text: [Federal Register: April 9, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 68)] [Notices] [Page 17474-17477] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09ap98-158] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Driver History Initiative Projects; Fiscal Year 1998 Funding AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of solicitation. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This notice solicits proposals from States for projects to evaluate their current citation issuance, conviction process, and driver licensing procedures and policies in meeting the goal of timely, accurate, and complete reporting and recording of traffic convictions within a State and between States. Where deficiencies are identified, a State is to develop new or revised systems, procedures, and/or policies to improve the reporting and recording of traffic convictions. The FHWA will provide grant funds to the selected States to carry out the projects from funds set aside in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Pub. L. 105-66, 111 Stat. 1425) for driver improvements and enhancements. DATES: Proposals must be submitted on or before July 8, 1998. ADDRESSES: Submit all proposals to: Mr. Phillip Forjan, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, HCS-20, Room 3107, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Phillip Forjan, Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, (202) 366-4001, or Mr. Paul Claunch, Office of Motor Carrier Safety and Technology, (202) 366-2170, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of their proposal submission must include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem and suitable communications software from the Federal Register Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may reach the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.nara.gov/nara/ fedreg and Government Printing's Office's database at http:// www.acess.gpo.gov/su__docs. Background Extensive studies and research conducted over a period of years have found that driver error is a major cause of motor vehicle crashes. Driver error is a complex problem with many components including age, experience, time of day, extent of familiarity with the roadway, emotional/physical/mental state, traffic patterns, etc. Improving driver behavior is essential if highway safety is to be improved. Federal, State, and local governments spend millions of dollars annually on training, education, public information, and law enforcement efforts to protect the motoring public by detecting and [[Page 17475]] deterring unsafe driver behavior. The enforcement component of these programs produces thousands of citations for driving violations every day. The backbone of what is known as the ``driver control system'' is the driver history, which should include a record of the driver's convictions as well as the dates of any license suspensions and reinstatements. This record provides licensing agencies, law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, insurance organizations, and potential employers with the information needed to make sound decisions involving an individual's driving and/or license status. The driver history system, however, does not always service the needs of the public in reporting timely, accurate, and reliable information. State Citation Tracking Study About two years ago, a large State with citation tracking capability sampled the disposition of a randomly selected group of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driving citations. The State waited one year from the date of issuance to investigate the results of the citations on the driver history of the drivers cited. The State agency analyzed citations issued to 184 commercial drivers licensed by that State and 95 commercial drivers holding licenses issued by other States. The State's driver history records showed the following: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Out-of- In-state state drivers drivers (percent) (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nothing on record................................. 27 49 Convicted of offense charged...................... 56 9 Convicted of lesser offense or non-commercial violation........................................ 17 42 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Of the citations written to in-State drivers, 75 were for serious traffic offenses as defined in the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (49 U.S.C. chapter 313). These offenses include speeding fifteen or more miles per hour over the limit, improper lane change, following too closely, or reckless driving as defined by State or local law. Of those citations written to in-State drivers, 63 percent resulted in convictions for the offense charged and are listed in the driver history, 23 percent did not appear on the driver history at all, and 14 percent appeared as a conviction of reduced charge or a non-commercial violation. Of the citations written to out-of State drivers, 56 were for serious traffic offenses. Fourteen percent of the citations resulted in convictions for the offense charged and are listed as such in the driver record, 54 percent did not appear on the driver history at all, and 32 percent appeared as convictions of either a reduced charge or a non-commercial violation. It is very unlikely that acquittals account for all 23 percent of the citations issued to in-State drivers for serious traffic offenses, and 54 percent issued to out-of-State drivers, which were not listed in the driver history. Discussions with safety practitioners around the country bring general agreement that, in many cases, convictions simply do not result in entries in the driver history. This raises serious questions as to the efficacy of current enforcement efforts. If very large numbers of citations regularly do not result in convictions or convictions are not entered into the driver history, there is little chance of the driver control system working to identify problem drivers for corrective action. Systemic reporting problems, including inconsistencies in reporting driving convictions among and within States, are another concern. An example would be where a State, upon receiving a driver history record or conviction from another State, either will not post a conviction because it is old or will not act on a history or conviction because it is from out-of-State. Given current reporting problems between and among courts and licensing agencies, a reporting delay in excess of six months is common. The primary concern is those commercial drivers who continue to drive in spite of multiple disqualifying offenses. These multiple offenders are either undetected by the driver control system or granted hardship or limited licenses that allow them to continue to drive under restricted circumstances, which may or may not become part of the driver history. The outcome is that ``at-risk'' drivers often go undetected, their behavior unchanged, and they put others at risk of injury or death. CDL Effectiveness Study Preliminary Conclusions: Harmonization of State Laws and Adjudication The Senate Appropriations Committee in the Senate Report to the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995, directed the FHWA to provide information regarding actions taken under the CDL program to suspend, revoke, or otherwise disqualify commercial motor vehicle operators who commit certain violations and to provide information in other areas of program performance. (S.Rep. No. 103-310, at page 101 (1994)). As a result, the FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers initiated the Commercial Driver License Effectiveness Study to examine the implementation of the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) program and to assess its effectiveness and benefits to highway safety, including the best methods of monitoring and restricting ``at-risk'' drivers of CMVs. The following is a list of some of the CDL implementation study's significant findings in the area of harmonization of State laws and adjudication: 1. At least 15 States have programs which provide for masking convictions so that they are not visible to an employer if the driver attends a prescribed education or treatment program. Such programs compromise the intent of harmonization to the degree that they mask convictions for disqualifying offenses specified in 49 U.S.C. 31310. 2. Few judges, prosecutors, or law enforcement officers have received training or study materials on the CDL program. Many are not aware of the Federal statute addressing commercial motor vehicle driving offenses, the CDL program, or the harmonization of State laws regarding convictions defined in 49 U.S.C. 31310. Judges and prosecutors generally do not understand that CMV violations are materially different from other traffic violations. 3. The level of coordination which exist between a State's driver licensing agency and the State's traffic court system is inadequate in many instances to assure driver control measures are properly administered and occur in a timely fashion.. 4. Data analysis of CDL holder convictions found 19 percent of all convictions are posted as ``UNKNOWN'' with respect to vehicle type, while an additional 64 percent are marked ``NO,'' i.e., the violation did not occur in a CMV. Omitting a check mark on the citation indicating that the violation occurred in a CMV, or ``losing'' the check mark during the adjudication and conviction posting process, eliminates application of the Federal requirements and sanctions. 5. This data sufficiency problem is further exacerbated for out-of- State convictions. Six State DMVs out of 41 responding automatically ``translate'' some CMVSA violations to a lesser offense when the conviction does not indicate the violation was in a CMV (e.g., a conviction for .04 percent Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) would be posted as a conviction for an ``open container''). The survey also indicates that statutes prohibit 5 of the 46 [[Page 17476]] responding States from taking license withdrawal action against a driver for an out-of-State conviction, except those listed in 49 U.S.C. 31310. If an out-of-State conviction is not marked as occurring in a CMV, 43 of the 46 responding States automatically post the conviction as occurring in a non-CMV. The survey included all 50 States plus the District of Columbia. There were several questions on the survey that were not addressed by all the States. Conviction Deferral Programs Many States and localities have adopted programs that allow convictions for moving traffic offenses to be deferred, diverted, or otherwise prevented from becoming a part of a driver's permanent record. The assumption underlying many of these programs is that drivers should be afforded the opportunity to mend their ways without facing a fine plus ongoing, increased insurance costs if the offense becomes a part of the permanent driving record. These programs often require drivers to attend driver improvement programs or other training sessions in order to avoid having the driving conviction entered on their permanent records. Some of these programs are managed Statewide by driver licensing agencies. The programs generally consist of systems to retain deferred convictions in State records, but to mask them if requested by certain parties (i.e., insurance companies). This enables the State to monitor the driver's behavior and, when the system works properly, to avoid allowing a driver to simultaneously participate in several diversion or deferral programs with multiple convictions. Other programs allow local jurisdictions to manage their own diversion or deferral programs. Under this system, local courts can collect and retain additional court costs to cover the deferral or diversion programs. These funds are retained by the local governments to be used for governmental programs. In Indiana, the diversion/deferral program does not require participation in a remedial driver training or driver improvement course. In addition to giving the drivers a second chance and helping them to avoid potentially significant increased costs following a traffic conviction, diversion and deferral programs are a useful source of revenue for local governments. In States like Indiana, local jurisdictions can collect extra fines and fees as a part of the program and can retain those revenues for local use. Generally, traffic citations that are adjudicated locally and reported to the State allow for some type of State and local revenue sharing of fines collected by local jurisdictions. Clearly, diversion/deferral programs can be attractive to local jurisdictions as a means of retaining fine revenues collected in local courts. Some policies allow these funds to be given to civic organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). In addition to such not-for-profit organizations, funds are diverted to alcohol and drug services, city/county governments, courts, law enforcement agencies, and the prosecutor's office. Use of deferral programs leads to traffic convictions not being reported to State licensing agencies. These omissions can have a potentially serious effect on safety, particularly where the programs are administered locally. In such cases, local