Alternative models of instant drug testing: evidence from an experimental trial
- 442 Downloads
This study describes and provides relapse and recidivism outcome findings related to an experimental trial evaluating the viability of frequent, random drug testing with consequences for use.
The sample consisted of 529 offenders released on parole. An experimental design with random assignment to one of three groups was employed. The Experimental Group received frequent, random drug testing with instant results, immediate sanctions, and referral for substance abuse treatment. Control Group I received frequent, random drug testing and treatment referral, but did not receive immediate test results or immediate sanctions. Control Group II followed standard parole practice. Members of this group were not tested on a random basis and did not receive immediate sanctions. Repeated measures ANOVA and survival analysis techniques were used to explore group differences.
Frequent monitoring of drug use with randomized testing protocols, immediate feedback, and certain consequences is effective in lowering rates of relapse and recidivism. The effectiveness is particularly salient in the short term during the period of exposure to testing conditions.
The findings lend support to the use of randomized testing with swift and certain sanctions with parolees. Additional quality evidence is necessary to generalize and refine findings from this study and others that focus on sanction certainty. Future replications must consider the immediacy of test result and sanction execution as well as the length of exposure to randomized testing periods.
KeywordsCommunity supervision Conditions evaluation Corrections Parolees Prisoner reentry Substance use
- Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark: Anderson.Google Scholar
- Anglin, M. D., & Hser, Y. I. (1990). Treatment of drug abuse. In M. Tonry & J. Q. Wilson (Eds.), Drugs and crime (pp. 393–460). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R. (2001). The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
- Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What works and what does not. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
- Beck, A. J., & Shipley, B. E. (1989). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1983. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
- Belenko, S. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review 2001 update. New York: The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.Google Scholar
- Boyum, D. A., Caulkins, J. P., & Kleiman, M. A. R. (2010). Drugs, crime, and public policy. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime and public policy (2nd ed., pp. 368–410). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Carns, T. W., & Martin, S. (2011). Anchorage PACE probation accountability with certain enforcement: A preliminary evaluation of the Anchorage pilot PACE project. Anchorage: Alaska Judicial Council.Google Scholar
- Carver, J. A. (2004). Drug testing: A necessary prerequisite for treatment and for crime control. In P. Bean & T. Nemitz (Eds.), Drug treatment: What works? (pp. 142–177). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Center for Substance Abuse Research. (1994). Oregon STOP program for probationers. College Park: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
- Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life tables (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 34, 187–220.Google Scholar
- Fletcher, B. W., & Chandler, R. K. (2006). Principles of drug abuse treatment for criminal justice populations: A research-based guide. Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse.Google Scholar
- Gill, C. E. (2010). The effects of sanction intensity on criminal conduct: A randomized low-intensity probation experiment. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. (Publicly accessible Penn Dissertation Paper 121).Google Scholar
- Glaze, L. E., Bonczar, T. P., & Zhang, F. (2010). Probation and parole in the United States, 2009. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
- Harrell A., Kleiman M. A. R. (2001) Drug testing in criminal justice settings. In C. Leukefeld & F. Tims (Eds). Treatment of Drug Offenders: Policies and Issues (pp 149–171). New York: Springer, Google Scholar
- Hawken, A. (2010). Behavioral triage: A new model for indentifying and treating substance-abusing offenders. Journal of Drug Policy Analysis, 3(1), available at http://www.bepress.com/jdpa/vol3/iss1/art1.
- Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. A. R. (2009). Managing drug involved probationers with swift and certain sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
- Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. A. R. (2011). Washington intensive supervision program: Evaluation report. Seattle: Seattle City Council.Google Scholar
- Honig, W. K., & Staddon, J. E. R. (1977). The handbook of operant behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- King, R. S., & Mauer, M. (2002). Distorted priorities: Drug offenders in state prisons. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.Google Scholar
- Kleiman, M. A. R. (1988). Street-level drug enforcement: examining the issues. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
- Kleiman, M. A. R. (2009). When brute force fails: How to have less crime and less punishment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Kleiman, M., Tran, T.H., Fishbein, P., Magula, M., Allen, W., Lacy, G. (2003).Opportunities and barriers in probation reform: A case study in drug testing andsanctions. Oakland, CA: California Policy Research Center.Google Scholar
- Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
- Lattimore, P. K., & Visher, C. A. (2010). The multi-site evaluation of SVORI: Summary and synthesis. Research Triangle: RTI International.Google Scholar
- Mallik-Kane, D., & Visher, C. A. (2008). Health and prisoner reentry: How physical, mental, and substance abuse conditions shape the process of reintegration. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
- Mumola, C. J., & Karberg, J. C. (2006). Drug use and depdenence, state and federal prisoners, 2004. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
- National Research Council (2008). Parole, Desistance from crime, and community integration. Committee on Community Supervision and Desistance from Crime. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Office of Justice Programs. (2011). Demonstration and evaluation of HOPE: An innovative probation program. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/hopesol.htm.
- Pearson, F. S., Lipton, D. S., Cleland, C. M., & Yee, D. S. (2002). The effects of behavioral/cognitive-behavioral programs on recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 48(3), 476–496.Google Scholar
- Perry, A. E., Darwin, Z., Godfrey, C., McDougall, C., Lunn, J., Glanville, J., & Coulton, S. (2009). The effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders in the courts, secure establishments and the community: a systematic review. Substance Use and Misuse, 44(3), 374–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, and what's promising. A report to the United States Congress. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
- Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton, Century, Crofts.Google Scholar
- Solomon, A. L., Osborne, J., Winterfield, L., Elderbroom, B., Burke, P., Stroker, R. P., Rhine, E. E., & Burrell, W. D. (2008). Putting public safety first: 13 parole supervision strategies to enhance reentry outcomes. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
- Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. (2011). Adults on probation, in jail or prison, and on parole. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t612009.pdf.