Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:35 pm
Time: 9:35 pm
Results for canine units
2 results foundAuthor: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: TSA Explosives Detection Canine Program: Actions Needed to Analyze Data and Ensure Canine Teams Are Effectively Utilized Summary: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the federal agency that administers the National Canine Program (NCP), is collecting and using key data on its canine program, but could better analyze these data to identify program trends. TSA collects canine team data using the Canine Website System (CWS), a central management database. TSA uses CWS to capture the amount of time canine teams conduct training as well as searching for explosives odor, among other functions. However, TSA has not fully analyzed the data it collects in CWS to identify program trends and areas that are working well or in need of corrective action. Such analyses could help TSA to determine canine teams’ proficiency, inform future deployment efforts, and help ensure that taxpayer funds are used effectively. For example: • GAO analysis of canine team training data from May 2011 through April 2012 showed that some canine teams were repeatedly not in compliance with TSA’s monthly training requirement, which is in place to ensure canine teams remain proficient in explosives detection. • GAO analysis of TSA’s cargo-screening data from September 2011 through July 2012 showed that canine teams primarily responsible for screening air cargo placed on passenger aircraft exceeded their monthly screening requirement. This suggests that TSA could increase the percentage of air cargo it requires air cargo canine teams to screen or redeploy teams. TSA has not deployed passenger screening canines (PSC)—trained to identify and track explosives odor on a person—consistent with its risk-based approach, and did not determine PSC teams’ effectiveness prior to deployment. TSA’s 2012 Strategic Framework calls for the deployment of PSC teams based on risk; however, GAO found that PSC teams have not been deployed to the highest-risk airport locations. TSA officials stated that the agency generally defers to airport officials on whether PSC teams will be deployed, and some airport operators have decided against the use of PSC teams at their airports because of concerns related to the composition and capabilities of PSC teams. As a result of these concerns, the PSC teams deployed to higher-risk airport locations are not being used for passenger screening as intended, but for other purposes, such as screening air cargo or training. TSA is coordinating with aviation stakeholders to resolve concerns related to PSC team deployment, but has been unable to resolve these concerns, as of September 2012. Furthermore, TSA began deploying PSC teams in April 2011 prior to determining the teams’ operational effectiveness and before identifying where within the airport these teams would be most effectively utilized. TSA is in the process of assessing the effectiveness of PSC teams in the operational environment, but testing is not comprehensive since it does not include all areas at the airport or compare PSCs with already deployed conventional canines (trained to detect explosives in stationary objects). As a result, more comprehensive testing could provide TSA with greater assurance that PSC teams are effective in identifying explosives odor on passengers and provide an enhanced security benefit. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2013. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-13-239: Accessed March 25, 2013 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651725.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651725.pdf Shelf Number: 128126 Keywords: Canine UnitsPassenger ScreeningPolice Dogs (U.S.)Transportation Security |
Author: Dastouri, Serenna Title: Drug Detection Strategies: International Practices within Correctional Settings Summary: The current report was completed in response to the recommendations of both a focus group study on drug interdiction in Correctional Service Canada (CSC) institutions (Johnson and Allen, 2006) and the Independent Review Panel on federal corrections (2007) to examine and report on effective drug detection methods used in other correctional jurisdictions and provides insight into the efficacy of these methods. The intention is to assist in determining which interdiction technologies currently in use should be maintained and whether tools utilized in other jurisdictions could be considered for future use. The report begins with an overall description of the most widely-used drug detection techniques and practices in selected jurisdictions, including their current use in CSC, and reports on their strengths and limitations. The second section of the report examines studies that have evaluated the effect that these practices have had on the drug situation in institutions in the jurisdictions examined. The four main interdiction strategies reviewed are the use of canine detecting units, trace detection technology, bulk detection technology, and mandatory drug testing. All four strategies are currently employed by CSC. The canine units, bulk technology, and mandatory drug testing are all also used in the UK, US and Australia. Internationally, the use of trace detection technology was documented only in the United States, with the exception of one Australian institution. Although numerous major correctional jurisdictions use detector dogs (e.g., US, UK, Australia, Canada), there is no conclusive research evidence to demonstrate that canine detecting units have a significant impact on reducing the availability of drugs in correctional facilities. Trace detection technology has the capacity to identify many of the drugs of concern but research has demonstrated that trace detection is more sensitive to certain drugs (e.g., cocaine) than others (e.g., marijuana or drugs in pill form) and can generate high "false positive" rates. Research suggests that trace detection may reduce the availability of drugs in prison. Urine is the biological specimen most commonly used to test for drug metabolites in a correctional setting. Overall, results on the effectiveness of urinalysis as a deterrent are mixed. Issues of concern include the ease of altering urine specimens and the variability in metabolite half-lives of different substances which makes drugs with a longer half-life (e.g., marijuana) easier to detect in urine than those that metabolize quickly (e.g., cocaine or opiates) and the potential that this may result in drug-using inmates switching to more serious drugs with a shorter half-life in an effort to avoid detection. However, unequivocal evidence to support this contention is not currently available. Overall, it is clear that all of the drug detection tools examined are capable of detecting drugs. However, each method comes with certain benefits and drawbacks, sometimes in a complementary fashion. What remains unclear is which tool or combination of tools yield the most accurate (low false positive and false negative), cost-effective results. Therefore, the ability to detect drugs and the impact of the use of these tools on inmate drug use, drug seizures, and drug smuggling (by inmates, staff and visitors) is currently unknown. Many of the evaluations examined were not easily comparable due to the inconsistent collection and presentation of data. Furthermore, the difficulty of acquiring accurate baseline data renders it difficult to determine the overall effect of any single interdiction method on the amount of illicit drugs entering the facilities. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2012. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report No. R-258: Accessed September 27, 2014 at: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cn21488-eng.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cn21488-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 133457 Keywords: Canine UnitsDrug DetectionDrug InterdictionDrug TestingPrison Contraband (International)Prisoner MisconductUrinalysis |