Advertisement

Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 145–168 | Cite as

Alternative models of instant drug testing: evidence from an experimental trial

  • Eric Grommon
  • Stephen M. Cox
  • William S. DavidsonII
  • Timothy S. Bynum
Article

Abstract

Objective

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Community supervision Conditions evaluation Corrections Parolees Prisoner reentry Substance use 

References

  1. Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark: Anderson.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, D., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Breslow, N. (1970). A generalized Kruskal-Wallis test for comparing k samples subject to unequal patterns of censorship. Biometrika, 57(3), 579–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Center for Substance Abuse Research. (1994). Oregon STOP program for probationers. College Park: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  13. Chandler, R. K., Fletcher, B. W., & Volkow, N. D. (2009). Treating drug abuse and addiction in the criminal justice system: improving public health and safety. Journal of the American Medical Association, 301(2), 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chanhatasilpa, C., MacKenzie, D., & Hickman, L. (2000). The effectiveness of community-based programs for chemically dependent offenders: a review and assessment of research. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 19(4), 383–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life tables (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 34, 187–220.Google Scholar
  16. D’Agostino, R. B. (1971). A second look at analysis of variance on dichotomous data. Journal of Educational Measurement, 8(4), 327–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Durlauf, S. N., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Imprisonment and crime: can both be reduced? Criminology and Public Policy, 10(1), 13–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Fletcher, B. W., Lehman, W. E. K., Wexler, H. K., Melnick, G., Taxman, F. S., Young D. W. (2009). Measuring collaboration and integration activities in criminal justice and substance abuse treatment agencies. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103(Suppl. 1), S54–S64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Friedmann, P. D., Rhodes, A. G., & Taxman, F. S. (2009). Collaborative behavioral management: integration and intensification of parole and outpatient addiction treatment services in the Step’n Out study. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Gottfredson, D. C., Najaka, S. S., & Kearly, B. (2003). Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: evidence from a randomized trial. Criminology and Public Policy, 2(2), 171–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haapanen, R., & Britton, L. (2002). Drug testing for youthful offenders on parole: an experimental evaluation. Criminology and Public Policy, 1(2), 217–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Harrell, A., & Roman, J. (2001). Reducing drug use and crime among offender: the impact of graduated sanctions. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harrell, A., Mitchell, O., Hirst, A., Marlowe, D., & Merrill, J. (2002). Breaking the cycle of drugs and crime: findings from the Birmingham BTC demonstration. Criminology and Public Policy, 1(2), 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.
  29. 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
  30. Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. A. R. (2011). Washington intensive supervision program: Evaluation report. Seattle: Seattle City Council.Google Scholar
  31. Hoffman, P. B., & Beck, J. L. (1974). Parole decision-making: a salient factor score. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2(3), 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Honig, W. K., & Staddon, J. E. R. (1977). The handbook of operant behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Inciardi, J. A., Martin, S. S., & Butzin, C. A. (2004). Five-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment of drug-involved offenders after release from prison. Crime & Delinquency, 50(1), 88–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. King, R. S., & Mauer, M. (2002). Distorted priorities: Drug offenders in state prisons. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Kleiman, M. A. R. (2009). When brute force fails: How to have less crime and less punishment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Knight, K., Simpson, D. D., & Hiller, M. L. (1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes for in-prison therapeutic community treatment in Texas. The Prison Journal, 79(3), 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Landenberger, N. A., & Lipsey, M. W. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: a meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(4), 451–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Lattimore, P. K., & Visher, C. A. (2010). The multi-site evaluation of SVORI: Summary and synthesis. Research Triangle: RTI International.Google Scholar
  42. Lunney, G. H. (1970). Using analysis of variance with dichotomous dependent variable: an empirical study. Journal of Educational Measurement, 7(4), 263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: identifying what works. Crime and Delinquency, 46(4), 457–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Martin, S. S., Butzin, C. A., Saum, C. A., & Inciardi, J. A. (1999). Three year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment for drug involved offenders in Delaware: from prison to work release to aftercare. The Prison Journal, 79(3), 294–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2007). Does incarceration-based drug treatment reduce recidivism? A meta-analytic synthesis of the research. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3(4), 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: a meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(1), 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. O’Connell, D., Visher, C. A., Martin, S., Parker, L., & Brent, J. (2011). Decide your time: testing deterrence theory’s certainty and celerity effects on substance-using probationers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(3), 261–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Office of Justice Programs. (2011). Demonstration and evaluation of HOPE: An innovative probation program. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/hopesol.htm.
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. Prendergast, M. L. (2009). Interventions to promote successful re-entry among drug-abusing parolees. Addiction Science and Clinical Practice, 5(1), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Prendergast, M., Podus, D., Finney, J., Greenwell, L., & Roll, J. (2006). Contingency management for treatment of substance use disorders: a meta-analysis. Addiction, 101(11), 1546–1560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton, Century, Crofts.Google Scholar
  59. 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
  60. 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.
  61. Tarone, R. E., & Ware, J. (1977). On distribution-free tests for equality of survival distributions. Biometrika, 64(1), 156–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Taxman, F. S. (2008). No illusions: offender and organizational change in Maryland’s proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology and Public Policy, 7(2), 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Taxman, F. S., Soule, D., & Gelb, A. (1999). Graduated sanctions: stepping into accountable systems and offenders. The Prison Journal, 79(2), 182–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wexler, H. K., Melnich, G., Lowe, L., & Peters, J. (1999). Three-year reincarceration outcomes for Amity in-prison therapeutic community and aftercare in California. The Prison Journal, 79(3), 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wodahl, E. J., Garland, B., Culhane, S. E., & McCarty, W. P. (2011). Utilizing behavioral interventions to improve supervision outcomes in community-based corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(4), 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Grommon
    • 1
  • Stephen M. Cox
    • 2
  • William S. DavidsonII
    • 3
  • Timothy S. Bynum
    • 4
  1. 1.Indiana University-Purdue University, IndianapolisIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Criminology and Criminal JusticeCentral Connecticut State UniversityNew BritainUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  4. 4.School of Criminal JusticeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations