Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:06 pm
Time: 12:06 pm
Results for drug testing
11 results foundAuthor: McCoard, Shirley Title: Process Evaluation of the Drug Treatment and Testing Orders II (DTTO II) Pilots Summary: Drug Treatment and Testing Orders II (DTTO IIs) were introduced on a pilot basis in the Lothian and Borders Community Justice Authority Area in June 2008. The purpose of the DTTO II is to make Drug Treatment and Testing Orders available to lower tariff offenders earlier in their criminal careers, when the damage done to themselves, their families and their communities, as a consequence of their drug misuse, is less extensive. This report presents the findings of a process evaluation of the DTTO II pilot, which was carried out concurrently with the early operation of the schemes. The evaluation focussed primarily on the processes involved in setting up and running the scheme, but also provides some early indication of the likely impact and success of DTTO IIs. A cost exercise was also carried out to provide estimated costs for rolling out DTTO IIs on a national basis. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research, 2010. 57p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119425 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug OffendersDrug TestingDrug Treatment (Scotland) |
Author: Lloyd, Charlie Title: Drugs Research: An Overview of Evidence and Questions for Policy Summary: In 2001 the Joseph Rowntree Foundation embarked upon a programme of research that explored the problem of illicit drugs in the UK. The research addressed many questions that were often too sensitive for the government to tackle. In many cases, these studies represented the first research on these issues. This study gives an overview of the projects in the programme. The topics covered include: The policing of drug possession; The domestic cultivation, purchasing and heavy use of cannabis; Non-problematic heroin use, heroin prescription and Drug Consumption Rooms; The impact of drugs on the family; and Drug testing in schools and in the workplace. Details: York, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2010. 70p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119469 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug TestingDrug TreatmentDrugsNarcoticsSubstance Abuse |
Author: Burgoyne, Leigh Alexander Title: The Bioprofiling of Illicit Drugs Summary: It has been found that DNA sequences can be extracted and amplified from typical drug seizures. Non-human DNA in seizures was readily compared for similarities, pair-wise, seizure to seizure and this should be applicable to police intelligence almost immediately and court usage after considerable experience and validation. The technology’s limits are explored and future developments are suggested. Drug seizures usually have less DNA than soils but seizures have a potentially useful human content. Even in the relatively small quantities of drug subjected to testing, the human DNA content was sufficient for conventional forensic “trace DNA” techniques to be quite promising. It is suggested that this human content should be treated as a special case of trace DNA. The limited data currently available suggest that in principle the human profiling described in this paper could be conducted by any forensic laboratory around Australia and across most of the world using familiar equipment and techniques. The profiles generated would be compatible with DNA databases such as National Criminal Investigation DNA Database (NCIDD). An application has been made to NDLERF to validate this approach. Details: Hobart, Tasmania: National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund, 2008. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Monography Series No. 30: Accessed April 12, 2011 at: http://www.ndlerf.gov.au/pub/Monograph_30.pdf Year: 2008 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ndlerf.gov.au/pub/Monograph_30.pdf Shelf Number: 121317 Keywords: Criminal InvestigationsDNA TypingDrug TestingForensicsIllicit Drugs (Australia) |
Author: Wish, Eric D. Title: The Maryland Adult Offender Population Urine Screening (OPUS) Program - Final Report Summary: In 2005, CESAR piloted an innovative cost-effective method to measure drug use trends in offenders in Maryland, using urine specimens already collected and tested for a small panel of drugs by the Division of Parole and Probation (DPP). The 2005 OPUS study sampled 299 specimens obtained from adult parolees and probationers in six counties in Maryland (Baltimore City, Baltimore, Howard, Prince George’s, Charles and Washington counties) and retested the specimens for an expanded panel of 30 drugs. The findings indicated considerable promise of the OPUS methodology for providing the state with information regarding the availability and use of drugs by offenders. The current study used the OPUS methodology to obtain 1,061 specimens from the three Maryland DPP labs that process urine specimens submitted from 55 DPP collection sites. These specimens were sent to a laboratory for testing of an extended panel of 31 drugs. As we found in the prior pilot study, the most common drugs detected were marijuana, cocaine, benzodiazepines, and morphine. Again, we found almost no evidence of methamphetamine use and that most PCP positives came from offenders in Prince George’s County. On the other hand, a larger percentage of buprenorphine positives were detected (5% vs. 13%, p<.001) than we found in 2005, suggesting greater use of this relatively newly prescribed drug in Maryland. Considerable geographic differences were found in the patterns of drugs detected across Maryland. Only 4% of the tested specimens were found to test positive solely for a drug in the expanded screen. It therefore appears that the current five drug DPP screen identifies 96% of all recent drug users. The OPUS methodology may provide states with a relatively quick and low cost method for monitoring drug trends in offenders. Details: College Park, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Research (CESAR), University of Maryland, 2009. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 20, 2012 at http://www.goccp.maryland.gov/msac/documents/bjag-2005-1080.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.goccp.maryland.gov/msac/documents/bjag-2005-1080.pdf Shelf Number: 125393 Keywords: Adult Offenders (Maryland)Drug OffendersDrug TestingEvaluative Studies (Maryland)Urinalysis (Maryland)Urine Testing |
