The National Methamphetamine
Drug Conference
Research: Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring System
Jeremy Travis, J.D., Director
National Institute Of Justice
I am very pleased to be here to present some contributions the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is making to our understanding of the methamphetamine problem. The data I will present come from a profile of methamphetamine users who have contact with the criminal justice system. Our measurement tool is called the Drug Use Forecasting System (DUF), which we are transforming into the ADAM system, or Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring System.
|
What is the ADAM System?
An Arrestee Survey System Comprising:
- A national and local Information system on drug abuse, crime, and other social issues
- A scientific, flexible research tool
- Interviews and bioassays at the front end of the CJ system (arrestees)
- Samples from urban, suburban, and rural arrestee populations
|
The National Institute of Justice proposal for the ADAM system creates a research infrastructure throughout the nation so each of 75 major cities with more than 200,000 in population will, by the year 2000, have the capability to conduct quarterly interviews with everyone arrested in their jurisdiction, to randomly select for scientific validity, and to take urine samples and other bioassays to quantify the level of drug use. Most importantly, we will also conduct annual surveys in rural and suburban jurisdictions, Indian country and in the Federal District Courts. We must contextualize this drug problem at its local level and develop some understanding of trends and patterns of use across this nation. The ADAM system is our contribution to that effort.
Jeremy Travis, director of the National Institute ofJustice, presents findings from surveys of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) system. |
Let me emphasize the uniqueness of the population to be discussed. These people are arrested, brought into the criminal justice system and charged with criminal offenses. This is not a survey of all Americans or only of drug-using Americans. To the extent methamphetamine users are not in contact with the criminal justice system, we do not measure them. And to the extent they are not in contact with the urban criminal justice system represented by our 23 cities, we do not measure them.
|
NIJ-ADAM System 1996
Methamphetamine Results: |
| | 1995 (%) | 1996 (%) |
| San Diego, CA | 37.1 | 29.9 |
| Phoenix, AZ | 21.9 | 12.2 |
| Portland, OR | 18.7 | 12.4 |
| San Jose, CA | 18.5 | 14.8 |
| Omaha, NE | 8.1 | 4.3 |
| Los Angeles, CA | 7.5 | 7.0 |
| Denver, CO | 3.8 | 2.2 |
| Dallas, TX | 2.7 | 1.3 |
| San Antonio, TX | 1.5 | 2.1 |
|
Our measurements do not reflect reality broader than the adult arrestee population within a limited number of cities where we test and conduct our surveys. The key features of the Drug Use Forecasting System are to take urine samples and interview arrestees in 23 cities across the country. We then present findings on adult male and female arrestees. Let me provide a preview of our latest findings.
These new data are contained in the 1996 Drug Use Forecasting Annual Report. There are significant differences in the regions between positive tests for methamphetamine within the arrestee population. Only nine of the sites reported substantial levels of meth positives among adult arrestees. Sites where the methamphetamine use is highest include San Diego, San Jose, Portland, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Omaha, Denver, Dallas and San Antonio.
There is a reported decline in tracking in each of these sites with a minor exception in San Antonio, where there is a small increase of 1.5 to 2.1 percent. We see a decline from 1995 to 1996, very significant in some cases. San Diego dropped from 37 to 30 percent. Last year, San Diego reported a higher methamphetamine positive rate than that of cocaine among its arrestee population. The methamphetamine rates have come down significantly in eight of the nine cities we are reporting.
In a drug profile of those arrested, tested and interviewed within the ADAM survey, we see differences by gender, race and age. Methamphetamine use profiles among arrestees are different from other drug use. Female arrestees were slightly more likely to test positive in all categories, and white arrestees were significantly more likely than other arrestees to test positive. Elderly arrestees were also testing positive for methamphetamine use.
The question important to law enforcement and the criminal justice system is this: What are the charges methamphetamine arrestees are facing as they are brought into the criminal justice system? Not surprisingly, many are facing drug charges associated with their methamphetamine use. There is a very high correlation with prostitution in the female population that poses public health problems and enforcement problems for the public health agencies and the criminal justice system at the local level. We also notice a high correlation of violence in criminal behavior.
