Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:29 pm
Time: 11:29 pm
Results for urinalysis
3 results foundAuthor: Burke, Cynthia Title: 2010 Adult Arrestee Drug Use in the San Diego Region Summary: This SANDAG CJ Bulletin is one in a series1 highlighting findings from data collected as part of the Substance Abuse Monitoring (SAM) program. Since 2004, when federal funding for the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program was suspended, San Diego has been the only site to continue this project uninterrupted. With funding from SANDAG’s Criminal Justice Clearinghouse, these data have been reported on an annual basis, providing useful information to policy makers, as well as law enforcement, prevention, and treatment professionals regarding drug use trends over time. In 2010, this data collection effort was generously supported by the California Border Alliance Group (CBAG), County of San Diego Alcohol and Drug Services (ADS), the District Attorney’s Office, and the Public Safety Group. Their support, as well as the cooperation of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, is gratefully acknowledged. As part of this project, arrestees are approached (using a random sampling method) within 48 hours of their arrest and booking into jail. If the arrestee is available and willing to participate in a confidential survey, s/he is asked a series of questions related to her/his drug use history and to provide a urine sample for drug testing. In 2010, 563 male arrestees were selected to be interviewed at the Vista and Central Jails and 269 female arrestees were selected at Las Colinas. Of these 832 arrestees, 802 completed the interview and also provided a valid urine sample for analysis. This research bulletin includes updated information regarding self-reported drug use, the results of urinalysis trends since 2000, factors related to drug use, drug market dynamics, prior justice system contact, participation in other risky behaviors, and prior receipt of drug and/or mental health treatment. Details: San Diego, CA: SANDAG, Criminal Justice Research Division, 2011. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: CJ Bulletin: Accessed January 19, 2012 at: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1621_13749.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1621_13749.pdf Shelf Number: 123664 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addition (San Diego)Drug Abuse and CrimeDrug MarketsUrinalysis |
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 |