jurisdictions are likely to be unaware of the identity of deferral program participants in neighboring communities. Consequently, an habitual offender could participate in several deferral programs at one time, with no record of the traffic convictions existing on the offender's driver history. Even where deferral/diversion programs are centrally administered, they are dependent on complete reporting by local jurisdictions to ensure that a driver is not participating in multiple programs. Participation in these programs is particularly problematic for holders of a CDL. Commercial drivers generally drive significantly more miles annually than do passenger car drivers. Their exposure to crashes and to more hazardous driving conditions that can lead to crashes is much greater than that of the average driver. Also, commercial drivers operate larger, heavier vehicles that can cause significant damage in a crash with a passenger car. In addition, the CDL program includes specific, required penalties for drivers who commit more than one serious traffic offense as defined in 49 U.S.C. 31310. Drivers convicted of these offenses (including, among other things, improper or erratic lane changing or speeding 15 or more miles an hour over the speed limit) are subject to license suspension. Participation in a diversion/deferral program could allow these drivers to mask such offenses from judges, prosecutors, and licensing agencies and, thus, avoid statutorily required sanctions. The potential exists for chronic offenders to use the diversion/deferral system to continue to drive well beyond a point where they would otherwise be subject to some type of license sanction or remedial program under the CDL program. The purpose of this discussion is to point out that while deferral/ diversion programs can provide drivers an opportunity to avoid potentially large and continuing penalties for conviction of a single moving violation, they can also allow chronic offenders to avoid detection and CDL holders to avoid statutory penalties. Jurisdictions should weigh the safety impact of these programs and consider whether they need more controls to ensure that safety is not compromised. There is also the question of taxpayer confidence in a traffic enforcement program that allows local jurisdictions to collect and retain extra revenue for traffic convictions which are not reported to the State. Some citizens hold traffic enforcement programs in disdain as revenue generating mechanisms for local governments, rather than efforts to ensure and support public safety by limiting crashes and injuries. Diversion/deferral programs that allow local jurisdictions to raise fines and penalties and forego reporting of convictions could contribute to this type of criticism. States seeking to participate in this grant program will be asked to review and include in their grant proposal a summary of diversion/deferral programs in the State. Driver History Initiative Projects The FHWA is trying to improve the timeliness, completeness, accuracy, and clarity of State driver history files by promoting an integrated driver licensing system. Such a system will improve and enhance the driver history file by its ability to facilitate identification, prosecution, and adjudication of problem drivers. It will benefit drivers who have satisfied the penalties or conditions of a driving restriction by promptly updating their driving record. It will ensure that all drivers have complete, accurate, and up-to-date histories available as needed for employment and insurance purposes. The initiative will begin with Federally funded State projects. It will involve States that are willing to explore and test new and proven methodologies and protocols, allowing for rapid electronic exchange of driver history information. A major component of the projects will be to test procedures that facilitate citation tracking from issuance to resolution. The project should also enhance the accuracy, speed, and completeness of driver history information exchange among the various components of the system, including law enforcement, prosecutors, the courts, and driver licensing agencies, both within the State and across State boundaries. [[Page 17477]] The scope of potential projects or plans should not be limited to system development, changes, or enhancements. The State may have a system that is technically sound but hampered by State procedures, policies, laws, or legislation preventing the State from utilizing its system in the most efficient and effective manner. The FHWA will entertain proposals that may not involve the system but would meet the project goals. One example of a procedure problem is out-of-State convictions. Some States treat paper notification of out-of-State convictions differently than electronic notification of similar convictions; several States lack the authority to assess points or penalties for convictions received electronically. As mentioned above, many States report there are certain out-of-State convictions which they cannot enter on drivers' records because of statutory inconsistencies, State-to-State. The primary objective of this effort is to achieve enhancements in the development, exchange, retention, and reporting of driver histories of commercial motor vehicle operators. The FHWA believes that any enhancements to the commercial segment of the driver licensing system are also likely to have a positive effect on the non-commercial side. However, the FHWA will accept proposals on all aspects of the States' driver licensing recordkeeping and control systems. Solutions developed as a result of the various projects will be shared with other States that wish to improve and upgrade their driver history tracking systems or revise existing licensing procedures. The initiative will be a collaborative effort among the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which jointly will provide the funding, as well as the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), the National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives (NAGHSR), the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), which will all provide technical support during all phases of the projects. Project Goal The goal of the FHWA is to ensure timely, accurate, and complete reporting and recording of traffic convictions within States (courts, State licensing agencies, prosecutors), and between and among States to reliably identify potential problem drivers by enhancing existing systems, developing new systems, or revising existing procedural practices. Proposal Submission Required Content of Proposals While providing the maximum possible flexibility to States, grant proposals must meet certain criteria. The grant proposal criteria are designed to ensure that key State agencies and organizations participate in approved grant activities. A thorough evaluation design is another key requirement. The proposal must include the following nine items: 1. Identify a lead Agency for the project. 2. Identify an interdisciplinary working group within the State, including but not limited to the motor vehicle licensing agency, court system, prosecutors, State law enforcement, Governor's Highway Safety Representative, and Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) representative. 3. Provide an analysis of existing systems or procedures, including discussion of any driver conviction/deferral programs, and outline strengths and define areas requiring attention or improvement. Include any statutory limitations that may affect communication and recording of convictions on the system. 4. Define system requirements, including project scope, whether new technologies would be tested, and methods of gathering, integrating, and facilitating data exchange between various users. 5. Provide and submit a project evaluation plan and time lines for completion. If your project is not system related, describe existing procedures, the problems they generate, proposed new procedures, anticipated outcome, and the means to measure the success or impact of the project or program. 6. Define, analyze, and document user procedures, including projected barriers to project success. 7. Define the methodology for implementing the system or procedures. 8. Provide plans for preparing a final report, including the evaluation findings and recommendations for other States regarding the strengths and weaknesses of this project or program. 9. Provide a budget for the project. Submission of Proposals There will be no formal Request For Proposals (RFP). Proposals responding to this notice must be valid for 180 days, and may be funded at any time during that validity period. Submit an original and three copies of your proposal, following the task requirements listed above to Mr. Phillip J. Forjan, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, HCS-20, Room 3107, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Evaluation of Proposals and Award A panel comprised of representatives from the NHTSA, the AAMVA, the NAGHSR, the CVSA, and the IACP will assist the FHWA in its oversight of the project. Members of the panel will be available for technical assistance during all phases of the projects and will review the evaluations of each final product. The panel will evaluate each proposal, based on the following factors: (1) The intrinsic merit of the proposal; (2) the technical competency of the proposal; (3) the potential for utilization of results; (4) reasonableness of the initial cost proposed; and (5) adequacy of proposed resources to complete the project requirements satisfactorily and in a timely manner. Project Funding This notice announces the FHWA's intent to provide funding in FY 1998 for a number of projects relating to driver licensing systems and State driver license procedures. States are invited to submit proposals outlining their projects to the FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers. The FHWA will fund project management and implementation of State systems or revision of State procedures. This grant will not require matching funds. The FHWA has $500,000 available for this purpose in Fiscal Year 1998 and contemplates making several awards from the proposals submitted. The States are also encouraged to explore other funding sources in both the private and public sectors to implement integrated driver history tracking systems. Authority: Pub. L. 105-66, 111 stat. 1425, 1432, 49 U.S.C. 31102, and 49 CFR 1.48. Issued on: April 1, 1998. Gloria J. Jeff, Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration. [FR Doc. 98-9380 Filed 4-8-98; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P


text:
Primarily an MTB trail. decently maintained. moderate/intermediate skill level difficulty. few dangerous drops/cactus. bring flat repair. different place than posted picture. parking lot has no sighn. right off HWY 377 on right if headed NB
Hike across twisted, tortured landscape on this 11.2-mile overnighter through the High Chisos Mountains to the South Rim escarpment. Bring plenty of water; this is dry country.
Surprise sights--such as a masonry spillway and an elusive armadillo--await on this 5.5-mile loop that encircles Cleburne State Park's Cedar Lake.
Climb up to an observation tower atop the migratory-bird crowded shores of Lake Texoma on this easy 0.4-mile interpretive loop in the Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge.
Spot abundant wildlife and wide open vistas from the shores of Lake Texoma on this easy, 3.2-mile lollipop loop in the Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge just 90 minutes north of Dallas.
Escape busy Dallas. This 3.2-mile out-and-back pierces the heart of Cedar Hills State Park and provides a quick getaway into Texas hill country.
This gentle 4.8-mile loop rolls through Texas woods and grasslands to a breezy lakeshore.
Discover the river gullies, wildlife, and floral delights of Cooper Lake State Park on this winding 4.7-mile lollipop loop through a towering hardwood forest.
Hike 8.9 miles of undulating hills and blackjack oak forest along the mysterious, murky backwater bayous of Lake Texoma.
Hike near theropod and sauropod dinosaur tracks, then ditch the roadside crowds for some solitude and abundant views of the Paluxy River Valley on this 6.8-mile loop.
An introduction to Texas' second-largest lake, this 13.25-mile round-trip paddle on Lake Livingston's western shore will have you rubbing elbows with the locals--turtles, snakes and alligators included.
Dallas: Dinosaur Valley

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Download Preview | Edit or add effects |
by Netfalls, Stock Photo 14710220
beautiful, beauty, bright, caucasian, cheek, clean, close-up, closeup, cosmetology, fashion, female, feminine, fresh, girl, glamour, happy, health, healthy, isolate, isolated, jeans, lady, lips, make, make-up, makeup, mouth, natural, people, person, pretty, skin, smile, teeth, up, white, woman, yellow, young
Made with love in NYC.
Bigstock and Big Stock Photo are registered trademarks of Shutterstock. Bigstockphoto is a trademark of Shutterstock.
© 2004-2014 All rights reserved - Bigstock®


text:
In addition to printing and viewing your local deals vouchers, you can now easily
manage your location, free subscriptions and credit card details.