Author: 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: 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 |
Author: Wish, Eric D. Title: Community Drug Early Warning System: The CDEWS Pilot Summary: This report describes a pilot test of the Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS) in three jurisdictions in the Washington, DC and Richmond, VA, Metropolitan Areas. CDEWS was designed to provide rapid information about emerging drug use in local communities by sampling urine specimens already obtained and tested for a limited panel of drugs by local criminal justice agencies and retesting them for a larger panel of drugs. The anonymous specimens were sent to an independent laboratory for testing for a panel of more than 30 licit and illicit drugs including 12 synthetic cannabinoid (SC) metabolites. The results demonstrated that CDEWS could be successfully implemented in diverse criminal justice populations, including arrestees, probationers and parolees, and drug court participants. Most important, CDEWS proved its utility for uncovering emerging drugs. SCs were detected in the specimens from all participating sites in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. Furthermore, all of the SC positive specimens contained one or two of the metabolites (UR-144 and XLR-11) recently identified and added to the federal schedule of prohibited SC metabolites after this study began. Additional analyses of the CDEWS results identified areas of Washington, DC, where the SC positive specimens were more concentrated and where future studies of its use and availability could be focused. The report concludes with research implications of the findings and next steps for implementing CDEWS in other sites. Details: Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, 2013. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2015 at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/finalreport_with_cover_09172013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/finalreport_with_cover_09172013.pdf Shelf Number: 135655 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Control PolicyDrug EnforcementDrug TestingIllicit DrugsUrine Testing |
Author: Wish, Eric D. Title: Community Drug Early Warning System: The CDEWS-2 Replication Study Summary: The Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS) provides rapid information about emerging drug use in local communities by sampling anonymous urine specimens already collected and tested, and ready to be discarded by local criminal justice programs. CDEWS re- tests the specimens for an expanded panel of more than 75 drugs. The most dramatic finding from the first study, CDEWS-1, completed in September 2013, was the identification of specific synthetic cannabinoids (SC) used by adult arrestee and parole/probation populations in the Washington, DC and Richmond, VA Metropolitan Areas. SC metabolites were actually equally or more likely to be detected in specimens that had passed the local criminal justice system (CJS) drug tests than in those that failed, suggesting that people were using them to avoid detection by the routine CJS testing screens. This second report on CDEWS (CDEWS-2) replicates the CDEWS results for adult parolees/probationers in Washington, DC, and studies new adult and/or juvenile criminal justice populations from Washington, DC (juveniles), Denver, Colorado (drug court adults), and Tampa, Florida (juveniles). A total of 1,026 specimens from these populations were tested as part of the CDEWS-2 study. The CDEWS-2 urinalyses showed dramatic changes from the SC metabolites detected the prior year in CDEWS-1, and shows substantial differences in SC found from site to site. For the CDEWS-2 study, we interviewed toxicologists and other experts to determine the most important drugs, including new psychoactive substances (NPS), to include on our testing panel. This shows the value of interviewing experts in order to update the CDEWS test panel to include newly discovered SC metabolites. A large number of specimens tested positive for the metabolites added during CDEWS-2. About 50% of the 21-30 year old male probationers from DC who had passed the local more limited CJS screen and about 1 in 5 of all tested juveniles in DC at all ages, from 13-17, tested positive for SC. The SC metabolites detected varied by population and site; for example, all SC positive specimens from Tampa juveniles contained only one metabolite, UR-144, but only 71% of the SC positive specimens from DC juveniles and 53% of SC positives from adults in the Denver drug court contained UR-144. In fact, among DC juveniles, 8 SC metabolites were found and among Denver adults 10 SC metabolites were found. Testing for designer stimulants was suspended after all subsamples for the 4 populations tested negative for these drugs. The CDEWS-2 results attest to the value of expanded testing of specimens already collected by local CJS drug testing programs and the difficulties inherent in keeping up with the constantly evolving nature of NPS. The results suggest that many adults and juveniles in local CJS drug testing programs likely turn to SC to avoid detection. It is also likely that programs using similar protocols to test urine specimens in other contexts, such as schools, hospitals and treatment programs are missing SC use in their populations, leading to lost opportunities for diagnosis and intervention. These risks are especially dangerous for youths being exposed to new and constantly changing NPS at an early age. Future CDEWS studies of these populations might help to address these issues. Details: Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy Executive Office of the President, 2015. