U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Drug Testing in Community Corrections: A Comparative Program Analysis

NCJ Number
139406
Journal
Journal of Crime and Justice Volume: 15 Issue: 1 Dated: (1992) Pages: 63-90
Author(s)
G F Vito; S T Holmes; T J Keil; D G Wilson
Date Published
1992
Length
28 pages
Annotation
This article presents comparative results from the first 2 years of a drug-testing program for probationers and parolees in Louisville, Ky.
Abstract
The purpose of the drug-testing programs was to enhance public safety by establishing a system for the identification of controlled substance abuse among probation and parole clients. Additionally, the program sought to establish information on the nature and frequency of substance abuse in this population. If the test was positive, offenders were referred to the Kentucky Substance Abuse Program for entry into the treatment program until all available slots were filled. The monitoring goal of the program was the testing of all clients beginning community supervision to determine the percentage of those with a drug abuse problem and the random testing of clients currently under community supervision. During the second year of the project, 1,556 clients on probation or parole were tested. Each client was tested at least once, and some were tested a maximum of five times. Where possible, comparisons were made between the research findings from the first and second years of the program and the results from the drug use forecasting program. For both years, marijuana (59 percent and 53 percent of all tests) and cocaine (36 percent and 28 percent) were the drugs typically abused. Clients who completed the Kentucky Substance Abuse Program were less likely to recidivate. Client attributes associated with substance abuse were established through the use of discriminant function analysis. Policy implications are drawn from the findings. 7 figures, 1 table, 6 notes, and 31 references