Secure access to My Account requires a password. If you have not yet created a Travelzoo
password, we will ask you to go ahead and set one up.
One of the most popular attractions to open in Manhattan in the last few years, the High Line park runs atop elevated rail tracks through the splayed legs of the chic Standard Hotel, where rates this summer are $200 less than surrounding dates.
Visit Fridays-Sundays July-August for $325-$345 per night in a room with an oversized tub and bed draped with Italian linens.
"An architectural tour de force" (The New York Times) with a skin of all windows, the hotel offers a sprawling view across the Hudson River and over the High Line gardens, which will be ripe with blooms.
A Biergarten downstairs fills with revelers on weekends, who also browse the windows of the cutting-edge fashion shops that line the streets of the surrounding Meatpacking District.


text:
Appendix C: Effects of Changes in Survey Protocol on Trend Measurement
C. 1 Background
The 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) results showed some unexpected increases in trend measures, particularly in the lifetime use of marijuana. As a result, a review of any methodological changes and their potential impact on estimates of prevalence was conducted concurrently with preparation of this report. The ultimate focus of this review centered on two methodological issues. The first was an embedded experimental design studying the impact of two alternative monetary incentive procedures. The second was the implementation of a field interviewer (FI) observation plan that led to the implementation of a continuing training and supervision program whose aim was the improvement in compliance with the intended data collection protocols.
Comparable protocols for data collection, data processing, sample design, and statistical analysis applied to each annual survey are essential for effective measurement of trends in substance use. Although a major shift in survey methodology occurred in 1999 with the introduction of computer-assisted data collection and a new 50-State sample design, the goal since then has been to maintain a consistent protocol in all areas following that transition. However, this goal did not appear to be inconsistent with maintaining or improving response rates, implementing procedures to ensure compliance with the established protocols, or implementing a general program of data quality improvement.
Due to concerns with response rates, an experimental study of the impact of monetary incentives was designed and implemented in the first two quarters of 2001. The design involved a sample of 251 FI regions (out of a total of 900 FI regions nationally). During the first quarter, one of the two monetary incentives ($20 or $40) was offered to respondents for completing the computer-assisted interviewing (CAI) questionnaire in one randomly selected segment in each FI region. There was no incentive offered in the other sample segment. During the second quarter, the other incentive amount was offered to respondents for completing the CAI questionnaire in one randomly selected segment. The sample of FI regions selected for the incentive experiment was selected to be nationally representative (with proper weighting) and to include a higher proportion of areas known to have historically low response rates. Because the experiment was embedded in the national sample, the incentives offered had some influence on national response rates. The embedded experimental design and the total sample design are summarized in Table C.1 at the end of the appendix. The FI regions involved in the incentive experiment constituted about 28 percent of all FI regions, but the sample area segments where any incentive was offered constituted only about 7 percent of all area segments.
A program of FI observation was initiated in quarters 1 and 2. An initial 39 FIs were observed between February 3rd and April 15th. An additional 111 FIs were observed between July 1st and August 11th.
As a result of the field observations, an emphasis was placed on conforming with established study protocols. Special telephone training sessions were developed emphasizing correct screening and interviewing procedures and the need to follow established protocols. A guidance document, Steps to Maximize Data Quality, was reviewed with all FIs in early July. Additional guidelines for training interviews, Reviewing NHSDA Procedures, were developed and used by field supervisors in a series of six weekly conference calls with interviewers over the period from October 22nd through November 26th. Session topics included screening, transition from screening to interview, front- and back-end computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) portions (two sessions), properly administering audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI), and verification and wrap-up. Although this special training did not define any change in protocol, it did enforce the need to follow established protocol and, as a result, could have influenced the comparability of 2000 and 2001 data primarily for the last 6 months of the year.
A number of special analyses were initiated to investigate potential explanations for the observed 2000 to 2001 change in prevalence measures. These can be grouped as follows:
C.2 Postsurvey Data Processing
The effects of editing, imputation, and weighting on prevalence measures were examined by comparing estimates before and after processing. Comparable estimates were produced by quarterly subsamples and by age groups to identify any unusual impacts limited to shorter time periods or to a subset of the data.
An important set of initial analyses focused on unedited respondent data. These analyses investigated whether increases in prevalence in 2001 might be due in part to increased reporting of drug use by respondents prior to the data being edited or imputed. Trends in unedited data among specific age groups were examined by quarter for 1999 to 2001, both on an unweighted and weighted basis. To promote consistency in the examination of the trends, data resulting from changes to the instrument in 2000 and 2001, such as the addition of those described in Section C.9, were generally not taken into account.
For most of the drug use measures and age groups, the unedited trend data indicated that the significant differences in drug use estimates between 2000 and 2001 were due to higher percentages of respondents reporting drug use in at least some quarters of 2001. These results held for both weighted and unweighted data. Therefore, the unedited, unimputed, and unweighted data indicated the same trends as the fully processed data.
Figure C.1 shows the overall impact of the editing, imputing, and weighting processes on lifetime marijuana and cocaine use estimates for persons aged 18 to 25. Plots across quarters are shown for raw unweighted data, for raw weighted data, and for edited, imputed, and weighted data. Note that the raw (unedited) weighted data and the edited, imputed, and weighted data track very tightly across quarters. The raw unweighted data exhibits a different level than the other two measures in most quarters, but shows the same general trend over longer periods of time.
C.3 Incentive Experiment Effects
The results of the incentive experiment were reported by Eyerman and Bowman (2001). Selected conclusions from their report are as follows:
Wright, Bowman, Butler, and Eyerman (2002) conducted additional analysis of the 2001 incentive experiment. By adjusting the weights for predicted response propensity based on incentive treatment (and other covariates), applying regression models to the full sample data, and combining $20 and $40 as a single treatment level, they obtained statistically significant incentive effects on prevalence measures for past year use of marijuana (a positive effect with p = .027) and for past month use of cocaine (a negative effect with p = .033). Past month marijuana use showed a marginally significant positive effect for incentives (p = .055). Surprisingly, no relationship (after adjustment for other covariates) was found between incentives and lifetime use of marijuana. This may indicate that most persons were willing to report lifetime marijuana use without an incentive, possibly because lifetime use is not as stigmatized. All four sets of regression analyses also showed a negative relationship of prevalence measures with historic response rates.
Preliminary data review indicated some possible carryover effects of the experiment into quarters 3 and 4 of 2001. To study these potential effects, the data for 1999, 2000, and 2001 were partitioned based on the 251 FI regions involved in the incentive experiment and the remaining 649 non-incentive experiment FI regions (see Table C.1). The special weight developed for analyzing the incentive experiment was applied to the 251 incentive experiment FI regions; a pseudo-weight was developed for the 649 non-incentive experiment areas. Both sets of weights were adjusted to estimate the total population. To partially calibrate the weights for the two subpopulations, poststratification by gender and five age categories was implemented.
Although prevalence rates between the incentive FI regions and non-incentive FI regions were not the primary interest, statistical tests were applied to determine whether the incentive regions produce higher prevalence rates. Prevalence estimates for five substances (marijuana, cocaine, cigarettes, alcohol, and hallucinogens) at three recency of use levels (lifetime, past year, and past month) and for three dependency measures (illicit drugs, alcohol, and marijuana) were analyzed. Based on four quarters (even though the incentive experiment was only fielded in the 251 FI regions in quarters 1 and 2) of data across all age groups, only lifetime marijuana showed a statistically significant difference between incentive and non-incentive FI regions in 2001; the higher estimate was measured for the incentive FI regions.
Additional statistical tests were applied to trend measures (year-to-year change) for the two samples. Estimates of change from 2000 to 2001 for these 15 prevalence and 3 dependence measures were positive in every case for both subsamples. Both subsamples showed statistically significant positive trend for five measures: lifetime marijuana, past year marijuana, past year cocaine, past year alcohol, and past year hallucinogens. For these five measures, the estimated change based on the incentive FI region subsample was always higher or at least as great as the estimated change based on the non-incentive FI region subsample. Only the incentive subsample showed a statistically significant trend measure in seven other cases: lifetime cocaine, lifetime alcohol, lifetime hallucinogens, past month marijuana, past month alcohol, dependence on illicit drugs, and dependence on marijuana. Only the non-incentive subsample showed a statistically significant trend measure in one case: past month hallucinogens. These results offered little direct evidence of carryover effects of the incentive experiment to quarters 3 and 4.
C.4 Field Interviewer Experience Effects
In examining the trend from 1998 to 1999 based on paper-and-pencil interviewing (PAPI), the FI experience was found to be a factor in explaining the observed trend (see Appendix D in Office of Applied Studies [OAS], 2000b). It was discovered that the more experience the interviewers gained, the less likely it was that the respondent would report drug use. Because 1999 was the final year of PAPI, an adjustment procedure was developed through special weight calibration procedures to remove the FI experience effect from the 1998 to 1999 trend measures. It was necessary to do this because the distribution of interviewers by their prior experience was much different in 1999 from what it had been in 1998. This difference in experience occurred because the size of the interviewing staff increased to accommodate an increase in planned sample size from about 25,500 in 1998 to 70,000 in 1999. Table C.2 shows the distribution of interviewers by interviewer's experience in prior years for 1999, 2000, and 2001. Because the size of the interviewing staff required decreased in 2000 and remained stable in 2001, the experience distribution changed again from 1999 to 2000, but remained fairly stable from 2000 to 2001. The 2000 Summary of Findings (OAS, 2001b, pp. 83-90) discusses the potential impact of the change in FI experience on selected measures of prevalence. Because 2000 was the second year in a continuing series of annual estimates based on the new CAI methodology and the impacts of FI experience were small, no adjustments to 1999 or 2000 data were initiated to reflect the change in FI experience. However, had such adjustments been implemented, some of the substance use measures that showed a small, not statistically significant, decrease may have been adjusted to show a small, not statistically significant, increase in 2000 (OAS, 2001b, p. 86 and Table B-17, p. 91).