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 8, 2015 at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/finalreport_4_8_15v3.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/finalreport_4_8_15v3.pdf Shelf Number: 136354 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addiction Drug Control Policy Drug Enforcement Drug Testing Illicit DrugsUrine Testing |
Author: Wish, Eric D. Title: Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS-3): Maryland - Site 4 of 4 Summary: The Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS) provides timely information about emerging drug use in criminal justice populations in local communities by collecting and re-testing urine specimens already obtained and tested for a limited panel of drugs by local criminal justice testing programs. CDEWS or local staff sample specimens that are ready to be discarded and send them to an independent laboratory for testing for an expanded panel of over 150 drugs. By using already collected de-identified urine specimens, CDEWS is able to provide a relatively quick and inexpensive snapshot of the types of drugs recently used by participating populations. The CDEWS methodology has now been piloted in twelve jurisdictions and the results are provided in five reports already released by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). This report presents findings from adult parolees and probationers in a single jurisdiction -- Maryland -- as part 4 of 4 sites for the third CDEWS Study, called CDEWS-3. This study was conducted somewhat differently from prior CDEWS studies. This is because we wanted to replicate the findings from a study we had conducted in Maryland in 2008. And second, because of the opioid epidemic in Maryland, the State asked us to collect and analyze a separate large sample of specimens statewide that had tested positive for opiates by the laboratory used by the Maryland Division of Parole and Probation (DPP). With the strong support of the DPP, we collected two samples of specimens: the Maryland Regional Sample (N=288) and the Opiate Positive (Opiate+) Sample (N=202 statewide). Specimens were classified as CJS+ (tested positive for any drug) or CJS- (tested negative for all drugs) according to the results from the DPP laboratory's 4-drug screen. The findings from the Maryland Regional Sample indicated that most of the persons who had tested positive for one of the drugs in the CDEWS larger test panel had also tested positive for one of the four drugs in the DPP drug screen. However, approximately one in ten CJS+ specimens also contained antidepressants, synthetic cannabinoids (SC), methadone and/or other licit pharmaceutical opioids, drugs not tested for by the limited DPP screen. The additional drugs the CDEWS lab detected may not have practical significance for the DPP, given that most of these specimens did test positive for a drug in the DPP's limited screen. It is not possible to tell from the urinalyses if the persons taking the licit drugs were doing so legally under a physician's supervision. In contrast, 15% of the specimens that the DPP screen indicated did not contain a drug (CJS-) contained an opioid. Methadone and buprenorphine were among the opioids most found in CJS specimens and it is possible that these persons were receiving treatment with these drugs. Antidepressants were identified in as many CJS- specimens as CJS+ specimens (9%). SC was found in CJS- specimens but these metabolites were less common than in CJS+ specimens. These results suggest that in this population, persons were unlikely to be using SC to avoid detection by the standard DPP tests. The comparisons of probationers/parolees in this study and our earlier study in 2008 show considerable agreement in the drugs detected. The primary changes were a decline in cocaine (36% to 17%) and buprenorphine (15% to 7%) and an increase in codeine (3% to 13%) among CJS+ specimens. The increase in codeine positives may be the result of the increased sensitivity of the tests used in the current study. The results from the Opiate+ Sample strongly indicated that probationers/parolees who had tested positive for opiates by the DPP screen were likely to be using a variety of legal and illegal opioids in addition to non-opioid drugs. About one in three also used cocaine, one fifth used marijuana and/or benzodiazepines and about one quarter used a prescription opioid other than morphine or codeine. These results therefore have important implications for the testing used by physicians and diagnosticians who need to know if patients are using other drugs. Use of multiple opioids at the same time may lead to serious health complications and even death. We also conducted special analyses of the combined specimens found in either sample to be positive for fentanyl, synthetic cannabinoids, or codeine. Perhaps some