Evaluating a Presumptive Drug Testing Technology in Community Corrections Settings, 2011, Alabama, Florida and Wyoming (ICPSR 34494)

Version Date: Apr 12, 2016

Cite this study |

Principal Investigator(s):
Craig Uchida, Justice & Security Strategies; Gordon A. Aoyagi, Justice & Security Strategies; W. Riley Waugh, Justice & Security Strategies; Shawn Flower, Justice & Security Strategies; Shellie E. Solomon, Justice & Security Strategies; Jonathan Mash, Justice & Security Strategies

https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34494.v1

Version V1

Slide tabs to view more

Summary

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This study was a multi-site evaluation of a presumptive drug detection technology (PDDT) developed by Mistral Security Incorporated (MSI). The evaluation was conducted by Justice and Security Strategies, Inc. (JSS) in work release programs, probation and parole offices, and drug courts in three states: Alabama, Florida, and Wyoming. Also, interviews with the offenders, corrections staff, and program administrators were conducted.

Citation

Uchida, Craig, Aoyagi, Gordon A., Waugh, W. Riley, Flower, Shawn, Solomon, Shellie E., and Mash, Jonathan. Evaluating a Presumptive Drug Testing Technology in Community Corrections Settings, 2011, Alabama, Florida and Wyoming. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2016-04-12. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34494.v1

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote

Funding

United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (2006-LT-BX-K001)

Subject Terms

Geographic Coverage

Smallest Geographic Unit

County

Restrictions

Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Distributor(s)

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
Hide

Time Period(s)

2011-02 -- 2011-12

Date of Collection

2011-02 -- 2011-12

Data Collection Notes

  1. These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

Hide

Study Purpose

The purpose of the study was to determine whether presumptive drug detection technology (PDDT) has a place in the field of community corrections. The specific questions asked were as follows:

  • Will this technology increase agencies' success in identifying offenders and/or settings that have been exposed to drugs?
  • Does the technology help to decrease the overall cost of drug testing (i.e., less use of urine analysis)?
  • What is the overall cost/effectiveness of using this product?

Study Design

The evaluation of the presumptive drug detection technology (PDDT) was conducted in six community corrections programs in Alabama, Florida, and Wyoming over 11 months in 2011. With programs in Wyoming visited on multiple occasions as it served as an intensive case study site. At each site the testing of PDDT was evaluated in the following ways:

  • Observation of adherence to study protocols. Officer compliance with device instructions (using test papers on the requisite areas).
  • Examination of PDDT result records: number and type of reactions (e.g., single or multiple drugs present).
  • Track follow-up urinalysis results to assist in determining positive/false positive rates.
  • Develop a system for tracking the number of transactions, successes or failures in using the PDDT.
  • Interviews with correctional officers and/or staff at each testing site to obtain their opinions as to how well PDDT worked and the operational efficiency of PDDT and to ascertain what, if any, challenges occurred during the study.
  • Interviews with a sample of offenders subject to PDDT at each site to elicit their opinions of the experience. Questions included an assessment of their level of objection to the swiping on their skin and/or possessions (e.g., did the offender find the procedure was invasive or offensive? In addition, offenders were queried as to their perception of the effectiveness of the spray to detect different types of drugs.
  • Obtain limited background information on the offenders who were subject to a PDDT in order to determine if participant characteristics and criminal background may be factors.

Sample

Wyoming Department of Corrections (WDOC).

  • WDOC Phase I of the presumptive drug detection technology (PDDT) evaluation was conducted at the Cheyenne Transitional Center (CTC) in February 2011. 55 offenders were tested and 27 were interviewed. Four CTC staff were interviewed.
  • WDOC Phase II of the PDDT evaluation was conducted at the CTC in August 2011. 58 offenders were tested of which 24 was also tested in Phase I, and 14 were interviewed. Tests were also conducted at the Cheyenne District Parole and Probation Office in August 2011. 44 were tested and 16 were interviewed. Four staff were interviewed.
  • In addition interviews were held with state level community corrections and CTC administrators.

Alabama

  • Montgomery County Community Corrections (MCCC), Alabama PDDT evaluation was conducted in August 2011. 58 offenders were tested and 4 were interviewed. Three staff members were interviewed. In addition interviews were held with MCCC administrators.
  • Mobile County Community Corrections, Alabama PDDT evaluation was conducted in August 2011. 104 offenders were tested.

Florida Department of Corrections

  • Plantation Probation Office PDDT evaluation was conducted in November 2011. 150 offenders were tested and 20 were interviewed. Eight staff members were interviewed.
  • Miami Gardens Probation Office PDDT evaluation was conducted in December 2011. 94 offenders were tested and 13 were interviewed. Three staff members were interviewed.

Time Method

Cross-sectional

Universe

Offenders in community corrections programs in the states of Alabama, Florida and Wyoming. Corrections officers, probation staff and community corrections administrators were also interviewed as part of the process evaluation.

Unit(s) of Observation

Individual

Data Source

Montgomery County Community Corrections, Alabama

Mobile County Community Corrections, Alabama

Wyoming Department of Corrections

Florida Department of Corrections

Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection

Description of Variables

Evaluating a Presumptive Drug Testing Technology in Community Corrections Settings dataset (n= 560) contains 51 variables on the test site, demographics and criminal record of the offender, and PDDT and urine test results.

Response Rates

94 of the 565 offenders (or 16.8 percent) tested in the PDDT project were interviewed.

Hide

Original Release Date

2016-04-12

Version History

2018-02-15 The citation of this study may have changed due to the new version control system that has been implemented. The previous citation was:
  • Uchida, Craig, Gordon A. Aoyagi, W. Riley Waugh, Shawn Flower, Shellie E. Solomon, and Jonathan Mash. Evaluating a Presumptive Drug Testing Technology in Community Corrections Settings, 2011, Alabama, Florida and Wyoming. ICPSR34494-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2016-04-12. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34494.v1
Hide

Notes

  • These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

  • The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

  • One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.