Analysis of interviewer experience conducted in 1999 and 2000 used a two-part experience variable based on (1) NHSDA experience in a prior year and (2) order of interview in the current year (1-19, 20-39, 40-59, 60-99, 100 or more). A number of analyses were conducted using these variables to see whether the experience effect was diminishing over time. The analyses showed fewer significant interviewer experience effects in 2001 compared with 1999 or 2000, but some effect remained. A single comprehensive measure of interviewer experience was developed that focused primarily on the number of interviews completed since the introduction of CAI in 1999. Three categories were defined as follows:
Based on this definition of prior experience, the distribution of interviews by interviewer experience is shown in Table C.3. The proportion of interviews conducted by highly experienced interviewers continued to grow due to year-to-year retention. The proportion of interviews conducted by inexperienced interviews declined slightly in 2001, while the proportion of interviews conducted by interviewers in the experienced (but not highly experienced) category declined by almost one half.
Because the incentive experiment FI regions were considered to have influenced reported substance use prevalence, a logistic regression analysis restricted to the non-incentive experiment areas was conducted using 1999, 2000, and 2001 data from these areas. Also examined was whether the experience effect may have diminished over the 3-year period, but no clear evidence was found to support this. Improved compliance with the prescribed study protocols might have had a positive (but not detectable) influence on reducing any interviewer experience effects in the last half of the 2001 data collection year. Using the data from all 3 years (649 non-incentive regions only), Table C.4 shows how adjustment for interviewer experience would have affected the odds ratios (ORs) for trends in reported substance use. Unadjusted ORs are based on a simple main effects model (i.e., only the variables designating the survey year) with no covariates. Adjusted ORs are based on the main effects for year-after adjustment for interviewer experience (the three levels shown above), Census region, gender, age group, race/ethnicity, population density, and gender by age interaction. As might be expected due to the continuing shift toward more highly experienced interviewers shown in Table C.3, adjustments for interviewer experience tended to increase the ORs. This general effect also was supported by some a limited number of tabled estimates produced using only data from interviews conducted by inexperienced interviewers.
The relative experience levels of FIs can vary over time in response to the demands of the survey. In addition, the impact of FI experience on the quality of the data can be subtle and thus difficult to control. The higher proportion of inexperienced interviewers in 1999 was the direct result of interviewer staff additions required by the increase in sample size by about threefold in 1999 to accommodate the large sample required for the 50-State design and a sample supplement completed using the 1998 and prior year PAPI mode. Since then, the size of the interviewing staff has stabilized and declined somewhat as the most productive interviewers have been retained, but experience has continued to accumulate resulting in a higher proportion of highly experienced interviewers (those having completed 100 or more interviews since January 1, 1999).
Adjustments in trend measures for the changes in interviewer experience distributions had the effect of increasing selected substance use estimates for 2000 relative to 1999 and for 2001 relative to 2000. However, it needs to be noted that the estimated experience effect in this model was based on an average across all 3 years and that training effects in 2001 may have resulted in significantly reducing the experience effect, especially in the second half of the year. Some of the training and supervision methods implemented in 2001 were precisely what was needed to make sure that experienced interviewers continued to follow the proper survey protocol long after their initial comprehensive training. The fact that they were successful is supported by the data showing the reduction in the percentage of short interviews discussed in Section C.6.
C.5 Changes in Response Rates
Final analytic weights are adjusted for nonresponse and calibrated to agree with Census projections for geographic and selected demographic population distributions. Unadjusted, but design-based, weights were used to examine quarterly response rates by age, gender, and population density to see whether patterns of nonresponse were changing in any systematic way. The unadjusted weights also were used to examine the quarterly weighted distributions of study respondents by gender, race, Hispanic origin, population density, marital status, education, employment status, and income and program participation. No large or unusual shifts in distributions were noted across quarters. It should also be noted that some of the variations by quarter in these distributions were, subsequently, removed by the weight calibration process.
The incentive experiment clearly showed that incentives increased response rates in 2001 among those cases receiving a $20 or $40 incentive. Increased response rates also occurred in 2000, but these were attributed to more adequate interviewer staffing, a general improvement in interviewer performance as a result of continuing interviewers accumulating experience and improving interviewing skills, retention of the interviews with successful records, and fine-tuning of training and supervisory practices. If the offering of incentives to respondents improves response and concurrently increases some prevalence measures, the reason for the increase in prevalence measures could be explained in at least two ways:
In the modeling work done to evaluate incentive effects discussed above, historic response rates were found consistently to be negatively related to substance use prevalence. Because the historic response rate is observed and not controlled in any experimental fashion, this relationship does not imply causation and could simply indicate that other unknown factors lead to both lower response rates and higher substance use.
To try to understand the impact that changing response rates might have on prevalence rates, the 900 FI regions were classified by three levels of historic response rates and three levels of annual change in response rate. The change in reported prevalence rates for these nine subgroups were then measured for 1999 to 2001. The historic response rate levels were as follows:
The annual changes in response rates were classified as follows:
Twelve measures (lifetime, past year, and past month reported use of any illicit drug, any illicit drug except marijuana, marijuana, and psychotherapeutics) were studied. All 12 measures showed statistically significant increases from 2000 to 2001. Only one statistically significant change from 1999 to 2000 was detected for these same 12 measures, and it was a negative change. Table C.5 summarizes an analysis of the observed changes from 1999 to 2000 and from 2000 to 2001. Surprisingly, the largest relative increases in prevalence measures occurred in 2001 in areas where the 2000 response rate was already high and was then increased even more; in this group of FI regions, the average relative increase in the 12 substance use measures was over 47 percent compared with about 15 percent over all regions.
The pattern of change from 1999 to 2000 is less clear perhaps as a result of the several reasons for poor response that occurred in 1999, the startup year for the expanded 50-State sample design.
Although Table C.5 shows the relationship between response rates and prevalence levels for 2000 and 2001, it needs to be noted that overall response rates remained fairly constant at 68 percent. The overall implication of Table C.5 is that the increases in prevalence occurred in almost all cells without regard to historic or current response rates.
C.6 Field Interviewer Behaviors
As noted above, empirical results adjusted for respondent characteristics show that respondents interviewed by experienced interviewers report lower substance use measures than respondents interviewed by inexperienced interviewers. Mean times required to complete interviews were considered, but did not appear to be a fair measure of interviewer behavior or interviewer influence with the respondent. Given the branching patterns of the CAI instrument, it is inevitable that respondents reporting more substance use will require more time to complete the questionnaire. However, extremely short interview times might indicate some shortcuts or inappropriate prompting of the respondent. An unusually short interview was defined as one completed in 30 minutes or less for the entire questionnaire or 5.8 minutes or less for the core questions completed privately by the respondent. For this analysis, an inexperienced interviewer is defined as one who had completed 20 or fewer CAI interviews since January 1, 1999.
Comparisons of the percentage of short interviews by experience of interviewer were done quarterly for both the entire questionnaire and for the core sections. Quarterly averages are shown in Table C.6 for 1999, 2000, and 2001. Because of some changes to the questionnaire in the modular sections, annual changes in the percentage of short questionnaire times based on the full questionnaire do not accurately reflect any trend. The timing data for the core questionnaire, which remains relatively stable, does allow interpretation of annual changes. The important finding is that the difference between experienced and inexperienced interviewers declined from year to year for both the entire questionnaire and the core sections. In addition, the core questionnaire timing data show that the percentage of questionnaires with short interview times declined by a factor of about 3 for both experienced and inexperienced interviewers between 1999 and 2001. This is important because the core sections of the questionnaire are where questions are asked about substance use and recency of use. Thus, the decrease in short interviews between 2000 and 2001, especially in the core sections, could be a contributory factor to the increased prevalence rates in 2001. This would especially affect the lifetime prevalence rates because the first question always asks the respondent whether he or she has ever used the substance.
In 1999, 2000, and 2001, two comparable interviewer debriefing questions were asked:
Was it necessary for you to assist the respondent in completing the ACASI portion of this interview?
How often did this respondent let you know what his or her answers were as he or she completed the ACASI portion of the interview?
1 = None of the time-I do not know what any of the answers are.
2 = A little of the time-I know what a few of the answers are.
3 = Some of the time-I know what some of the answers are.
4 = A lot of the time-I know what a lot of the answers are.
5 = All of the time-I know what all of the answers are.
Table C.7 shows the unweighted responses given by interviewers to these questions in 1999, 2000, and 2001. The proportion of respondents receiving assistance remained fairly low in all 3 years, but was highest in 2001 at 3.50 percent. The proportion of interviews for which the interviewer knew a little to all of the answers decreased from 1999 to 2001 with the largest decrease (over 2 percent) occurring between 2000 and 2001. This decrease in the overall percentage of cases where the interviewer reported knowledge of the respondent's answers to the ACASI questions occurred in spite of the increase in the number of respondents receiving some assistance from the interviewer.
C.7 Retrospective Measures of Change in Lifetime Use
The 1999, 2000, and 2001 estimates of the number of lifetime users of marijuana and cocaine show decreases from 1999 to 2000 and unusually large increases from 2000 to 2001. Analysis of data on initiation of use suggests intermediate increases in lifetime use in both 2000 and 2001.
