| NCJ Number: |
157824   |
| |
|
| Title: |
Measuring the Impact of Drug Testing at the Pretrial Release Stage: An Experimental Approach |
| |
|
| Author(s): |
P R Jones; J S Goldkamp |
| |
|
| Corporate Author: |
Crime and Justice Research Institute
United States of America |
| |
|
| Date Published: |
1991 |
| |
|
| Page Count: |
54 |
| |
|
| Sponsoring Agency: |
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Washington, DC 20531
Crime and Justice Research Institute
Philadelphia, PA 19123 |
| |
|
| Grant Number: |
89-DD-CX-0013 |
| |
|
| Sale Source: |
Crime and Justice Research Institute
520 N. Columbus Blvd., Suite 600
Philadelphia, PA 19123
United States of America |
| |
|
| Type: |
Survey |
| |
|
| Language: |
English |
| |
|
| Country: |
United States of America |
| |
|
| Annotation: |
Two rationales for pretrial drug testing were examined by means of experimental studies of the testing programs in two sites: Milwaukee (Wisc.) and Prince George's County (Md.). |
| |
|
| Abstract: |
The research considered the following rationales: (1) that monitoring enhances the restrictiveness of pretrial supervision and (2) that drug test results are thought to be useful predictors of pretrial flight or crime. At both research sites, the research design included a pre-post comparison of defendants to examine any effect the program might have on judicial decisionmaking, and an experimental phase to determine the impact of the drug monitoring program on defendant misconduct. Results indicated that, despite sanctions, program compliance by defendants was generally poor. At both sites, the programs reached only a small proportion of the eligible defendants, partly because of the voluntariness of initial testing and partly because of the role that drug test information had in the overall determination of bail. In both sites, the planned tariff of sanctions was not implemented, partly because the courts were unprepared for the court time required for enforcing conditions or unwilling to devote sufficient judicial resources to reviewing the status of noncompliant defendants. Finally, without the crucial element of sanctions being applied, no significant differences existed between the tested and nontested groups for either pretrial flight or crime. Tables, figures, and 17 references |
| |
|
| Main Term(s): |
Pretrial drug testing |
| |
|
| Index Term(s): |
Maryland; Services effectiveness; Wisconsin |
| |
|
| Note: |
*This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS. DCC. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Conferences, San Francisco, California. November 1991 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=157824 |
| |
|
