U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

Predicting Pretrial Misconduct with

Drug Tests of Arrestees

Evidence from Six Sites

By William Rhodes, Raymond Hyatt, and Paul Scheiman

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis, Director January 1996

continued . . .

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this study: An assessment of the effectiveness of

drug testing as a means of predicting that a released arrestee will

commit an additional offense or

fail to appear in court during the

pretrial period. Researchers analyzed data from Washington, D.C.,

Manhattan, New York, Dade

County, Florida, Prince George's

County, Maryland, Maricopa

County, Arizona, and Milwaukee

County, Wisconsin, for how urine

test results and other factors (especially criminal records and community ties) might have a bearing on

postrelease misconduct (arrests

and failure to appear).

Key issues: Judges can detain or

set special release conditions for

defendants who are at high risk of

pretrial misconduct. As one way to

distinguish between those who will

stay crime-free and appear for trial

and those who will not, some jurisdictions test arrestees for recent

drug use. Because drug testing is

expensive, it is valuable for this

purpose only if it can improve predictions based on other, more

readily available data, such as a

defendant's criminal history and

community ties.

Findings: Overall, researchers

found some evidence that drug

test results predict pretrial misconduct. The evidence was inconsistent, however; some sites indicated

When considering a defendant for pretrial release, a judge must decide

whether there is a significant probability

that releasing the person before the trial

will pose a danger to the public. Testing

for drugs during pretrial processing may

help a judge to decide whether to order

supervised release, continued drug testing, drug treatment, or detention until

trial. Positive results from urinalysis may

be one way to identify defendants who

are at high risk of pretrial misconduct

(i.e., an arrest, or failure to appear for

trial).

Drug testing is expensive, however. To

be worthwhile, it must be able to improve predictive accuracy beyond that

offered by other, often readily available

data (e.g., criminal history, ties to the

community) in determining who will either fail to show for trial or be rearrested

following pretrial release. Because previous examinations of this issue had conflicting results, the National Institute of

Justice (NIJ) sponsored a study to analyze data previously gathered from six

different sites around the United States.

This Research in Brief summarizes the

study methods and key findings and offers

an analysis of the data.

Study methods

The data used in this study were records of

pretrial misconduct of arrestees who were

booked into jail at six sites: Washington,

D.C. (using three settings), Prince George's

County, Maryland, Milwaukee County,

Wisconsin, Maricopa County, Arizona,

Manhattan, New York, and Dade County,

Florida (see exhibit 1).

The Washington, D.C., adult pretrial release program was the prototype for programs designed for juvenile arrestees in

the District of Columbia and for defendants in Prince George's County, Milwaukee County, and Maricopa County. For

these programs, the courts received urine

test results1

 and randomly assigned several

releasees to experimental postrelease supervision programs. Researchers also used

data in Washington, D.C., collected after

the experimental phase of the project.

Testing methods. The researchers used

three tests of statistical significance—two
2

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 1: Summary of Six Sites, Their Programs, and Their Dataa

Site Subjects Dates Special Drugs Number of

Conditions Tested Cases

District of Adults, June 1984 to Experiment: cocaine 5,689

Columbia except those Jan. 1985 periodic heroin

D.C. Adults, arrested for testing; PCP

1984 Federal and treatment amphetamines

minor crimes methadone

D.C. Juveniles Juveniles Oct. 1986 to Experiment: cocaine 2,137

processed Jan. 1988 weekly heroin

through testing; marijuana

lockups bimonthly PCP

testing;

monthly

testing

D.C. Adults, Adult 1989 to drug testing cocaine 1,538

1989–1990 arrestees 1990 heroin

interviewed PCP

by NIJ Drug Use other drugs

Forecasting methadone

Program

Prince Adults booked July 1988 to Experiment: cocaine 1,072

George's Feb. 1989 drug testing heroin

County, marijuana

Maryland PCP

Milwaukee Adults booked Feb. 1989 to Experiment: cocaine 830

County, for felonies, Dec. 1989 drug testing heroin

Wisconsin serious mis- amphetamines

demeanors, and benzodiazepines

outstanding

warrants

Maricopa Adults booked Beginning of Experiment: cocaine 186

County, for felonies summer 1988 drug testing amphetamines

Arizona other drugs

Manhattan, Adults booked April to None cocaine 1,893

New York for felonies Oct. 1984 heroin

for nondrug PCP

offenses methadone

Dade County, Adults booked June to July None cocaine 1,294

Florida for felonies 1987 marijuana

excluding some

serious crimes

a

 Six diverse sites tested arrestees for recent use of several illicit substances. Sample sizes are the

number of observations that entered the analysis, not the total collected. Washington, D.C., provided three different data sets, corresponding to three different settings. To avoid confusion, the

first Washington setting is called "D.C. adults, 1984," denoting that the data pertain to adult

arrestees in 1984. The second Washington setting is called "D.C. juveniles" because the data

pertain to juvenile arrestees who were processed through lockups between October 1986 and

January 1988. The third Washington setting is called "D.C. adults, 1989–1990" to indicate that

the data pertain to adults who were arrested in 1989 and 1990.

Issues and Findings

continued . . .

drug tests could not predict any type

of behavior and others predicted either rearrest or failure to appear but

seldom both.

● Predicting rearrest. A positive test

for opiates helped predict rearrest. A

positive test for cocaine helped predict misconduct in some sites, but

the effect was not statistically significant in a combined test across all

sites. Positive tests for other drugs

showed no consistent predictive

power.