Better measures of change in substance use measures could be obtained with longitudinal samples. Longitudinal data permit one to identify the proportion of people who change their behavior in some way, causing the level of key estimates to increase or decrease. Another method of getting the same information is through retrospective questions that ask the respondent to report current status of substance use and compare it with his/her status of substance use some time earlier, say, a year earlier. Because of problems with memory, particularly related to times that certain behaviors may have begun or ended, the retrospective method may be difficult to implement. For lifetime use measures, it is currently possible to construct an indicator variable that specifies whether the respondent was already a lifetime user a year earlier. Respondents are asked their age at the time of first use, and, if that age is within 1 year of their current age, the respondent also is asked for the month and year of first use. This information, along with the date of the interview, can be used to determine whether the respondent first became a lifetime user during the past year. The current questionnaire does not identify the respondent's earlier status as a past year or past month user except that he/she must have been a lifetime user to qualify as a past year or past month user.
Some preliminary estimates were constructed for annual change in lifetime use status based on the retrospective data derived from current status and date of first use as described above. The methodology ignored the effects of mortality and may understate the change for older age groups where some lifetime users a year earlier are not represented in the change because of death prior to the current survey. Tables C.8 and C.9 compare estimates of change in the number of lifetime users of marijuana and cocaine based on the retrospective estimates from current year data versus differences between current estimates and estimates obtained a year earlier. For both substances, the retrospective method shows an increase in the number of lifetime users for both 2000 and 2001, with the larger increase occurring in 2001. As noted above, the annual-estimates approach shows an overall decrease from 1999 to 2000 and much larger increase from 2000 to 2001.
The increases in the numbers of lifetime users among the older age groups (35 to 49 and 50 or older) is primarily caused by lifetime users from younger cohorts aging into the higher age categories; only very small portions of the increases in these age groups are due to initiation of use during the past year by persons in these age groups. Although more initial users are found among persons aged 26 to 34, the cohort shift is much larger and actually has had the effect of reducing the number of lifetime users in this age group over the 2-year period.
C.8 Analysis Focused on First 6 Calendar Months
One of the final analyses conducted was to produce a subset of the summary tables using data from only the first 6 months of each year and only from the set of FI regions that were not involved in the incentive experiment. The first 6 months were selected to avoid any possible impact of the telephone training procedures on compliance with survey protocols initiated in July 2001. The non-incentive FI regions were chosen to exclude any direct or indirect effects of the incentive experiment. Table C.10 shows some selected comparisons with the full sample data for persons aged 18 to 25. In general, the data for the first 6 months in the non-incentive FI regions showed smaller measures of change with fewer statistically significant trend measures than those based on complete samples for both years. Some of the reduction in statistically significant findings was, of course, due to the reduction in sample size when looking at a subset of the total data. Some of the reduced change is due to limiting of the sample to the non-incentive regions and to the first half of the year when the training effect was less. However, because the change based on the first 6 months was generally only slightly smaller than for the full sample, strong evidence remained for concluding that substance use increased for many of the substances measured.
C.9 Questionnaire Change
Changes to the questionnaire in 2001 also were examined to assess whether some increases in drug use prevalence in 2001 might be attributable to the addition of new questions. However, not all increases in drug use prevalence could be attributed to questionnaire changes. In particular, the content of the sections for marijuana, cocaine, and cigarettes were exactly the same in 2000 and 2001. Thus, the increase in lifetime marijuana use in 2001 that was shown in Figure C.1 for adults aged 18 to 25 could not be explained by changes to the questionnaire.
One change to the questionnaire in 2001 was that follow-up probes were added to persuade respondents to reconsider their answers if they initially refused to indicate whether they had ever used Ecstasy (MDMA) or methamphetamine, or if they refused all questions pertaining to lifetime use of inhalants, pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, or sedatives. However, no respondents who initially refused all questions about lifetime use of inhalants, pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, or sedatives indicated on follow up that they had ever used these drugs. Similarly, no respondents who initially refused to answer the question about lifetime methamphetamine use indicated use on follow-up and only two respondents who initially refused the lifetime Ecstasy question indicated use on follow-up. Therefore, the significant increases in estimates of lifetime use should not be explained by the addition of these new follow-up probes in 2001.
Another important change to the questionnaire in 2001 involved the addition of new questions pertaining to the initiation and recency of use of the hallucinogen Ecstasy. As in 2000, respondents in 2001 also were asked questions about their initiation and recency of use of LSD or PCP. If respondents in 2001 reported more recent use of a specific hallucinogen (i.e., LSD, PCP, or Ecstasy) than what they reported for their recency of use of any hallucinogen, they were prompted to resolve this inconsistency in their answers. If respondents did not resolve the inconsistency (i.e., by changing their general hallucinogen recency to indicate more recent use or by changing the recency for LSD, PCP, or Ecstasy to indicate less recent use), the editing procedures that had been in place since 1999 favored the information that indicated the most recent use of a hallucinogen. Suppose, for example, that a respondent indicated use of Ecstasy in the past 30 days and indicated use of any hallucinogen more than 30 days ago but within the past 12 months. The respondent would be alerted that these two answers disagreed. If the respondent on follow-up again indicated last using Ecstasy in the past 30 days, the editing procedures logically inferred that this respondent had last used any hallucinogen in the past 30 days. Thus, the new question about recency of use of Ecstasy provided respondents an additional opportunity to indicate more recent use of any hallucinogen. The new questions about Ecstasy use also provided additional data that were not available in 2000 for use in logically editing the hallucinogen recency of use variable.
Table C.11 shows some comparisons of estimates with and without additional questions or follow-up probes. To produce the estimates without the additional questions, the data were re-edited and re-imputed without taking into account information present in these new questions. The largest changes in the estimates occurred for hallucinogens and any illicit drugs other than marijuana for persons aged 18 to 25. However, the differences in estimates of hallucinogen and any illicit drug use other than marijuana between 2000 and 2001 were still significant for this age group when the new hallucinogen questions were not taken into account.
The addition of the new hallucinogen questions in 2001 did affect some estimates of use of hallucinogens and any illicit drug except marijuana for the population aged 12 or older and for age groups other than 18 to 25 year olds. The difference in the estimate of past month use of hallucinogens among the population aged 12 or older was significant between 2000 and 2001 when the estimate for 2001 took into account the new questions but was not significant when the new questions were disregarded. Similarly, past year use of hallucinogens among adults aged 26 or older was significantly higher in 2001 when the new questions were taken into account but was not significantly different between the 2 years in the absence of these new questions. For these estimates, it is safer to conclude that some of the change in levels of estimates should be attributed to the questionnaire changes in 2001 that pertained to Ecstasy.
As substance use phenomena change, it can often become necessary to adjust the measuring instrument to reflect those changes. Changes to the questionnaire in 2001 to obtain more and better data about the use of Ecstasy were implemented in this spirit. An analysis that assumed the 2000 form of the questionnaire for both years showed that some of the increases in the estimates for hallucinogens and for any illicit drug other than marijuana were the result of the questionnaire change.
C.10 Summary
It appears safe to conclude that part of the change in substance use indicated by the 2000 and 2001 annual estimates may be a result of noncomparable data collection methodology, including the implementation of an incentive experiment in a subset of the total sample and the steps taken to ensure better compliance with the intended survey protocol. The intention of both was to obtain higher quality data. If these changes increased the level of the estimates in 2001, it is probably safe to say that any bias in the level of these estimates has been reduced, not increased. For comparison with 2001, this type of improvement in the quality of current year data concurrently creates a bias in the measures of change. The long-term solution to this problem should be to maintain the higher level of data quality in future surveys and concurrently produce quality estimates both of level and of change.
The review of interviewer experience effects (Section C.4) and the analysis of retrospective measures of lifetime use (Section C.7) both support the conclusion that the reductions in lifetime and past year marijuana use in 2000 may have been overstated and that some small increases from 1999 to 2000 were the more likely reality. The restricted comparisons of 2000 to 2001 using the non-incentive areas and the first 6 months of data (Section C.8) continue to support an increase from 2000 to 2001, but of a somewhat smaller magnitude than the complete data would indicate.