Another question that poses itself is: In a population known for poly-drug use, what is the correlation between methamphetamine and other drug use? It is particularly interesting that we have very distinct methamphetamine and cocaine population arrestee groups. There are very slight overlaps between the two. Of all the arrestees in the sample cities, only 2 percent tested positive for both drugs. So methamphetamine users are a distinct population in terms of drug use, ethnicity and gender. This finding has implications for criminal justice processing as well as for treatment programs.
There is clear evidence of a geographic spread of methamphetamine use in people in the criminal justice system. The regional patterns are quite significant; for example, there is more use in the west and less in the east. One of the advantages of the ADAM system, particularly in the rural outreach components, is that we will be able to track these geographic changes better.
NIJ also conducted another survey to better understand the market dynamics of methamphetamine abuse. What is the nature of methamphetamine use within this population? What is the frequency and duration of methamphetamine use? What do we know about the market dynamics? What is the frequency with which these users have sought treatment and been sustained in treatment, and what are ultimately the best points and methods for intervention? With these questions in mind, we commissioned a special survey of five western cities, using the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and research and law enforcement partners in Portland, San Jose, Los Angeles and Phoenix.
|
Consequences of Meth Use
Reported by Users
| Sleeplessness | 85% |
| Weight loss | 71% |
| Family Problems | 62% |
| Financial Problems | 48% |
| Paranoia | 45% |
| Problems at Work | 44% |
National Institute of Justice
1996 DUF/ADAM Methamphetamine Data
|
The purpose of the study was to examine methamphetamine use patterns and issues in these five cities, to explore the intensity in the drug markets and to ultimately try to tie some of these findings into policy recommendations. For sample sizes, there were 232 people spread over five cities, but we are collecting two more quarters of data and will ultimately publish the findings. Please consider data interpretations preliminary.
The first question we asked is: How do you take your meth? We see informative variations within these five cities. We have a high injection rate in Portland and Phoenix while Los Angeles is higher still, with snorting as the preferred method of ingestion. It is important for us to recognize that, even within what we consider to be a homogeneous population, even within these five cities, we have a very different pattern of use that may have implications for treatment and other purposes. We also wanted to gain a sense of the dictionary of methamphetamine, and we compiled a list of different terms important for law enforcement. We asked questions about preferences: Why do you choose one drug over another? Quite simply, we found users strongly preferred methamphetamine to cocaine.
While we know that methamphetamine gives a stronger high and a longer-lasting effect, the fact that methamphetamine was inexpensive was one reason selected by many people. When asked about any side effects and consequences of methamphetamine use, the study revealed significant physiological and social consequences: Sleeplessness, weight loss, family problems, financial problems, paranoia, problems at work. Regarding the duration of the use, we asked how often people use methamphetamine on more than a single day. The majority of respondents reported they use methamphetamine four or more days in a row on at least one occasion. These are not casual, one-time users; these are people who reported long periods of use on more than one occasion.
We also asked: Where did you get your drugs? The answers are important for the development of law enforcement tactics that respond to the different distribution and purchasing patterns of different drugs. Overwhelmingly, the transactions were reported to be indoor-business transactions. Most users reported they never bought from someone they did not know. Consequently, policing methamphetamine use is more difficult than the outdoor transaction frequently conducted from stranger to stranger.
Another question was: How difficult is it for you to get your drug of choice and what tends to interfere with your ability to get your drugs? Three-quarters of the interviewees in the five cities said, "I can't remember a time when I couldn't find some methamphetamine." We will use this measure as an indicator of the effectiveness of disrupting the distribution system.
|
ADAM: Part Of NIJ's Mission Of "Research To Action"
- ADAM links research to action through data and information dissemination
- to the law enforcement community
- to the drug treatment community
- to prevention and drug education practitioners
- At local and national levels
- Informs the evaluation of specific policy programs: drug courts, weed & seed, break the cycle, HIDTA,local initiatives
|
We asked for a quality assessment compared to a year ago: What is the quality of methamphetamine you are able to purchase today? In San Diego, two-thirds of those we interviewed said quality was worse; few said it was better. In San Jose, roughly a third said it was better while a quarter said it was the same.
