, PA 15217-3890 3 Swanswood Lane

Scott Decker, Ph.D.

1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138

Suite 1000

633 Indiana Avenue, N.W.

Old Lyme, CT 06371
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

Office of National Drug Control Policy 199

Adele Harrell, Ph.D. Rensselaer Lee

Senior Research Analyst Global Advisory Services

The Urban Institute Suite 601

2100 M Street, N.W. 1101 King Street

Washington, DC 20037 Alexandria, VA 22314

Lana Harrison, Ph.D. Wilhelmina Leigh, Ph.D.

Center for Drug and Alcohol Studies Joint Center for Political and

University of Delaware Economic Studies

77 East Main Street 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Newark, DE 19716-2582 Washington, DC 20005-4961

Carolyn Hoffman George McFarland

Drug Enforcement Administration President & CEO

700 Army Navy Drive McFarland & Associates

Arlington, VA 22202 Suite 420

Lloyd Johnston, Ph.D. Silver Spring, MD 20910

Institute for Social Research

University of Michigan Daniel Melnick

426 Thompson Street, Room 2324 Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Ann Arbor, MI 48106 Services Administration

Herbert Kleber, M.D. Rockville, MD 29857

Director, Division of Substance Abuse

College of Physicians and Surgeons Jeffrey Merrill

Columbia University Center on Addiction & Substance Abuse

722 West 168th Street 152 W. 57th Street

New York, NY 10032 New York, NY 10019

Richard Kopanda Patrick Murphy

Substance Abuse and Mental Health 731 E. Gorham Street

 Services Administration Madison, WI 53703

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 29857 David Musto, M.D.

Thomas Kosten, M.D. New Haven, CT 06511-1324

CMHC

Substance Abuse Center Susan Pennell

34 Park Street, Room S-205 Criminal Justice Research Unit

New Haven, CT 06519 SANDAG

8630 Fenton Street

5600 Fishers Lane, Room 16C-18

120 Ogden Street

Suite 800

401 B Street

San Diego, CA 92101
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

200 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Peter Reuter Ken Stark

School of Public Affairs DASA-1

University of Maryland P.O. Box 45330

Van Munching Hall, Room 1117 Olympia, WA 98504

College Park, MD 20742-1821

William Rhodes, Ph.D. School of Criminology & Criminal

Abt Associates, Incorporated Justice 2025

55 Wheeler Street Florida State University

Cambridge, MA 02138-1168 Tallahassee, FL 32306

Jack Riley J. Michael Walsh

National Institute of Justice The Walsh Group, P.A.

633 Indiana Avenue, N.W. Suite 300

Washington, DC 20531 6701 Democracy Boulevard

Sam Schildhaus

NORC—Washington, DC, Office

University of Chicago

Suite 500

1350 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

Zili Sloboda

National Institute on Drug Abuse

5600 Fishers Lane, Room 9A-53

Rockville, MD 29857

Gordon Waldo, Ph.D.

Bethesda, MD 20817
 The reader should note that this meeting took place in the fall of 1995, and recommendations recorded in this report 1

of the proceedings may not reflect changes in design or procedure that may have taken place since then.

Office of National Drug Control Policy 181

FORUM ON INTEGRATING INFORMATION AND

NATIONAL DRUG POLICY1

The overarching goal of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is to reduce

drug use and related social and health consequences in the United States. To achieve this goal,

ONDCP coordinates activities of Federal agencies that pertain to drug problems. By coordinating

these activities, ONDCP is able to make accurate assessments of the extent of the drug problem

and is better positioned to develop an appropriate national drug policy. 

To assist in formulating national policies, ONDCP solicits the expert views and opinions of

outside sources. On November 4-5, 1995, in Boston, Massachusetts, ONDCP convened a Forum

with approximately 40 drug research experts. The purpose of the Forum was to seek

recommendations from researchers and decisionmakers on how ONDCP can best use existing drug

control and drug use data resources to perform the following activities:

! Document the magnitude and scope of the drug problem; 

! Make specific policy decisions regarding illicit drugs; and

! Evaluate policy efficacy and consequences

In addition, the Forum sought to identify gaps and shortcomings in the existing national drug data

systems that impede the pursuit of the overall objective of national drug control policies. 