of the most meaningful results in this study were those showing the large number of opioid and non-opioid drugs found in the fentanyl+ specimens. The 21 specimens positive for fentanyl each contained an average of 5 different drugs, most prominently morphine, codeine, 6-MAM (heroin), cocaine, and/or hydromorphone. The findings for fentanyl+ specimens were similar to those described above for the entire sample of Opiate+ specimens and our recent study of 136 persons who died of a fentanyl related overdose in New Hampshire. It is clear that probationers/parolees in Maryland who screen positive for any opioids are likely to be using a variety of other opioid and non-opioid drugs. These findings suggest that treatment will be more effective if one identifies and focuses on the totality of drugs the person may be using. Our analysis of the combined sample of all specimens positive for SC supported the findings from our previous CDEWS studies that found multiple SC metabolites in specimens. Surprisingly, specimens from the current study often contained both new and older generation SC metabolites. Given the unpredictable composition of synthetic cannabinoids (also known as Spice or K2) being marketed, it is not possible for users to know what chemicals they are consuming and to predict the effects. SC was less likely to be found in the Maryland samples compared to other CDEWS study samples, and few persons who tested CJS- in the Maryland Regional Sample were found to test positive for SC. Probationers in Maryland may therefore be less likely than other populations CDEWS has studied to use SC to avoid screening positive by the CJS test screens, which do not typically test for SC. We also found that 70% of the Opiate+ specimens contained codeine and that codeine was found across the state. In addition, codeine was detected in 81% of fentanyl+ specimens from the combined Opiate+ and Maryland Regional samples. Acetylcodeine, which metabolizes into codeine, is often produced as an impurity of illicit heroin synthesis, which may explain the large percentage of specimens positive for codeine given that almost all of the specimens also contained morphine. It is also possible that some of the codeine positives were the result of the direct use of codeine. We suspected that some of the codeine detected might have been caused by the use of "Purple Drank", a mixture of codeine syrup and promethazine typically sold as a cough suppressant, that has been reported in Maryland. However, only 4% of the codeine positive specimens contained promethazine. Given that the half-life of promethazine is longer than that of codeine, one would expect to have detected promethazine in these specimens had "Purple Drank" been the source of the codeine. It is also possible that the codeine may have resulted from codeine extracted from pills containing the drug. Additional research is needed to learn more about the codeine that was detected in 60% or more of probationers across all regions of Maryland and how the use of codeine may relate to the State's current opioid epidemic. Details: Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy Executive Office of the President, 2017. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 29, 2017 at: https://ndews.umd.edu/sites/ndews.umd.edu/files/finalreport_cdews3_mdapproved.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://ndews.umd.edu/sites/ndews.umd.edu/files/finalreport_cdews3_mdapproved.pdf Shelf Number: 148578 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addiction Drug Control Policy Drug Enforcement Drug OffendersDrug TestingIllicit Drugs ParoleesProbationersUrine Testing |
Author: Wish, Eric D. Title: Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS-3): Honolulu, Hawaii - Site 1 of 4 Summary: The Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS) provides timely information about emerging drug use in criminal justice populations in local communities by collecting and re‐testing urine specimens already obtained and tested for a limited panel of drugs by local criminal justice testing programs. CDEWS or local staff sample specimens that are ready to be discarded and send them to an independent laboratory for testing for an expanded panel of drugs. By using already collected de‐identified urine specimens, CDEWS can provide a relatively quick and inexpensive snapshot of the types of drugs recently used by participating populations. The CDEWS methodology has been implemented in five jurisdictions and the results are contained in two reports already released by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (Wish et al., 2013, 2015). We introduce here a new report format that contains the findings from a single jurisdiction - the Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) and General Supervision (GS) probationer populations in Honolulu, Hawaii - as part 1 of 4 sites for the third CDEWS Study, called CDEWS‐3. In 2004, Judge Steven Alm launched the HOPE program in Hawaii. HOPE enrolls higher risk felony probationers with serious criminal histories and extensive substance abuse histories in a program that includes frequent urine drug monitoring coupled with brief jail sanctions for drug violations (The Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc., 2015). With Judge Alm's strong support, local staff were able to provide anonymous urine specimens previously collected from a sample of adult male probationers from the HOPE program (n=194) and the neighboring GS probation program (n=143), which were then sent to the CDEWS independent laboratory for expanded testing. While the onsite screens used by the HOPE and GS probation programs only tests for 6 drugs, the