We also wanted to look at treatment, particularly in the hard-core drug-user population, the area of concern principally of public safety and health. Many in Portland said they sought treatment, but not so many in Los Angeles and Phoenix. We will look at this question and report on it nationally more frequently as we develop the ADAM system.
Yet there is still more to understand. For example, consider this important question: Are you also engaged in selling? We asked those who were users for a point of comparison; we found significant dual involvement, both in use and in sale. We will soon also analyze data of interest to the law enforcement community about the type of involvement in these selling activities. Is it occasional? Is it the main source of income? What is the intensity of involvement?
In conclusion, these research surveys are a sampling of our work at the National Institute of Justice. We hope our research creates a linkage between the local practitioners, policy makers and researchers. With regard to understanding the methamphetamine problem, the guiding principles are: To look at the methamphetamine problem in a larger context, to think about long-term solutions, to strike a balance between prevention, enforcement and treatment, and to develop timely data and community support.
Many believe there is one national drug problem; my strong views are that there are many national drug problems, and these are best seen from a local perspective. Look at the drug problem facing San Diego; it is a methamphetamine problem. Talk to the police commissioner of Baltimore; there is a large heroin problem. We must understand the local context. The ADAM program will help us develop this local understanding and research so we can track drug trends on a quarterly basis and over a long period of time. The ADAM program will also help us to understand rural drug use. We tend to focus on cities, and methamphetamine is a perfect example of why we need to change that focus to include rural and suburban jurisdictions.
I encourage you at the local level to get involved in the establishment of the ADAM site councils. We ask for enforcement, treatment, criminal justice, public health and education professionals to be at the same table at the local level so that the ADAM capabilities can be yours, not just ours. You can ask the questions important to you. This is not a federal program; it is a local/federal partnership, and I encourage you to get involved so this can be a tremendous success. Thank you for your time and attention.
We have been participating in the DUF program for several years. Ninety percent of misdemeanor criminal violations are handled by a criminal citation rather than physical arrest and booking. Only 10 percent of all misdemeanor violations result in a physical arrest. What role are drugs playing in misdemeanor populations that, in every city, make up a large number of criminal activity situations?
I have two conclusions: One research conclusion and one policy conclusion. The research conclusion is that we are not accurately reflecting the arrestee population to the extent we miss those who are not in extended police lockup. We must talk about ways to overcome this shortcoming because we are missing an accurate measurement of police and criminal activity.
The policy conclusion is that the criminal justice system must become better in its carrot-and-stick approach to reduce drug use through treatment. The drug court movement is a creative recognition of this need. Substance abuse treatment in prisons, supported on a national level by the President, and the Breaking the Cycle initiative, which NIJ and ONDCP are starting in Birmingham, are approaches to more fully integrate treatment in the criminal justice system.
These actions adopt the "broken window theory," which links criminal behavior and community policing. The theory suggests that it is important to police less serious offenses because failing to do so leads to some of the larger issues of community decay and criminal behavior. We need to apply the same theory to drug policy and treat the low-level drug offender before he or she moves to more serious offenses. At the present, we are missing this point of intervention, and it would be wise to pay attention to it.
I am surprised at the data showing reduced use of methamphetamine by an arrestee. Our methamphetamine lab seizures are up 300 percent in two years. California drug teams show methamphetamine is now a plague; teams uncover a methamphetamine lab every 15 minutes. This is not reflected by the data in those cities. What is the cause for this disparity?
Remember my qualifier? We survey people arrested and charged with crimes. The question to be posed at the local level is: Who is using and who is buying? What are the points of intervention for those not in contact with the criminal justice system? I am open to theories as to why the positive test levels for those arrested in these cities are going down. It may be a different story for each of these five cities. The data presented here suggests production—and therefore use—is increasing somewhere, yet it appears to be declining within the arrestee population.
