DOI: 10.3886/icpsr02564.v1
title: Crack, Powder Cocaine, and Heroin: Drug Purchase and Use Patterns in Six Cities in the United States, 1995-1996
title: Version 1

description: This study was designed to address the practical and policy implications of various drug market participation patterns. In 1995, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) collaborated on a project called the Procurement Study. This study was executed as an addendum to NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]) with the goal of extending previous research in which heroin users were interviewed on various aspects of drug market activity. The present study sought to explore additional features of drug market participation and use, both within and across drug types and cities, and included two additional drugs -- powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Data were collected from recently arrested users of powder cocaine, crack cocaine, and heroin in six DUF cities (Chicago, New York, Portland, San Diego, San Antonio, and Washington, DC). Each of the three files in this collection, Crack Data (Part 1), Heroin Data (Part 2), and Powder Cocaine Data (Part 3), is comprised of data from a procurement interview, urine test variables, and a DUF interview. During the procurement interview, information was collected on purchase and use patterns for specific drugs. Variables from the procurement interview include the respondent's method of using the drug, the term used to refer to the drug, whether the respondent bought the drug in the neighborhood, the number of different dealers the respondent bought the drug from, how the respondent made the connection with the dealer (i.e., street, house, phone, beeper, business/store, or friends), their main drug source, whether the respondent went to someone else if the source was not available, how the respondent coped with not being able to find drugs to buy, whether the respondent got the drug for free, the means by which the respondent obtained money, the quantity and packaging of the drug, and the number of minutes spent searching for, traveling to, and waiting for their last purchase. Urine tests screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography). Data from the DUF interview provide detailed information about each arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs. For each drug type, arrestees were asked whether they had ever used the drug, the age at which they first used the drug, whether they had used the drug within the past three days, how many days they had used the drug within the past month, whether they had ever needed or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were dependent on the drug at the time of the interview. Data from the DUF interview instrument also included alcohol/drug treatment history, information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs, and whether they were influenced by drugs when the crime that they were charged with was committed. The data also include information about whether the arrestee had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether he or she had had prior arrests in the past 12 months. Demographic data include the age, race, sex, educational attainment, marital status, employment status, and living circumstances of each respondent.
description: In 1993 and 1994, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) demonstrated that heroin users could be interviewed to describe various aspects of drug market activity. Improving the understanding of search costs more accurately portrayed the full costs users paid for drugs and helped policymakers identify factors that affect the availability of drugs. In 1995 ONDCP, in collaboration with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), extended this analysis to include two additional drugs -- powder cocaine and crack cocaine. This new study, called the Procurement Study, was executed as an addendum to NIJ's Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program (DRUG USE FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477]) and sought to explore additional features of drug market participation and use, both within and across drug types and cities. While earlier market studies had involved developing separate data collection samples, the Procurement Study was fielded as a supplement to the ongoing interviews of arrestees as part of the DUF program. The study was exploratory and sought to address the practical and policy implications of various drug market participation patterns. Although this study cannot identify which policies work best in a given drug market, it does provide important insights on how drug markets differ and how drug users and drug markets are affected by different circumstances.
description: To determine how drug markets differed and how drug users and drug markets were affected by different circumstances, the Procurement Study, which added 100 questions to the DUF interview, was implemented quarterly for one year in six DUF sites (Chicago, New York, Portland, San Antonio, San Diego, and Washington, DC). These sites were selected because they had consistently shown the highest rates of heroin use among the DUF sites and also had substantial levels of cocaine use. Because previous studies provided an overview of heroin markets, this research emphasized interviewing crack users. The procurement interview collected data on both drug purchase patterns and drug use patterns for specific drugs. The DUF interview provided demographic and descriptive data on the respondent's alcohol/drug history and on the crime for which he or she was arrested. At the end of the interview, respondents, all of whom were recent arrestees, were asked to provide a urine specimen that was tested for ten drugs in order to validate their self-reported drug use.
description: Each of the three files in this collection, Crack Data (Part 1), Heroin Data (Part 2), and Powder Cocaine Data (Part 3), is comprised of data from a procurement interview, urine test variables, and a DUF interview. During the procurement interview, information was collected on purchase and use patterns for specific drugs. Variables from the procurement interview include the respondent's method of using the drug, the term used to refer to the drug, whether the respondent bought the drug in the neighborhood, the number of different dealers the respondent bought the drug from, how the respondent made the connection with the dealer (i.e., street, house, phone, beeper, business/store, or friends), their main drug source, whether the respondent went to someone else if the source was not available, how the respondent coped with not being able to find drugs to buy, whether the respondent got the drug for free, the means by which the respondent obtained money, the quantity and packaging of the drug, and the number of minutes spent searching for, traveling to, and waiting for their last purchase. Urine tests screened for the presence of ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines were confirmed by gas chromatography). Data from the DUF interview provide detailed information about each arrestee's self-reported use of 15 drugs. For each drug type, arrestees were asked whether they had ever used the drug, the age at which they first used the drug, whether they had used the drug within the past three days, how many days they had used the drug within the past month, whether they had ever needed or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were dependent on the drug at the time of the interview. Data from the DUF interview instrument also included alcohol/drug treatment history, information about whether arrestees had ever injected drugs, and whether they were influenced by drugs when the crime that they were charged with was committed. The data also include information about whether the arrestee had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether he or she had had prior arrests in the past 12 months. Demographic data include the age, race, sex, educational attainment, marital status, employment status, and living circumstances of each respondent.
description: Response Rates: Study interviews were conducted with about 42 percent of the eligible powder cocaine users, 70 percent of the eligible crack users, and 52 percent of the eligible heroin users, although there was substantial variation by site and gender. In addition, two separate interviews were completed with about 63 percent of the eligible heroin-and-powder cocaine users and 57 percent of the eligible heroin-and-crack users.
description: Presence of Common Scales: None.
description: Recent arrestees who had completed the main DUF questionnaire and had reported powder cocaine, crack, or heroin use in the 30 days prior to arrest.
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Crack Data DS2: Heroin Data DS3: Powder Cocaine Data
description: Recent arrestees in six United States cities.
description: Consistency checks were not performed by ICPSR.