Salient comments and recommendations from the forum have been grouped into the

following categories: information needed to guide policy, primary recommendations for

improvement of the collection and analysis of drug-related data, recommendations for changes or

additions to existing data sets, recommendations for elimination of data sets, and general

comments on the integration of data and policy.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

182 Office of National Drug Control Policy

INFORMATION NEEDED TO GUIDE POLICY

Participants discussed the types of data that should be available for policymaking,

including leading, concurrent, and lagging indicators of drug use; data on the consequences of

drug use; subgroups of the drug-using population; outcome measures of drug intervention; and

projections or estimates of future use. Comments on each type of data are provided below.

Leading, Concurrent, and Lagging Indicators of Drug Use

One attendee suggested using direct measures of drug use (e.g., surveys and studies of

general or special populations), saying that direct measures are useful methods of systematically

measuring and monitoring aspects of use such as prevalence, frequency, age of initiation, and

mode of administration. Indirect measures of drug use (e.g., data collected from social agencies,

coroners, hospitals, and the legal system) also are important, presumably because they are

indicators of use or levels of addiction.

The same attendee added that there is a connection between time and drug use. He

suggested policymakers should identify leading, concurrent, and lagging indicators of drug use. 

One leading indicator is access or availability of a drug. Another leading indicator is public

awareness of a drug, but this indicator could be difficult to measure. Indicators such as peer

norms and perceived benefits of use often are concurrent rather than leading indicators. Indicators

of consequences of use, such as treatment admissions and hotline calls, are lagging indicators

because there can be several years between initiation of use and consequences of use. In general,

attendees agreed that drug policy needs to be guided by what the Federal Government expects to

occur across the Nation.

Data on the Consequences of Drug Use

Several attendees addressed the need to measure the consequences of illicit drug use. The

importance of measuring the harm of drug use was recognized, but it was questioned whether

measures exist that can survive congressional scrutiny. The need to define the relationship

between drug use and its consequences also was noted. One attendee noted the small amount of
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

Office of National Drug Control Policy 183

reliable data available at the Federal level regarding the relationship between drug use and health

consequences such as sexually transmitted diseases and HIV (human immunodeficiency virus). 

The closest the Federal Government comes to collecting such information is the CODAP (Client

Oriented Data Acquisition Process) demonstration project study. Another attendee said the reason

the relationship is difficult to define is that most drug-related research uses a cross-sectional

design, but the problem of drug abuse is longitudinal. There are Federal longitudinal data

systems, but they need to be analyzed, and supplemental data collections on drug use should be

conducted. Another attendee suggested that one way to study this issue is to research

consequences in specific communities using a common scale. Other attendees added that data

should be collected on the following consequences:

! Health consequences.—These include infectious diseases such as hepatitis and

tuberculosis, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS (acquired immune deficiency

syndrome), drug-exposed births, chronic illnesses such as cancer, mental illness, child

neglect that results in medical problems, violent injuries and other health issues of

crime, domestic violence, depression, and suicidal tendencies.

! Social and economic costs to the user and society.—These include trauma and

emergency room costs, loss of earnings, loss of employment productivity, receipt of

Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI) or Aid to Families with Dependent Children,

medical benefit utilization, and costs to friends and families of drug users.

! Criminal and supply-side consequences.—These include the supply and demand of

drugs; dealer prevalence; guns and drug abuse; drug distribution, production, and

transit; and money flows.

One attendee asked how ONDCP will use measures of the consequences of drug use to

prove ONDCP is achieving its goals. For example, one consequence of drug use is tuberculosis. 

The City of Baltimore has implemented a nursing program that has reduced the rate of

tuberculosis, but this has had no effect on substance abuse.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

184 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Subgroups of the Drug-Using Population

Attendees discussed and identified three subgroups of the drug-using population to aid in

program planning: (1) those who are at risk for using drugs, (2) those who are using drugs but are

not having problems associated with their use, and (3) those who are using drugs and have

multiple problems. One attendee stated that current data systems are not sensitive enough to

capture these populations. Another attendee agreed, saying the number of users identified by the

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) is small. Two attendees defended those

data systems: one said that the Government does not miss all addicts or abusers with data sets

such as the NHSDA, and the other said that even if the number of users identified is small, it can

still be used to extrapolate distribution to obtain further estimates in areas where there is hardcore

use. Another attendee noted that there is diversity even within specific drug-using populations

such as the cocaine-addicted population, and information regarding their characteristics is limited.

