Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:29 am
Time: 12:29 am
Results for drug detection
4 results foundAuthor: Uchida, Craig D. Title: Evaluating A Presumptive Drug Testing Technology in Community Corrections Settings Summary: Justice & Security Strategies, Inc. (JSS) conducted a multi-site evaluation of a presumptive drug detection technology developed by Mistral Security Incorporated (MSI). Funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) the evaluation used multiple social scientific methods to determine whether the technology could be used in community corrections settings and whether the technology was cost-effective. The evaluation was conducted in a work release program, with probation and parole, and in a drug court in three states -- Wyoming, Alabama, and Florida. The presumptive drug detection technology (PDDT) involved the use of aerosol sprays which were used with specialized paper that react with trace elements of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana. Basically, the specialized paper is swiped onto a surface (desk, chair, or any item) or a person (hands, arms, etc.) and then the paper is sprayed with the aerosol. If the paper changes color then it indicates trace elements of a specific drug. Unlike urinalysis, Mistral's products are not meant to determine whether a person has ingested drugs, only that the person has touched, handled, or come into contact with an illegal substance. JSS staff worked with corrections staff to test the technology on clients within community corrections settings. JSS collected data on 562 tests, interviewed clients, correctional officers, and staff, and observed the use of the spray and specialized paper. The major goal of the evaluation was to determine whether the PDDT has a place in the field of community corrections. This evaluation asked: 1. Will this technology increase agencies' success in identifying offenders and/or settings that have been exposed to drugs? 2. Does the technology help to decrease the overall cost of drug testing (i.e., less use of urine analysis)? and 3. What is the overall cost/effectiveness of using this product? Details: Silver Spring, MD: Justice & Security Strategies, Inc., 2012. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2013 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/240599.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/240599.pdf Shelf Number: 127338 Keywords: Community Based CorrectionsCost Benefit AnalysisDrug DetectionDrug Testing |
Author: Myrstol, Brad A. Title: The Predictive Validity of Marijuana Odor Detection: An Examination of Alaska State Trooper Case Reports 2006-2010 Summary: This study provides an empirical estimate of the extent to which Alaska State Troopers (AST) investigators' detection of marijuana odors served as a reliable indicator of the presence of illegal quantities of marijuana in suspected structures/buildings. It also provides a detailed description of marijuana grow searches conducted by AST investigators. Data were compiled from the case records for all marijuana grow searches conducted by AST for the years 2006-2010 (n=333). Details: Anchorage, AK: UAA Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2012. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2014 at: http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/research/2010/1110.02.ast.marijuana/1110.02.marijuana.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/research/2010/1110.02.ast.marijuana/1110.02.marijuana.pdf Shelf Number: 131954 Keywords: Drug DetectionDrug EnforcementIllegal DrugsMarijuana |
Author: Johnson, Sara Title: Assessing the Impact of Enhanced Drug Interdiction Activities at Kingston Penitentiary: A Pilot Study Summary: Beginning in January 2009, Kingston Penitentiary introduced substantial changes to its drug interdiction activities under a three-phased Drug Interdiction and Contraband Eradication (DICE) initiative. Some of these changes included the introduction of random drug interdiction "blitz" days, changes to the protocol for community gatherings at the institution, enhanced enforcement of urinalysis policy/procedures and educating visitors and inmates about the effects of drugs in a prison setting. The aim of the DICE was to maintain a safe environment for both staff and inmates through the coordination of activities to stop the introduction of drugs into the prison. The purpose of the current report was to examine the operational impact of the DICE activities with respect to alcohol, drug and security-related measures, as well as visiting practices. In order to achieve this, pre- to post- DICE comparisons were conducted on a variety of variables including contraband/unauthorized items seized, drug dog search results, urinalysis results, institutional incidents and attendance at visits and community gatherings. In addition, where possible, the same indicators were examined over a similar timeframe at another maximum security institution in the Ontario region (Millhaven Institution) that was not subjected to enhanced interdiction activities. While a slight decrease in the rate of positive results for random urinalysis testing was observed at Kingston Penitentiary pre- to post-DICE, a large decline in the refusal rate was noted (24% to 11%). This decrease followed a strict enforcement of the CSC policy that positive test results and refusals to provide urine samples are subject to equal disciplinary consequences, modifications to correctional plans, employment opportunities, and visits. In addition, a shift in the type of drugs for which offenders tested positive was observed pre- to post-DICE, with fewer inmates testing positive for THC and cocaine metabolites and more testing positive for Opiates A and Methadone metabolites1. Increases in the number of alcohol/drug-related incidents also occurred after the implementation of DICE. Regarding contraband items, an increase in seizures for all types of alcohol/drugs and alcohol/drug-related paraphernalia was observed following the augmented searching that occurred through the DICE initiative. The exceptions were brew/alcohol and cannabis, which remained stable. The results also suggested that there were broader operational impacts of the increased searching. For example, there was an increase in the number of weapons seized pre- to post-DICE3. The combined effect of all of the elements of the DICE initiative may be reflected in other results. For example, the number of institutional incidents related to disciplinary problems showed a large decline, from a monthly average of 37.4 to 16.64. In addition, the number of institutional incidents and disciplinary charges involving fights and assaults5 increased from a monthly average of 6.2 pre-DICE to 8.3 in the post-DICE period. During the same timeframe, no changes in the number of requests for protective custody were observed. The results for visiting practices pre- to post-DICE were mixed. When accounting for visits that were cancelled, there was only a marginal decrease (3.4%) in the number of visits that occurred following the implementation of DICE in comparison to the pre-DICE period. However when examining the number of inmates and visitors attending community gatherings, these numbers declined by 41% for inmates and by 51% for visitors pre- to post-DICE. Furthermore, the percent of visits that were denied increased three-fold and the percent of special visits (i.e., noncontact visits or designated seating visits) increased five-fold. The percent of visits that were suspended did not change pre- to post-DICE implementation. Taken together, these results suggest some positive impacts of the DICE initiative in relation to drug trafficking and drug use, as well as additional positive operational impacts such as an increase in the seizures of weapons and a decrease in institutional incidents related to disciplinary problems. However, possible negative post-DICE consequences include an increase in fights and assaults and an increase in positive urinalysis results for Opiates A and Methadone. It should be noted that many of these results also occurred at the comparison site, Millhaven Institution, but often to a lesser degree. Therefore the findings at Kingston Penitentiary may not have been a result of the impact of the DICE initiative alone. The findings of this study should be interpreted with caution due to methodological shortcomings (i.e., lack of a controlled research design, inconsistent recording of information, and small number of observations for some variables). As a result of these limitations, it is suggested that the next step for research in this area would be to conduct a study implementing increased drug interdiction activities in a more controlled and monitored manner at multiple sites, with measurement occurring prior to, during, and following implementation. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2010. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report No. R-232: Accessed September 27, 2014 at: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cn21418-eng.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Canada URL: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cn21418-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 133427 Keywords: Drug DetectionDrug InterdictionPrison Contraband (Canada)Prisoner MisconductUrinalysis |
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 |