Table C.1 Sample Distribution, by Incentive Experiment Treatments
Sample and Experimental Design |
Quarters 1 and 2 |
Quarters 3 and 4 |
Total | Percent of Total |
Incentive Experiment Areas |
251 1,004 502 251 251 |
251 1,004 1,004 0 0 |
251 2,008 1,506 251 251 |
27.9 27.9 20.9 3.5 3.5 |
Remaining Areas FI regions (Sampling Strata) Area Sample Segments (Total) No Monetary Incentive |
649 2,596 |
649 2,596 |
649 5,192 |
72.1 72.1 |
All Areas FI Regions (Sampling Strata) Area Sample Segments No Monetary Incentive $20 Monetary Incentive $40 Monetary Incentive |
900 3,600 3,098 251 251 |
900 3,600 3,600 0 0 |
900 7,200 6,698 251 251 |
100.0 100.0 93.0 3.5 3.5 |
Table C.2 Unweighted Counts of Interviewers, by Experience in Prior Years: 1999, 2000, and 2001 |
Prior Interviewer NHSDA Experience |
CAI Interviewers | |||||
1999 |
2000 |
2001 | ||||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% | |
None |
1,544 |
86.40 |
368 |
27.57 |
325 |
28.99 |
Some |
243 |
13.60 |
967 |
72.43 |
796 |
71.01 |
Total |
1,787 |
100.00 |
1,335 |
100.00 |
1,121 |
100.00 |
Table C.3 Distribution of Interviews, by Interviewer Experience: Unweighted and Weighted
Interviewer |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 | |||
Unwtd. |
Wtd. |
Unwtd. |
Wtd. |
Unwtd. |
Wtd. | |
Inexperienced |
46.2 |
47.7 |
17.4 |
17.6 |
14.0 |
14.7 |
Experienced |
41.1 |
41.9 |
28.7 |
28.7 |
15.1 |
14.7 |
Highly experienced |
12.7 |
10.4 |
53.9 |
53.7 |
70.9 |
70.7 |
Table C.4 Unadjusted and Adjusted Trend Odds Ratios Based on 1999, 2000, and 2001 Data from the 649 Non-Incentive FI Regions
Substance Use Measure |
2000 to 1999 Odds Ratios |
2001 to 2000 Odds Ratios | ||
Unadjusted |
Adjusted |
Unadjusted |
Adjusted | |
Lifetime |
Marijuana |
0.98 |
1.03 |
1.10b |
1.17b |
Cocaine |
1.02 |
1.08 |
1.06 |
1.10a |
Cigarettes |
0.91b |
0.93a |
1.01 |
1.02 |
Alcohol |
0.97 |
0.99 |
1.04 |
1.06 |
Hallucinogens |
1.08a |
1.15b |
1.00 |
1.04 |
Past Year |
Marijuana |
0.96 |
1.03 |
1.09a |
1.14b |
Cocaine |
0.84a |
0.91 |
1.18a |
1.25b |
Cigarettes |
0.95 |
0.98 |
1.00 |
1.02 |
Alcohol |
0.98 |
1.02 |
1.06 |
1.10b |
Hallucinogens |
1.05 |
1.13 |
1.32b |
1.37b |
Past Month |
Marijuana |
1.03 |
1.12a |
1.08 |
1.13a |
Cocaine |
0.69a |
0.72a |
1.22 |
1.27 |
Cigarettes |
0.95 |
0.98 |
1.01 |
1.02 |
Alcohol |
1.00 |
1.03 |
1.04 |
1.06a |
Hallucinogens |
1.04 |
1.19 |
1.23 |
1.30a |
Dependence |
Illicit drugs |
1.18 |
1.21 |
Alcohol |
1.07 |
1.12 |
Marijuana |
1.18 |
1.19 |
a Odds ratio is statistically significant at the .05 level when compared with an odds ratio of 1.00, which would indicate no change.
b Odds ratio is statistically significant at the .01 level when compared with an odds ratio of 1.00, which would indicate no change.
N/A = Not available due to a change in the definition of dependence.
Table C.5 Changes in Prevalence Measures, by Response Rate (Historic and Change) Groups
FI Regions, |
Change in Prevalence Measures |
Average Relative Change |
Number (and Sign) of | ||||
1999 to 2000 |
2000 to 2001 |
1999 to 2000 |
2000 to 2001 | ||
Low |
Decrease |
-3.19 |
19.79 |
0 |
3+ |
Low |
Little change |
-14.17 |
-4.98 |
4- |
0 |
Low |
Increase |
11.17 |
11.00 |
3+ |
0 |
Midrange |
Decrease |
-3.99 |
12.70 |
0 |
2+ |
Midrange |
Little change |
4.56 |
17.44 |
1+ |
6+ |
Midrange |
Increase |
0.01 |
18.25 |
0 |
8+ |
High |
Decrease |
-2.30 |
20.78 |
1- |
1+ |
High |
Little change |
-5.96 |
10.20 |
0 |
0 |
High |
Increase |
2.71 |
47.16 |
0 |
11+ |
All |
All |
-3.20 |
14.60 |
1- |
12+ |
Table C.6 Percentage of Short Interviews, by Interviewer Experience
Questionnaire and Experience of |
Average Quarterly Percentage of Short | ||
1999 |
2000 |
2001 | |
Entire Questionnaire |
Inexperienced |
7.14 |
7.50 |
6.75 |
Experienced |
10.65 |
8.94 |
6.46 |
Core Sections Only |
Inexperienced |
12.16 |
8.94 |
3.70 |
Experienced |
16.08 |
11.46 |
4.59 |
Table C.7 Self-Reported Interviewer Behaviors: 1999-2001
Interviewer Assistance |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 | |||
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% | |
Assisted the Respondent with |
Yes |
1,854 |
2.78 |
1,865 |
2.60 |
2,414 |
3.50 |
No |
64,716 |
97.02 |
69,822 |
97.29 |
66,407 |
96.34 |
Not answered |
136 |
0.20 |
77 |
0.11 |
108 |
0.16 |
Knew Respondent's Answers |
None of the time |
59,606 |
89.36 |
64,433 |
89.78 |
63,578 |
92.24 |
A little to all of the time |
6,922 |
10.38 |
7,254 |
10.11 |
5,241 |
7.60 |
Not answered |
178 |
0.27 |
77 |
0.11 |
110 |
0.16 |
Total |
66,706 |
100.00 |
71,764 |
100.00 |
68,929 |
100.00 |
Table C.8 Estimates of Change in Lifetime Use of Marijuana in Thousands of Users
Age Group |
Retrospective Estimates |
Difference in Annual Estimates | ||
1999 to 2000 |
2000 to 2001 |
1999 to 2000 |
2000 to 2001 | |
12 or Older |
1,678 |
2,053 |
-106 |
6,951 |
12 to 17 |
-691 |
-391 |
-62 |
358 |
18 to 25 |
856 |
947 |
-70 |
1,480 |
26 to 34 |
-540 |
-709 |
-879 |
501 |
35 to 49 |
508 |
418 |
-1,048 |
2,418 |
50 or Older |
1,544 |
1,788 |
1,953 |
2,194 |
Table C.9 Estimates of Change in Lifetime Use of Cocaine in Thousands of Users
Age Group |
Retrospective Estimates |
Difference in Annual Estimates | ||
1999 to 2000 |
2000 to 2001 |
1999 to 2000 |
2000 to 2001 | |
12 or Older |
594 |
779 |
-509 |
2,892 |
12 to 17 |
-65 |
-10 |
-1 |
-17 |
18 to 25 |
287 |
372 |
-235 |
671 |
26 to 34 |
-439 |
-435 |
-1,016 |
216 |
35 to 49 |
240 |
404 |
-386 |
1,560 |
50 or Older |
572 |
448 |
1,128 |
462 |
Table C.10 Comparison of Full Sample Trends with Trends Based on First 6 Months for Non-Incentive Regions Only: Numbers of Users Aged 18 to 25
Recency and Substance |
Thousands of Users Aged 18 to 25 | |||
Full Sample (All 900 FI |
First 6 Months (649 Non- | |||
2000 |
2001 |
2000 |
2001 | |
Lifetime |
Marijuana |
13,256b |
14,736 |
13,304b |
14,486 |
Cocaine |
3,148b |
3,820 |
3,291 |
3,584 |
Cigarettes |
19,514a |
20,354 |
19,356 |
20,007 |
Alcohol |
24,352 |
25,063 |
24,706 |
25,188 |
Hallucinogens |
5,592b |
6,511 |
5,554a |
6,386 |
Past Year |
Marijuana |
6,860b |
7,872 |
6,977a |
7,623 |
Cocaine |
1,274b |
1,681 |
1,362 |
1,600 |
Cigarettes |
13,283 |
13,808 |
13,289 |
13,650 |
Alcohol |
21,580 |
22,233 |
21,958 |
22,197 |
Hallucinogens |
1,959b |
2,733 |
1,904b |
2,849 |
Past Month |
Marijuana |
3,950b |
4,711 |
4,008 |
4,572 |
Cocaine |
395b |
566 |
400 |
540 |
Cigarettes |
11,095 |
11,541 |
11,006 |
11,186 |
Alcohol |
16,473a |
17,333 |
16,467b |
17,338 |
Hallucinogens |
532b |
803 |
519a |
817 |
Past Year Dependence |
Illicit drugs |
1,013b |
1,397 |
1,025 |
1,201 |
Alcohol |
1,337b |
1,699 |
1,256a |
1,587 |
Marijuana |
736b |
984 |
711 |
872 |
a Difference between estimate and 2001 estimate is statistically significant at the .05 level.
b Difference between estimate and 2001 estimate is statistically significant at the .01 level.
Table C.11 Percentages of Past Year and Past Month Users of Illicit Drugs with and without Additional Questions among Persons Aged 12 or Older: 2000 and 2001
Drug |
2000 |
2001 (with |
2001 (without | |||
Past Year |
Past Month |
Past Year |
Past Month |
Past Year |
Past Month | |
Any Illicit Drug1 |
12 or older |
11.0 |
6.3 |
12.6b |
7.1b |
12.6b |
7.0b |
12-17 |
18.6 |
9.7 |
20.8b |
10.8b |
20.8b |
10.8b |
18-25 |
27.9 |
15.9 |
31.9b |
18.8b |
31.8b |
18.7b |
26 or older |
7.1 |
4.2 |
8.2b |
4.5 |
8.1b |
4.5 |
Hallucinogens |
12 or older |
1.6 |
0.4 |
2.0b |
0.6b |
1.8b |
0.5 |
12-17 |
3.9 |
1.2 |
4.0 |
1.2 |
3.9 |
1.0 |
18-25 |
6.8 |
1.8 |
9.3b |
2.7b |
8.3b |
2.2a |
26 or older |
0.4 |
0.1 |
0.5a |
0.1 |
0.4 |
0.1 |
Any Illicit Drug Other |
12 or older |
5.8 |
2.6 |
7.0b |
3.1b |
6.9b |
3.1b |
12-17 |
11.3 |
4.6 |
12.0a |
4.9 |
12.0 |
4.8 |
18-25 |
14.8 |
5.9 |
18.4b |
7.8b |
18.0b |
7.6b |
26 or older |
3.6 |
1.7 |
4.4b |
2.0 |
4.4b |
2.0 |
* Low precision; no estimate reported.
a Difference between this estimate for 2001 and the estimate for 2000 is statistically significant at the .05 level.
b Difference between this estimate for 2001 and the estimate for 2000 is statistically significant at the .01 level.