Outcome Measures of Drug Intervention

One attendee commented on the need to focus on appropriate outcome measures, including

prevention of use, changes in attitudes toward use, and reductions in drug use at later ages. 

Another person agreed, noting that in evaluating prevention programs, there should be measures of

mediating behaviors such as school performance and self-esteem. If programs can demonstrate

improved school performance by students, they also can state that the risk of drug use will be

reduced for those students.

One attendee said that treatment effectiveness is often measured by methadone use, which

is a process measure. She suggested information is needed on methadone dosage, other services

provided with methadone treatment, and treatment attendance. Another attendee agreed that there

is little information on the services provided in treatment programs.

One attendee commented that there is not much systematic data collection on prevention

efforts. There are good measures of crime prevention but not drug prevention. Outcomes for both

prevention and treatment should be explored. Another attendee said that one problem with

collecting outcome-oriented data is the time between an intervention and its outcome, during
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

Office of National Drug Control Policy 185

which other factors can have an effect on the outcome. Another problem is that multiple

prevention programs take place simultaneously, so identifying the effects of a single program is a

challenge.

One attendee commented that when reviewing the goals of the 1995 National Drug

Control Strategy, she found herself asking the question, “Compared to what?” In other words,

there are data for prevalence of use in 1992 and 1995, but what also is needed is a sense of what

prevalence would have been in 1995 had there not been a National Drug Control Strategy from

1992 to 1995. Another attendee commented that identifying what would have happened in the

absence of policy is easier at the State level than at the national level. For example, if one State

implements a cigarette-smoking intervention and there is no change in use in that State, but the

rest of the Nation experiences an increase in use during that same time period, the national

increase can demonstrate the effectiveness of that smoking intervention.

PRIMARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE COLLECTION AND

ANALYSIS OF DRUG-RELATED DATA

Attendees often mentioned the need to improve the methodology, validity, analysis, and

dissemination of data. Their comments are summarized below.

Obtain a General Understanding of the Scope of the Problem

One attendee said that too much research money is spent on precision that does not further

decisionmaking. Another attendee agreed, saying there could be three different estimates. 

However, if all three estimates demonstrate that the problem is large, then the size of the problem

is what will have an impact in the policy arena. Another attendee said there is no need for a “body

count” because it is already clear the public service system is chronically underfunded; the focus

should be on funding services.

One attendee defended the need for a credible estimate of consumption in the Nation,

saying that in order to determine how much money to spend on the drug problem, the Federal

Government needs to know how large the drug problem is. He noted the NHSDA estimate that
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

186 Office of National Drug Control Policy

there are 600,000 hardcore users nationwide, but ONDCP used models and inferences from other

data to demonstrate that the number of hardcore users is closer to 2 million. However, the

attendee added, it is easy for researchers to point out assumptions, standard deviations, and other

caveats in their estimates. Another attendee disagreed, saying that researchers should not point out

caveats because doing so undermines the credibility of the data.

Two attendees said that it is less important to have accurate data than to have reliable

indicators of trends in drug use. Another attendee questioned whether the data available are

accurate enough to identify trends. For example, if the estimated number of hardcore cocaine

users changes from 2 million to 2.2 million, is that really a growth in the drug problem?

Conduct Secondary Analysis of Existing Data Sets

Attendees discussed the importance of secondary analysis. One attendee noted that most

research funds are directed toward primary data collection rather than secondary analysis of

existing data sets. For example, there are no analyses reported on whether someone who tried

cocaine at the ascent of the epidemic was more likely to become addicted than someone trying

cocaine at the descent of the epidemic. In general, drug-related data are difficult and expensive to

gather, and research dollars may be put to better use analyzing available data. Another attendee

questioned whether the data available are sufficiently valid for secondary analysis.

Study Drug Abuse in a Broader Social Context

Some attendees commented on the tendency to collect drug-related data in a vacuum with

little regard for the interpretation of the impact of extant socioeconomic conditions. However,

drug use is a dynamic situation influenced by social conditions and social policies, especially

during this current climate of changing emphases on social programs. Drug use should not and

cannot be disaggregated from the root of the problem. There has been no mention by the Federal

Government of how these changes will manifest themselves in terms of drug problems.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

Office of National Drug Control Policy 187

Use Biological Markers as Validity Checks

One attendee noted that the accuracy of the data must be the driving force and that it is

important to improve the validity of survey responses, particularly since drug use is a stigmatized

behavior. Another attendee agreed, noting that it can take years to publish results from large

surveys due to manipulation of data, but the greater concern is whether the data going into the

survey are correct to begin with and whether people who are affected by drug use are willing to

respond to survey questions. The first attendee responses by saying that rather than trying to

“manipulate what comes out of people's mouths,” the Federal Government should verify survey

responses through the use of sweat patches, saliva testing, or other technologies that provide

biochemical evidence of drug use. He said such testing would be a low-cost add-on to current

survey efforts. One person noted that the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) system uses biological

indicators, but similar data are not collected for persons with diseases such as hepatitis. The

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have attempted to make synthetic estimates but have

been unable to collect biological samples along with survey data.