CDEWS independent laboratory tested for over 150 legal and illegal drugs. The expanded testing showed that the current onsite test screens used by these programs had identified most of the drug users in the HOPE and GS probationer programs. The most common drugs found were methamphetamine and amphetamine. Any additional legal and illegal drugs detected by the CDEWS independent laboratory were primarily detected in specimens that had previously tested positive for at least one of the drugs in the standard local onsite screens. The major exception was methamphetamine, which was detected in a minority of the specimens that had tested negative for all drugs, including methamphetamine, by the onsite criminal justice system (CJS) drug screens. Subsequent analyses suggested that this under‐detection was because the onsite screens for methamphetamine were less sensitive than the tests utilized by the CDEWS independent laboratory. We had hypothesized that the HOPE probationers might be more likely than GS probationers to turn to synthetic cannabinoids (SCs) to evade detection, because of the HOPE program's focus on sanctioning people for "dirty" urines. While SCs were found only in specimens that had tested negative by the CJS onsite drug screens, few specimens (2% or less) from HOPE or GS probationers tested positive for SC. However, the SC metabolites that were detected were later generation SC metabolites recently added to the CDEWS‐3 laboratory test panel. None of these later generation metabolites could have been detected by either the onsite or laboratory SC screens used by the GS and HOPE probation programs at the time of the study. This finding attests to the need for jurisdictions to routinely update their test panels for synthetic drugs, whose formulations tend to change rapidly. Although SC use was found in some probationers in this jurisdiction in Hawaii, SCs may not be as large a problem as was found in some prior CDEWS studies. Nevertheless, the Hawaii HOPE and GS programs may want to consider expanding their SC test panel to include the newer SC metabolites (AB‐PINACA, 5F‐AB‐PINACA, AB‐CHMINACA (metab 4), 5F‐AMB) that were detected in their populations. Details: Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, 2016 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 29, 2017 at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/cdews3_hawaii_final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/cdews3_hawaii_final.pdf Shelf Number: 148580 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addiction Drug Control Policy Drug Enforcement Drug Offenders Drug TestingUrine Testing |
Author: Wish, Eric D. Title: Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS-3): Ohio -- Site 2 of 4 Summary: The Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS) provides timely information about emerging drug use in criminal justice populations in local communities by collecting and re‐testing urine specimens already obtained and tested for a limited panel of drugs by criminal justice testing programs. CDEWS or local staff sample specimens that are ready to be discarded and send them de‐ identified to an independent laboratory for testing for an expanded panel of drugs. The CDEWS methodology has been implemented previously in five jurisdictions with non‐prison populations (Wish et al., 2013; Wish et al., 2015). This report describes the first CDEWS study of prison inmates, conducted in the Belmont and Ross Correctional Institutions for adult males in Ohio. This report is the second of 4 reports that are part of the third CDEWS Study, CDEWS‐3. Urine drug testing is conducted in these facilities on the basis of the inmate's assignment to one of three test groups: Random, For Cause, and treatment Program testing. Specimens are tested by the correctional institution for a panel of 8 drugs. Specimens that had tested positive (CJS+) or negative (CJS‐) for any drug by the prison drug screen were selected from each of the test groups for inclusion in the study. A total of 108 usable specimens were obtained from Belmont and 85 specimens from Ross. The most dramatic findings from this study involved the detection of two types of prescription drugs in both institutions, buprenorphine, a prescribed opioid used to treat substance use disorder for opioids, and antidepressants. Buprenorphine is not prescribed for treatment in these institutions and it is not clear how much of the antidepressants detected were prescribed by the physicians at the prison. While marijuana use was detected in these institutions, it is noteworthy that not a single specimen tested positive for a synthetic cannabinoid. In contrast to other criminal populations studied by CDEWS in other locations, there was no evidence of synthetic cannabinoid use to avoid detection by the prison's drug testing program. This study demonstrated that the CDEWS methodology could be adapted for prison settings. While the use of buprenorphine and marijuana was already being detected by these institutions' testing programs, the extensive use of antidepressants uncovered may be a new finding. Details: Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy Executive Office of the President, 2016. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 6, 2017 at: https://ndews.umd.edu/sites/ndews.umd.edu/files/pubs/finalreport-cdews3-oh-v31-final-for-distribution.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://ndews.umd.edu/sites/ndews.umd.edu/files/pubs/finalreport-cdews3-oh-v31-final-for-distribution.pdf Shelf Number: 148740 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addiction Drug Control Policy Drug Enforcement Drug Testing Illicit DrugsUrine Testing |