1 Any Illicit Drug includes marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, or any prescription-type psychotherapeutic used nonmedically. Any Illicit Drug Other Than Marijuana includes cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, or any prescription-type psychotherapeutic used nonmedically.
Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 2000 and 2001.
This page was last updated on June 16, 2008. |


text:
Related Products
4XEM 1FT Cat5e Molded RJ45 UTP Network Patch Cable (Gray) - Category 5e for Network Device, Notebook - 1 ft - 1 Pack - 1 x RJ-45 Male Network - 1 x RJ-45 Male Network - Gray
free shipping
General Information
Constructed of top quality materials, 4XEM Cat5e solid twisted pair patch cable is designed for high performance networking applications. Rated for 350MHz/1Gbps communication, this patch cable meets and exceeds current industry standards including IEEE 802.3ab, IEEE 802.5 ANSI/EIA/TIA 568, ISO/IEC 11801 and ETL. Molded PVC strain relief ensures long-lasting performance and reduces the risk of cable damage. A snagless design protects the locking tabs on the RJ45 connectors from being snapped off during installation. Lifetime warranty. Connect with the best - 4XEM. 4XEM gear is respected industry wide for its high performance, premium quality and durability. |
Technical Information
Cable Type: | Category 5e |
Cable Characteristic: | Patch Cable |
Cable Length: | 1 ft |
Connector on First End: | 1 x RJ-45 Male Network |
Connector on Second End: | 1 x RJ-45 Male Network |
Features: | Molded |
Features: | Snagless |
Features: | Stranded |
Conductor: | Copper |
Jacket Type: | CMG |
Device Supported: | Network Device |
Device Supported: | Notebook |
Physical Characteristics
Color: | Gray |
Material: | Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) - Jacket |
Certifications & Standards: |
Limited Warranty: | Lifetime |
Product images may differ from actual product appearance.
Be the first to review this product.
Write a Review
Shipping Restrictions
- This item cannot be shipped to PO Boxes.
- This item can be shipped only within the U.S.
- Mfr's Part #: 4XC5EPATCH1GR


text:
robert after a yr lol. i began ev training and am making my team that peaked 3rd place online.(so much egg moves and battle frontier), and trying a new replacement 4 the recently uber blaziken
Im getting on right now things came up lol So i must be on my other copy of diamond the FC is actually: 2537 2727 9489 sorry for the inconvenience.
sorry i don't know what happenned wanna trade? anyways I need aerodaytyl, Jolteon rotom, Breloom or kabutops.
Yeah, as much as you may not believe it, stall is plan B, I would much rather try to get a sweeper set up in either omastar or kingdra. I actually am really glad you crushed me, since this is a new team. I didn't realize how bad a machamp could mess me up. Good Game.
i ran to save time, with nothing but a cresselia left, and realizing shadow ball was a 2HKO, I knew you had it...


text:
(3367 quotes found)
"Productivity is being able to do things that you were never able to do before."
Franz Kafka
"If all the time consumed in attending dinners and luncheons was consumed in some work, the production of this country would be doubled"
Will Rogers
"The simple act of paying positive attention to people has a great deal to do with productivity"
Tom Peters
"Information, usually seen as the precondition of debate, is better understood as its by-product."
Christopher Lasch
"I think a good product would be Baby Duck Hat. It's a fake baby duck, which you strap on top of your head. Then you go swimming underwater until you find a mommy duck and her babies, and you join them. Then all of the sudden, you stand up out of the water and roar like Godzilla. Man those ducks really take off! Also Baby Duck Hat is good for parties. - Deep Thoughts (Saturday Night Live)"
Jack Handy
"Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it"
Albert Einstein
"What we call personality or character is a highly complex product of a long integrative process, a process which may go wrong and may be largely undone at any stage."
William McDougall
"If I were asked to say what is at once the most important production of Art and the thing most to be longed for; I should answer; A beautiful House; and if I were further asked to name the production next in importance and the thing next to be longed for; I should answer; A beautiful Book. To enjoy good houses and good books in self-respect and decent comfort, seems to me to be the pleasurable end towards which all societies of human beings ought now to struggle."
William Morris
"This is true; virtually all edible substances, and many automotive products, are now marketed as being low-fat or fat-free. Americans are obsessed with fat content."
Dave Barry
"Today convenience is the success factor of just about every type of product and service that is showing steady growth."
Charles G. Mortimer


text:
West Nile case reported in Maryland
Maryland is reporting its first 2011 case of West Nile Virus.
The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene reports Thursday that a Baltimore-area adult is the first confirmed case of West Nile.
"Because West Nile Virus is endemic to Maryland, it is expected to see cases every year," said DHMH Secretary Dr. Joshua M. Sharfstein. "These findings remind us that there are some basic actions we can all take to reduce our risk of getting infected."
Seventy-three human WNV cases were reported in the peak year of 2003. Only one confirmed case was identified in 2009. Last year, 23 human WNV cases were identified.
Tips from authorities:
Avoid areas of high mosquito infestation
Avoid unnecessary outdoor activities at dawn and dusk when mosquitoes are most active
Wear long pants, long-sleeved shirts and hats when concerned about mosquito exposure
Using mosquito repellants according to directions
RecommendedRecent Facebook Activity
Only On 7
ABC7's Interactive 7-day Forecast!
Now you can get customized weather right down to your street! Plan your day and week ahead with ABC7's Interactive 7-day forecast!
TBD Blogs What you need to read
@TBD Arts
Kennedy Center to give away tickets to every show of the 2011-2012 season
The Market Report
Yes! Organic Market makes first step outside D.C.
@TBD On Foot
Metro is still inviting people to a meeting that happened in May
Best of TBD In case you missed it
The worst meals in America
Here's a visual look at the eight most delicious, disgusting meals in the country.


text:
Topics :: hotels
- 1 thru 10 of 176
- Next »
Love Is In the Air at Hyatt Times Square's Bar 54
By Winnie McCroy | Friday Feb 21, 2014
The Hyatt Times Square shared the love this Valentine's Day with the opening of Bar 54, the rooftop lounge that serves up bespoke cocktails along with a stunning view of Midtown Manhattan.
Havana's "Mob Hotel" Opens After Renovation
By Peter Orsi | Monday Feb 17, 2014
In its heyday, Havana's Capri hotel and casino was the playground of men known as The Blade and The Fat Butcher. But now the Capri is back in business after being closed more than a decade ago.
Philadelphia's Radisson Blu Gets a $20 Million Makeover
By EDGE | Sunday Jan 12, 2014
Radisson Blu® has announced the completion of a $20 million renovation and conversion of the Radisson Blu Warwick Hotel, Philadelphia. The hotel marks the third Radisson Blu hotel in the United States.
Pro-Gay Groups Pressure Marriott for Hosting Ex-Gay Conference
By Winnie McCroy | Monday Nov 4, 2013
Two pro-gay groups are putting pressure on the Marriott hotel line for their decision to host an ex-gay therapy conference for the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality's (NARTH) at in Phoenix next August.
The Hotel Lobby: See and be Seen
By Scott Mayerowitz | Sunday Sep 8, 2013
Large, traditional hotels are spending billions in renovations to try to mimic the style and financial success of luxury and boutique hotels, which have always drawn free-spending crowds to their lobbies.
Top 5 Hotels for New York Fashion Week
By EDGE | Wednesday Aug 28, 2013
New York never looks quite as sexy as during Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week, when the world's top designers descend upon Manhattan to strut their latest looks for the coming season.
The Alpina Gstaad: Switzerland's Latest Luxury Property
By Matthew Wexler | Friday Feb 22, 2013
Gstaad, the idyllic ski-centric village in southwest Switzerland, welcomes its first 5-star property in more than a century. The Alpina Gstaad represents class Swiss design tradition combined with a modern aesthetic.
Element to Open First Hotel in Europe
Thursday Dec 13, 2012
Scheduled to open in 2014, Element Frankfurt Airport marks the much-anticipated European debut of the trailblazing eco-wise brand.
Festive Holiday Tea in London
Friday Dec 7, 2012
Under the sparkling Baccarat chandelier, guests can relax in the serene and elegant winter wonderland surroundings of The Lobby Lounge as they search for the season's first snowfall through the glass domed ceiling.
A Century of Elegance Renewed: Hotel Maria Cristina Unveils "New Look"
Tuesday Dec 4, 2012
The hotel's interiors evoke the élan and striking presence of all the leading ladies that have graced the environs of the hotel and in this way rekindle the heart of its legacy as the home of its namesake, Spain's revered Queen Consort Maria Cristina.