Other attendees pointed out problems with the use of biological markers. One attendee

argued that many such markers have not been validated yet. Another attendee agreed that

improving the validity of biological markers will be a long-term process, but it is a fundamental

element of the estimation process. One attendee suggested performing a toxic screen on a subset

of patients admitted and identified in the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), but another

attendee argued that this would be a costly effort.

Disseminate Data in a More Timely Fashion

A few attendees commented on the length of time it takes to test, implement, and report

results on program evaluations; many studies take 3 to 5 years. One attendee said that Federal

agencies have an opportunity to share information earlier but do not out of fear that funding will

be lost if projects do not show initial success. Another attendee noted that as data systems become

more computerized, information will become available sooner. For example, the Drug Evaluation

Network Study receives information on treatment admissions throughout the country via laptop

computers. From this information, samples can be taken from each type of treatment modality,
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

188 Office of National Drug Control Policy

and short-term followup studies can be conducted. Another attendee commented that he would

like to see more data released earlier to Government contractors and grantees for data comparison

and analysis.

Assess Data Sets and Other Indicators in Combination

Several attendees commented that policymakers should use composite indicators to assess

the drug situation. To do this, the challenge then becomes how to reconcile the data given the

different instrument designs (e.g., DAWN and DUF) and then come up with the “big picture” to

justify agency budgets before Congress. One attendee compared this to economic or consumer

price indicators. Another attendee agreed that triangulation of data sets is useful. Many data

sources viewed alone are weak; however, viewed collectively, they have greater insight and

validity. Another attendee noted as an example that an increase in emergency room episodes

could be due to an increase in purity or a change in use. Comparing emergency data with purity

and prevalence data can help identify the cause. Another attendee noted that by overlapping data

sets, data collectors will become more accountable for their findings. Another attendee agreed that

duplicate data sets impose accountability and validity on data systems, but there is some

duplication that can be eliminated. The attendee added that there is a careful tradeoff to be made

between duplication and validity.

One attendee commented that the Federal Government is dealing with a system of overload

due to the various data systems' nonintegration. The attendee added that ONDCP does not have

the authority to make the kinds of institutional changes that would lead to greater integration. 

There also was a general consensus that there is too much of a focus on gross numbers and not

enough emphasis on anecdotal data or ethnographic research to enhance the overall picture.

Develop Data Sets With Greater Integration and Interface

One attendee suggested that both the analysis and the collection of data should be

integrated. For example, hospitals from which DAWN data are collected should be located in

cities that also are DUF sites.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

Office of National Drug Control Policy 189

Other attendees commented on the need for data sets to be compatible. One attendee

commented that such information is being integrated in some States at the client level. He noted

that it would be difficult for the Federal Government to integrate such data at the national level

unless States have an infrastructure for linking data. Another attendee noted that one State uses

unique identifiers of individuals in criminal justice and treatment databases. He suggested States

with such systems allow researchers to conduct capturerecapture analyses. States should be

assured that the confidentiality of individuals in the system will be protected.

Aggregate or Disseminate Data to States and Communities

Several attendees commented that the Federal Government has a tendency to collect data

from State- and community-based organizations but does not routinely make such data available

for policymaking or service planning at those levels. More investment should be made in

improving the State and local infrastructure, upon which we depend for data. Even treatment and

prevention experts are not always aware of the latest findings. They suggested that when the

Federal Government sponsors the gathering of State and local data, the Government should

disseminate that data or establish a structure for State and community programs to continue

monitoring progress in those areas.

Another attendee suggested States and communities from which data are being collected

should be involved in the data collection process from the beginning. She mentioned as an

example the National Institute on Drug Abuse Cooperative Agreement Program, which has held

small workgroups with communities as well as orientation sessions with study cohorts. These

efforts can make the process more meaningful to the participants and can contribute to the

reliability and validity of the collected data.

