skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 202279 Find in a Library
Title: Propositions for Drug Testing
Journal: Corrections Forum  Volume:12  Issue:4  Dated:July/August 2003  Pages:18-19,21
Editor(s): Thomas S. Kapinos
Date Published: July 2003
Page Count: 3
Publisher: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/index-eng.shtml 
Type: Best Practice/State-of-the-Art Review
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article presents new noninvasive drug screening technologies.
Abstract: Low-cost, noninvasive drug screening technologies are sorely needed in California where Proposition 36, enacted in July 2001, is re-routing many nonviolent drug offenders away from jail and into supervised probation and drug treatment. Urinalysis, currently the only drug testing technology that is acceptable to a court of law, is expensive and funding in California cannot keep up with the demand. Another problem is that approximately 80 percent of the probationers sentenced under Proposition 36 are male, whereas 70 percent of the field probation officers are female. The result is that the small number of male probation officers are spending a large proportion of their time witnessing urine samples. As such, criminal justice officials from San Diego and Orange Counties requested that the Border Research and Technology Center present a workshop on noninvasive drug screening technologies that may be available in the near future. The article provides an overview of skin patches and sweat tests, saliva testing, trace and portable detection scans, and pupil scans. The pupil test was tested by San Diego County and was found to be 98 percent accurate against urinalysis tests. It is estimated that the pupil scan could save the county about $2,000 within just 2 months. The technologies presented in the article are not touted as definitive drug screening tools, but as cost-effective, probable cause measures.
Main Term(s): Drug testing
Index Term(s): California; Intensive probation; Probation costs; Probation effectiveness; Science and Technology
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=202279

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.