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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The reason for the below average tests per week was that the initial protocol called for tests to be administered 7 days a week. However, weekend staffing issues at the local jail led to tests only being administered during the traditional working week. The protocol was revised to 5 days a week prior to the start of the program. Test per week data use 7 as a denominator, which lowers calculated averages.
As a check on the sensitivity of the results, random effect probit models were estimated. The random effect models allowed for individual variation in the response to the experimental conditions. There were no differences between the random effect and ANOVA models with regard to the experimental conditions. Identical results were obtained. The random effect models did caution the interpretation of the interaction effects of time for the proportion of participants with at least one positive and the main effects of time in the rate of positive testing. It is clear the group differences present at 6 months remain at 18 months for both indicators of relapse, which explains why the effect of time was not significant in the random effect models. As a result, the effect of time should be interpreted from the ANOVA models with this context in mind.
Random effect probit models were also estimated to check the sensitivity of recidivism outcomes. Once again, identical results were obtained. There were no differences between the random effect and ANOVA models.
References
Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark: Anderson.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Breslow, N. (1970). A generalized Kruskal-Wallis test for comparing k samples subject to unequal patterns of censorship. Biometrika, 57(3), 579–594.
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.
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.
Center for Substance Abuse Research. (1994). Oregon STOP program for probationers. College Park: University of Maryland.
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.
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.
Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life tables (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 34, 187–220.
D’Agostino, R. B. (1971). A second look at analysis of variance on dichotomous data. Journal of Educational Measurement, 8(4), 327–333.
Durlauf, S. N., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Imprisonment and crime: can both be reduced? Criminology and Public Policy, 10(1), 13–54.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Haapanen, R., & Britton, L. (2002). Drug testing for youthful offenders on parole: an experimental evaluation. Criminology and Public Policy, 1(2), 217–244.
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,
Harrell, A., & Roman, J. (2001). Reducing drug use and crime among offender: the impact of graduated sanctions. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 207–232.
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.
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.
Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. A. R. (2011). Washington intensive supervision program: Evaluation report. Seattle: Seattle City Council.
Hoffman, P. B., & Beck, J. L. (1974). Parole decision-making: a salient factor score. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2(3), 195–206.
Honig, W. K., & Staddon, J. E. R. (1977). The handbook of operant behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
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.
King, R. S., & Mauer, M. (2002). Distorted priorities: Drug offenders in state prisons. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
Kleiman, M. A. R. (1988). Street-level drug enforcement: examining the issues. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Kleiman, M. A. R. (2009). When brute force fails: How to have less crime and less punishment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lattimore, P. K., & Visher, C. A. (2010). The multi-site evaluation of SVORI: Summary and synthesis. Research Triangle: RTI International.
Lunney, G. H. (1970). Using analysis of variance with dichotomous dependent variable: an empirical study. Journal of Educational Measurement, 7(4), 263–269.
MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: identifying what works. Crime and Delinquency, 46(4), 457–471.
MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Prendergast, M. L. (2009). Interventions to promote successful re-entry among drug-abusing parolees. Addiction Science and Clinical Practice, 5(1), 4–13.
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.
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.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton, Century, Crofts.
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.
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.
Tarone, R. E., & Ware, J. (1977). On distribution-free tests for equality of survival distributions. Biometrika, 64(1), 156–160.
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.
Taxman, F. S., Soule, D., & Gelb, A. (1999). Graduated sanctions: stepping into accountable systems and offenders. The Prison Journal, 79(2), 182–205.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Grommon, E., Cox, S.M., Davidson, W.S. et al. Alternative models of instant drug testing: evidence from an experimental trial. J Exp Criminol 9, 145–168 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-012-9168-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-012-9168-6