One attendee noted that the DUF program collects data at the community level and is

working on methods to make the data more comparable at the national level. She suggested that

there may be other information at the State and local level that can be aggregated upward to the

national level. Another attendee agreed, saying that the Federal level is the natural level to

consider collecting data; however, since the drug problem is naturally disaggregated, information

should be aggregated up from the community to the Federal level. One attendee pointed out that
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

190 Office of National Drug Control Policy

there are some data collected at the community level, such as the Parents' Resource Institute on

Drug Education surveys.

Research the Effectiveness of Treatment Modalities

One attendee noted that there are data showing that treatment is effective, but a good

database does not exist that describes the dynamics of treatment effectiveness with variables such

as the number of users in treatment for the first time, the number of users who have received

treatment before, the number of individuals who reduce drug use, and the number of individuals

who end drug use. Another attendee pointed out that it is not enough to show what works in

treatment but rather what works for whom—people respond differently to different treatments. 

Another attendee suggested not assessing treatment as a whole but comparing treatment within

modalities. One attendee commented that comparing modalities at the national level can be

difficult because of variations among States. For example, not all States have therapeutic

community programs. A few attendees pointed out that Congress and the general public tend to be

skeptical of treatment and of research showing its effectiveness. One attendee pointed out that

methadone treatment has a success rate of 30 to 80 percent, but Congress focuses on the

30-percent rate. It is important, therefore, to look at who is delivering treatment under what

circumstances in order to effectively evaluate success. One attendee supported using a

quantitative index of drug use and functionality, such as the Addiction Severity Index, for

individuals in treatment.

Use Multiple Methods and Sources for Gathering Data

One attendee suggested conducting a meta-analysis of existing studies. Another attendee

cautioned that meta-analysis cannot be conducted unless evaluation studies have common

measures and designs. She suggested that agencies make recommendations to grantees regarding

measures and designs of demonstration programs so that meta-analysis can be conducted. One

attendee recommended conducting more exploratory studies to a “capture the full flavor” of the

drug situation. Another attendee responded that it is often difficult to obtain funding for

exploratory research because of scientific skepticism. One attendee encouraged the continued use

of multiple methods such as epidemiology and ethnography along with other qualitative and

quantitative methods.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

Office of National Drug Control Policy 191

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES OR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DATA SETS

In addition to the recommendations already mentioned, participants suggested the

following changes or additions to data sets in response to the question, “If you could make one

change or addition to a data set, what would it be?”

! Oversample the NHSDA so that probability samples represent a number of cities.

! Conduct the Monitoring the Future (MTF) study every other year and use the second

year funds for indepth analysis.

! Conduct Bureau of Justice Statistics surveys more often than once every 5 years.

! For DUF use a more representative catchment area, such as a Metropolitan Statistical

Area or a Primary Statistical Unit.

! Emphasize collecting data from infrastructures where data are used to make decisions.

! Continue to standardize criminal justice data collection and coding to make

it compatible with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Incidence-Based

Reporting System data set.

! Give priority to obtaining information that establishes linkages, such as the relationship

between price and use.

! Differentiate between powder- and crack-cocaine in various levels of data.

! Track the number of full-time employee resources applied to the drug effort.

! Obtain measures of the Government contribution to the drug problem through

programs such as SSI.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

192 Office of National Drug Control Policy

! Conduct evaluations of programs funded through block grants, such as long-term

treatment programs.

! Conduct more surveys like DC*MADS (District of Columbia Metropolitan Area Drug

Study) in other cities around the country.

! Collect data on general attitudes toward consumables.

! Give the Drug Enforcement Administration “all the resources they need” for pricepurity research, particularly for scientific buys.

! Use DAWN to help identify the relationship between drugs and violence, particularly

domestic violence.

! Recognize Department of Transportation records of drug-test results as a data set.

! Conduct the NHSDA every other year, and report DAWN and DUF data quarterly.

! Do pilot study of counties collecting Children's Protective Services, DAWN, and DUF

data to identify individuals in all three data sets.

! Include in DASIS (Drug and Alcohol Services Information System) variables for client

identification and the services the client received.

! Conduct a study on how policymakers inform themselves about the drug situation.

! Have DUF test for alcohol as well as other drugs.