- 1 thru 10 of 176
- Next »


text:
Helliconia springA planet orbiting binary suns, Helliconia has a Great Year spanning three millennia of Earth time: cultures are born in spring, flourish in summer, then die with the onset of the generations-long winter. Helliconia is emerging from its centuries-long winter. The tribes of the equatorial continent emerge from their hiding places and are again able to dispute possession of the planet with the ferocious phagors. In Oldorando, love, trade and coinage are being redisovered, This is the first volume of the Helliconia Trilogy -- a monumental saga that goes beyond anything yet created by this master among today's imaginative writers. |
From inside the book
Try this search over all volumes: ancestral animals
Results 1-0 of 0
What people are saying - Write a review
User ratings
5 stars |
| ||
4 stars |
| ||
3 stars |
| ||
2 stars |
| ||
1 star |
Review: Helliconia Spring (Helliconia #1)
User Review - GoodreadsI read the Helliconia series a couple years back. As I started the first book I found it slow, sparse, but it was also enjoyable enough to keep reading. The deeper I got in the series, the more ...
Review: Helliconia Spring (Helliconia #1)
User Review - Sarah Leech - Goodreadsthis series really captures the imagination read them all many years ago and they are amongst my all time favourite reads. seeing the changes through the characters and the descriptive planetary changes are stunning. Read full review
Embruddock | 91 |
Death of a Grandfather | 94 |
The Past That Was Like a Dream | 105 |
Copyright | |
13 other sections not shown
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
References from web pages
Brian Aldiss: Helliconia Spring
In the eighties, one of Aldiss' interests was the rise and fall of civilization; his previous novel to Helliconia Spring, Life in the West is about the ...
www.geocities.com/ Athens/ Academy/ 6422/ rev1094.html
Helliconia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Helliconia Spring; Helliconia Summer; Helliconia Winter ... The trilogy consists of the books Helliconia Spring (published 1982), Helliconia Summer (1983) ...
en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Helliconia
On the Bestseller Trail
Helliconia Spring is SF without reservations, set on the far-off planet Helliconia whose sun swings in a gigantic ellipse around a second and much hotter ...
www.ansible.co.uk/ writing/ extro3.html
Classics of Science Fiction: Helliconia Spring
Classics of SF Home | By Rank | By Title | By Author | By Year. Score, Year, Title, Author. 13, 1982, Helliconia Spring, Aldiss, Brian ...
classics.jameswallaceharris.com/ Lists/ CitationsList.php?id=52
Helliconia Spring (work by Aldiss) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
Helliconia Spring (work by Aldiss) ... For additional help, please review Search Tips. Search Britannica for "Helliconia Spring" ...
www.britannica.com/ eb/ topic-675638/ Helliconia-Spring
Brian Aldiss Fan Site
The three books in Brian Aldiss' Helliconia series are Helliconia Spring, ... Helliconia Spring is set during the period when the great winter comes to an ...
www.brianaldiss.org/ helliconia.html
Brian Aldiss
1982 British Science Fiction Association Award Helliconia Spring. 1982 John W. Campbell Memorial Award Helliconia Spring. 1983 Kurd Lasswitz Award (Germany) ...
www.contemporarywriters.com/ authors/ ?p=auth01J29L511112620228
Transformation Stories List:Books A - Lycanthropy, Shapechanging ...
Helliconia Spring and sequels {/22/} [BBT]. [ Helliconia Spring : Berkley; 1984; 0425073289; ... [Helliconia Spring: Berkley; 1983; 0425061868; $? ...
www.transformationlist.com/ transbooksa.html
Helliconia Spring, Brian Aldiss, 0-586-05365-4 A Tra�a livraria ...
Helliconia Spring, Brian Aldiss, 0-586-05365-4. ... Livro Usado - Envio Imediato Helliconia Spring ISBN: 0-586-05365-4 Autor: Brian Aldiss Pre�o: R$ 8,00 ...
www.traca.com.br/ seboslivrosusados.cgi?mod=LV269790&
Readerware Book Catalog
Helliconia Spring. Helliconia Spring Author: Aldiss, Brian ISBN: 0-586-05365-4 LCCN: Dewey: Number:. Category: Science Fiction & Fantasy : Fiction ...
www.crookedtimbre.net/ static/ books/ report.html


text:
What are the "general" conditions on July 1 of a normal year and chances of achieving Snowbird Pass??? (my first upcoming trip.....)Thanks
Im planning on moving to Whistler for a year and was wondering what the opportunities were like for lodging (with a resident) and getting basic work (bar work etc assuming i get visas sorted) ?
My husband and I,two seniors, are staying in Victoria for the month of April.
We would like to take a few days to see more of the island.
Please can someone suggest a local tour company.
Planning a trip across the Rockies. Staying in Jasper for a few nights then driving the beautiful ice-fields parkway on to Lake Louise. Staying here and then making way back to Calgary to fly home. My dilemma is should we spend more time in the lake louise area and visit Banff from here then onto Canmore for an overnight before flying back from Calgary. OR spend more nights in Canmore also visiting Banff? Basically I suppose I am asking is there more to see and do (spectacular scenery) around Lake Louise area or around Canmore? Any advice greatly appreciated.
Hi, I am moving to vancouver on Wednesday and i do not have a winter coat yet. Where would be the best place to buy one for under $300 in the downtown area.
Any advice on where to stop over when driving from Vancouver to Clearwater ? Planning a trip in late August don't want to drive more than about 3 or 4 hours at a stretch. Where would be the best place to find a b&b for an overnight stop? Also best places to see enroute? .
Hello!! I am going to Canada next week and I would like to know for 7 days what is a must to see in Vancouver and also I would like to go to the Rocky Mountains.
Any tips for the itinerary?
Thans a million!
VirtualTourist®© 1994-2014 VirtualTourist.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Back to TopAll reports are strictly confidential. Please explain why you are reporting this: |


text:
R&A chief: More shame for bad behavior
SANDWICH, England - R&A chief executive Peter Dawson wants to see players named and shamed for unsportsmanlike behaviour.
Dawson was reacting to questions about Tiger Woods' spitting on the 12th green in the final round of this year's Dubai Desert Classic. The European Tour fined Woods' after Sky Sports commentator and former European Tour player Ewen Murray lambasted the former world number one on air. (The European Tour stuck to its policy of not disclosing the fine handed out to Woods.)
"You look at his work ethics and he is a credit to the game and an inspiration to all of those who are trying to become professional golfers," Murray said. "But there are some parts of him that are just arrogant and petulant. Somebody now has to come behind him and maybe putt over his spit. It does not get much lower than that."
Dawson is very much in the Murray camp on this issue. The R&A chief executive feels players should be taken to task when they step out of line.
"There is less and less room for players to hide these days," Dawson said. "They are on the (TV) screens all the time.
"Because standards are so high these particular incidents get so much publicity, and it's right that they should."
When asked if he was in favor of professional tours being more forthcoming about sanctions applied to players, Dawson said:
"I am actually. I don't see any harm in that at all. It probably strengthens the sanction."
Dawson was more sanguine about the R&A's decision to stage the 140th Open Championship at the all-male Royal St George's. England's most southerly Open Championship venue is one of three courses on the Open Rota held at all-male clubs. Muirfield and Royal Troon are the others.
"We've never been particularly concerned about a club's (membership) policy," Dawson said. "I don't accept the argument that it seriously affects the game.
"Less than 1% of golf clubs are single-sex clubs. Single-sex clubs is perfectly legal under current law.
"From surveys I've seen it's not a major issue with golfers.
"This club is quite welcoming to women as guests. The fact that it's male members only is not something I'm overly concerned about. That's perhaps not as correct as it might be. It's a matter for the members and I do think it's a generational issue."
Latest Related Headlines
Please review the posting guidlines here: Golfweek.com Community Guidelines.
All accounts must be verified using Disqus email verification


text:
Middle East Tickets and Event Dates
Venue Information
-   Weather Opens New Window
DiningPresented by
-   Map & Directions Opens New Window
Venue Details
Located at 472-480 Massachutets Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139.GOOGLE MAP: http://preview.tinyurl.com/64u37sFROM THE MASS PIKE/I-90:
Take the brighton/cambridge exit off of the mass pike after toll booth. Follow signs for mass pike after toll booth. Follow signs for Central Square, Cambridge. Merge onto River St. into Central square, Cambridge. Turn right on Mass Ave. The Middle East is three blocks down on the right.
Storrow Dr west exit off of 93.0 Take Mass Ave/Cambridge exit off Storro (Left hand side) merge onto Mass Ave bridge, cross bridge into Cambridge, pass M.I.T., NECCO
Factory and shell station. club is on left.
Public lots located throughout central square (NO VENUE PARKING)Public Transportation
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION : CENTRAL SQUARE STOP, ON THE RED LINE MBTA. MBTA BUSSES #1, 47, 70, 64, 83, 91. Walk 2 blocks toward Boston. Club is on the rt at the corner of Mass Ave and Brookline St.
//MBTA.com/rider_tools/trip planner/
END ADDRESS : 472-480 Mass ave, Cambridge, MA 02139
Box Office Numbers
(617) 864-3278 X221Box Office Hours
open mon-sat 1:00PM - 7:00PMTypes of Payment Accepted
cash, AMEX, DSC, visaWill Call
Tickets can be picked up when doors for show open. Customer must present the actual cc used to place the order and a photo id.Accessible Seating
This is an accessible venue.General Rules
NO MoshingNO stage diving
NO crowd surfing
Children Rules
Venue is 18 and over unless stated otherwise.Miscellaneous
All customers must present valid state issued or Gov't ID. State issued ID'S, passports, licenses and military ID'S are considered acceptable.For band links and more information, please see http://www.mideastclub.com