! Focus on the incidence of AIDS among hardcore users.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

Office of National Drug Control Policy 193

! Prepare a drug statistics handbook.

! Give 10 to 20 small grants for secondary analysis of data sources.

! Give greater funding to developing models of the drug problem.

! Develop an interagency workgroup to identify special research projects in need of

funding.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ELIMINATION OF DATA SETS

Participants made the following recommendations in response to the question, “If you

could recommend eliminating one data set, which would it be?”

! Reduce the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) to 30 pages of

tables, and stop publishing separate NNICC (National Narcotic Intelligence Consumers

Committee) reports.

! Eliminate either the INCSR or the MTF.

! Combine Department of Justice surveys of arrestees, probationers, and incarcerated

populations; instead of conducting it as a one-time survey, conduct an ongoing study of

a smaller sample.

! Consider data quality a primary criteria in eliminating data sets.

! End satellite research.

! Instead of collecting DUF and DAWN data quarterly, conduct one-time DUF and

DAWN surveys.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

194 Office of National Drug Control Policy

! Cut NHSDA and MTF budgets in half, and conduct the surveys over 2 years, but

publish yearly reports.

! Eliminate the National Drug Intelligence Center.

! Conduct the MTF survey on one grade per year.

! Ask for MTF longitudinal data to be released, or eliminate funding for it.

! Fold MTF into the NHSDA.

GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE INTEGRATION OF DATA AND POLICY

Participants made observations on the nature of drug-related data and policymaking,

including the relationship between information and knowledge, flaws in the definitions of users,

problems in interpretation of data, and difficulties in supply-side data collection. These comments

are outlined below.

There is Considerable Information But Little Knowledge About the Drug Problem

Three individuals commented that there are considerable data on the drug situation but

little understanding of what the data mean. One attendee used the term “information overload.” 

Another attendee commented that there is a “massive amount of data already out there,” but for

policy formulation it is important to have not only information on the drug problem but also

knowledge about what those data mean. The comment also was made that until the data

integration issue is addressed, the Federal Government should not create new data sets. For

example, if supply increases, what effect does that have on consumption? Which populations are

affected? One attendee commented that Congress agrees that there is not enough knowledge of

the drug problem. This is evidenced by Congress passing the Crime Control Act, which asks

ONDCP to create a picture of the drug problem and present evaluative data.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

Office of National Drug Control Policy 195

One attendee talked of the “signal-to-noise ratio”: the available data does provide

knowledge on the drug problem; it is simply a matter of extracting and consolidating that

knowledge. He acknowledged that some data are a few years old, but there are enough studies to

present basic information and identify information that needs to be clarified.

There Are Flaws in the Definitions of Different Levels of Use

One attendee noted that researchers have difficulty defining terms such as a lifetime,

“current,” and “hardcore” use. For example, one study counts hardcore users and current users

separately even though hardcore users also are current users.

Two attendees noted that the definition of a hardcore user—an individual who uses drugs

at least once per week—does not match the actual level of drug use by a hardcore user. One

attendee commented that a hardcore addict uses drugs 25 to 30 times per week and will probably

never use drugs less often than once per week. One attendee suggested daily use would be a better

characterization of a hardcore user; another attendee suggested asking a user the number of times

in the past week he or she used drugs.

Two attendees outlined the problems associated with obtaining quantitative measures of

hardcore use. One attendee pointed out that most surveys conducted by the Federal Government

ask about past-month use. Another attendee pointed out that in a survey sample, the number of

people who use drugs daily is too small for making generalizations, but the number who use drugs

once per week is measurable. He also pointed out that quantitative frequency is not recognized in

the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, revised fourth edition) as an indicator of severity

of the drug problem.

The Use of Data for Policy Decisionmaking Is Fragmented and Raises Skepticism

There was some skepticism about the manner in which data are used to influence policy. 

Some attendees believed that policy is rarely informed by data, while others believed that

policymakers are focused more than ever on obtaining accurate data for making policy decisions.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

196 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Some attendees believed the problem for policymakers is their interpretation of the

available data. Attendees commented that even when policymakers accept data showing the size

and trend of the problem, that does not mean they will agree with researchers on the approach to

solving the problem. One attendee gave as an example a Swedish study that demonstrated that

methadone treatment had a 75-percent success rate; based on this information, politicians

considered ending methadone programs because the programs constituted unfair competition with

drug-free programs. Another attendee cited a study in the City of San Antonio that showed

treatment admissions increasing in the city as crime rates decreased, and treatment admissions

decreased as crime rates increased. Nevertheless, the City of San Antonio did not increase

treatment funding.

Other attendees commented that they believe the problem is systemic. One attendee

pointed out that while the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress do read

research on the effectiveness of drug control strategies and use that research in making decisions,

the entire decisionmaking process is marginal and fragmented. At OMB decisions on the drug

budget are split among 27 budget examiners; on Capitol Hill decisions are divided among 9

committees each in the House and Senate. In addition, drug-related research must demonstrate

that it is more effective and takes higher priority over other expenditures to receive funding. One

attendee noted that this means the system is working against itself. Another attendee pointed out

that this system makes agencies and programs less accountable for their measures of drug policy

effectiveness because they become accountable only to their specific objectives.

Current Supply Measures Are Not Highly Effective for Policymaking

One attendee pointed out that U.S. estimates of international drug crop production tend to

be conservative—often five times lower than estimates at the local level. One problem is the fact

that surveillance technology lags behind crop production technology. Another attendee agreed,

saying that at this time, “gut-level guesses are more accurate than photointerpreter data.” One

attendee believed this was an example of the need for a range of measures.

Another problem in collecting supply data is the illegal nature of drug trafficking. One

attendee pointed out that law enforcement officials cannot passively monitor drug trafficking; once
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

Office of National Drug Control Policy 197

they are aware of a drug delivery, they must act on that information. Another attendee noted that

when officials make a seizure, they do not know how that affects the drug trafficking network

until another seizure is made.

Suggestions for new measures of supply reduction include number of labs destroyed,

information on money laundering, and amount of asset forfeiture seizures as a measure of law

enforcement effectiveness.

NEXT STEPS

Mr. Carnevale informed participants that their comments and recommendations will be

incorporated into a report to be submitted to the Director of ONDCP by the DCRDE advisory

Committee. All participants will receive a copy of the final report. In addition, Mr. Carnevale

plans to convene smaller working groups to study this issue further.
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

198 Office of National Drug Control Policy

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Sherrie Aitken, Ph.D. Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.

CSR, Incorporated Director

Suite 200 Bureau of Justice Statistics

1400 Eye Street, N.W. 633 Indiana Avenue, N.W. (#1142)

Washington, DC 20005 Washington, DC 20531

M. Douglas Anglin, Ph.D. Patrick Clawson, Ph.D.

Adjunct Associate Professor Institute for National Strategic Studies

UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute Marshall Hall

Drug Abuse Research Group Ft. McNair

1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 763 Washington, DC 20319-6000

Los Angeles, CA 90024-3511

George Bigelow, Ph.D. University of Missouri—St. Louis

Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Campus 598 Lucas Hall

5510 Nathan Shock Drive 8001 Natural Bridge Road

Baltimore, MD 21224-6823 St. Louis, MO 63121

David Boyum Patricia Ebener

Botec Analysis Corporation Survey Director

10 Fawcett Street Department of Social Policy

Cambridge, MA 02138 RAND Corporation

Alfred Blumstein, Ph.D. Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138

The Heinz School

Carnegie-Mellon University Kim English

Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Colorado Division of Criminal Justice

Jay Carver, Director 700 Kipling Street

D.C. Pretrial Services Denver, CO 80215

Room 310

400 F Street, N.W. Thomas Feucht

Washington, DC 20001 National Institute of Justice

Jonathan Caulkins, Ph.D. Washington, DC 20531

Carnegie-Mellon University

School of Urban and Public Affairs Steven Flynn

Pittsburgh, PA 15217-3890 3 Swanswood Lane

Scott Decker, Ph.D.

1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138

Suite 1000

633 Indiana Avenue, N.W.

Old Lyme, CT 06371
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

Office of National Drug Control Policy 199

Adele Harrell, Ph.D. Rensselaer Lee

Senior Research Analyst Global Advisory Services

The Urban Institute Suite 601

2100 M Street, N.W. 1101 King Street

Washington, DC 20037 Alexandria, VA 22314

Lana Harrison, Ph.D. Wilhelmina Leigh, Ph.D.

Center for Drug and Alcohol Studies Joint Center for Political and

University of Delaware Economic Studies

77 East Main Street 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Newark, DE 19716-2582 Washington, DC 20005-4961

Carolyn Hoffman George McFarland

Drug Enforcement Administration President & CEO

700 Army Navy Drive McFarland & Associates

Arlington, VA 22202 Suite 420

Lloyd Johnston, Ph.D. Silver Spring, MD 20910

Institute for Social Research

University of Michigan Daniel Melnick

426 Thompson Street, Room 2324 Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Ann Arbor, MI 48106 Services Administration

Herbert Kleber, M.D. Rockville, MD 29857

Director, Division of Substance Abuse

College of Physicians and Surgeons Jeffrey Merrill

Columbia University Center on Addiction & Substance Abuse

722 West 168th Street 152 W. 57th Street

New York, NY 10032 New York, NY 10019

Richard Kopanda Patrick Murphy

Substance Abuse and Mental Health 731 E. Gorham Street

 Services Administration Madison, WI 53703

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 29857 David Musto, M.D.

Thomas Kosten, M.D. New Haven, CT 06511-1324

CMHC

Substance Abuse Center Susan Pennell

34 Park Street, Room S-205 Criminal Justice Research Unit

New Haven, CT 06519 SANDAG

8630 Fenton Street

5600 Fishers Lane, Room 16C-18

120 Ogden Street

Suite 800

401 B Street

San Diego, CA 92101
Forum on Integrating Information and National Drug Policy

200 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Peter Reuter Ken Stark

School of Public Affairs DASA-1

University of Maryland P.O. Box 45330

Van Munching Hall, Room 1117 Olympia, WA 98504

College Park, MD 20742-1821

William Rhodes, Ph.D. School of Criminology & Criminal

Abt Associates, Incorporated Justice 2025

55 Wheeler Street Florida State University

Cambridge, MA 02138-1168 Tallahassee, FL 32306

Jack Riley J. Michael Walsh

National Institute of Justice The Walsh Group, P.A.

633 Indiana Avenue, N.W. Suite 300

Washington, DC 20531 6701 Democracy Boulevard

Sam Schildhaus

NORC—Washington, DC, Office

University of Chicago

Suite 500

1350 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

Zili Sloboda

National Institute on Drug Abuse

5600 Fishers Lane, Room 9A-53

Rockville, MD 29857

Gordon Waldo, Ph.D.

Bethesda, MD 20817
Office of National Drug Control Policy 203

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Director, ONDCP, acknowledges the contributions of the following:

Chairperson, Subcommittee on Data, Evaluation, and Interagency Coordination:

John T. Carnevale

Director of Programs, Budget, Research, and Evaluations, ONDCP

Principal Authors: Report of the Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Committee

Janie Dargan, Senior Policy Analyst, ONDCP

Terry Zobeck, Chief, Programs and Research Branch, ONDCP

ONDCP Drug Control Research, Data and Evaluation Advisory Committee

Douglas Anglin Wilhelmina Leigh Peter Reuter Robert Fossum

Herbert Kleber Anthony Tether James Copple Linda Jo Doctor

Melody Heaps Davis Ja M. Guajardo Lucero Donald I. MacDonald

A. Thomas McLellan Sharon Shaw-McEwen

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

Amy Becks Lisa Bruce Carlos Dublin

Annie Millar June Sivilli Sumona Guha

FEDERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON DATA, EVALUATION, AND

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

Department of Agriculture Eric Rosenquist

Department of Defense Lennard Wolfson

Department of Health & Human Services Thomas Vischi

Christine Quinn

Department of Housing & Urban Dev. Mary Barry

Department of Justice Pat Tarr

Department of Labor Elena Carr

Department of State Candis Cunningham

Bureau of Justice Statistics Jan Chaiken

Ben Renshaw

Sue Lindgren

Bureau of Labor Statistics Michael Horrigan

Drug Enforcement Administration Caroline Hoffman-Travers
Acknowledgments

204 Office of National Drug Control Policy

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Pat Adams

National Center for Health Statistics

Elizabeth Jackson

Susan Schober

National Drug Intelligence Center

Dave Bonski

Joe Hoosty

National Institute of Justice

Thomas Feucht

Jack Riley

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Zili Sloboda

Ann Blanken

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse

 and Alcoholism Bridget Grant

Substance Abuse and Mental Health

 Services Administration Donald Goldstone

Anna Marsh

Daniel Melnick

CONTRACT SUPPORT

CSR, Incorporated

Sherrie Aitken

Nancy Dudley

William Scarbrough

Bridget Goodman