● Predicting failure to appear. A

positive test for cocaine helped predict failure to appear. Other positive

test results showed no consistent

predictive power.

This study speculated that a key

problem with urine test results was

that they cannot distinguish between

heavy and moderate drug users. This

distinction is important because

criminal behavior generally increases

with heavy drug use. Without some

measure of heavy use, the high risks

among the roughly 60 percent of

arrestees who test positive for an illicit substance appear indistinguishable from low risks for purposes of

predicting their behavior if released.

While this study did not explore the

use of pretrial drug testing to identify

arrestees in need of treatment and to

see that they receive that treatment

under judicial authority, the researchers cited this as one justification for

such testing.

Target audience: Local judges,

prosecutors, policymakers, and pretrial release program administrators.

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f
3

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

Positive

Negative

D.C. 

(Adults 

1989–1990)

Prince 

George’s 

County

D.C. 

Juveniles

D.C. 

(Adults 

1984)

Milwaukee 

County

Manhattan

Predicted Probability of Rearrest

ever, among adults tested in 1984 and

juveniles tested between 1986 and

1988, positive cocaine tests did not

predict rearrest.

In Dade County, those who tested

positive for cocaine were more likely

to be rearrested than defendants who

tested negative. But the results were

not conclusive because they were

barely statistically significant, and

other ways of examining the data resulted in different conclusions.2

Positive cocaine results were not statistically significant in any of the other

for use within each site and one for use

across all six sites.

● The first test used a likelihood ratio

test to determine if arrestees who

tested positive for recent drug use had

misconduct rates that differed from

arrestees who tested negative. This test

did not determine if rates were higher

or lower, only if they were different.

● The second used t-scores to calculate if those who tested positive for

each individual drug (e.g., cocaine,

heroin, PCP) had higher misconduct

rates than defendants who tested

negative.

● Finally, a meta-analysis combined

results from across the six sites to determine if defendants who tested positive for a particular drug engaged in

pretrial misconduct more frequently

than those who tested negative for that

drug.

In these tests, the researchers also

took into account criminal history, ties

to the community, participation in special supervision programs, and the

length of time at risk (i.e., the amount

of time between release and trial).

Drug testing results as

predictors

The data showed that except for heroin

use, pretrial drug testing did not appear to help predict rearrests and that

except for cocaine use, testing did not

help identify those who would fail to

appear for trial. Even when individuals

tested positive for more than one drug,

testing did not improve the accuracy of

predicting rearrests.

Heroin. Heroin use, as determined by

urinalysis, appeared to be a predictor

of rearrest. In Manhattan, Prince

George's County, and Washington,

D.C. (for both 1984 and 1989–90),

positive tests for opiates were substantively large in predicting rearrests

after pretrial release. Across the six

sites, results were statistically significant (see exhibit 2).

Cocaine. Positive tests for cocaine

were less conclusive. Although at

some sites cocaine-positive results

predicted rearrest, they were not statistically significant across the six

sites. In Washington, D.C., between

1989 and 1990, cocaine-positive results among adults seemed to indicate

that they could predict rearrest. HowExhibit 2: Predicted Probability of Rearrest Within 90 Days: Those Who

Tested Positive for Recent Heroin Use
4

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

large and statistically significant

(see exhibit 3).

Other drugs. Testing for marijuana,

PCP, amphetamines, and other drugs

did not appear to be particularly effective in predicting rearrest or failure to

appear. Two sites were exceptions:

Those with positive tests for amphetamines in Maricopa County and for

PCP in 1984 in Washington, D.C.,

were more likely to fail to appear for

their court dates. Inexplicably, PCP

users in 1989–90 in D.C. were more

likely to show up in court than those

who tested negative for this drug.

Other predictors of pretrial

misconduct

Rearrest. The study found that variables other than (or in addition to)

drug test results were correlated with

pretrial misconduct. A criminal history

seemed to be the best predictor of rearrest; that is, there was a high correlation between the number of previous

arrests (or convictions when arrests

were unknown) and rearrest during

pretrial release. Other indexes of a

criminal record, such as the number of

previous probation/parole revocations

and incarcerations, had varying predictive power at different sites.

The seriousness of the initial arrest

charge was found to have no effect on

the probability of rearrest. Marital status and length of time living in the

community did not seem to play strong

roles in predicting pretrial misconduct.

Failure to appear. On the other hand,

when data were available, employment

and school attendance were useful indexes in predicting both rearrest and

failure to appear.

Another finding was that the more serious the initial arrest charge, the

greater the likelihood that the defendant would appear at court. The researchers found this difficult to

explain since defendants charged with

serious crimes should have stronger

incentives to fail to show up at court

compared with those charged with less

serious crimes.

First-time arrestees

In this study, the number of prior arrests was found to be the best predictor of rearrests. So the researchers

asked, "Is a drug test useful when predicting misconduct among those who

have no recorded criminal history?"

four sites. On balance, positive cocaine tests did not consistently support the assertion that it was a

predictor of rearrests once other factors had been taken into account.

However, when taking other factors

into account, positive tests for cocaine

did predict failure to appear in court.

Statistically significant results were

found in Prince George's County,

Maricopa County, and Washington,

D.C., for adults during 1989–90 (no

data were available for juveniles).

When analyzing data across all six

sites, results were both substantively

Exhibit 3: Predicted Probability of Failure to Appear: Those Who Tested

Positive for Recent Cocaine Use

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Positive

Negative

D.C. 

(Adults 

1989–1990)

Prince 

George’s 

County

D.C. 

(Adults 

1984)

Milwaukee 

County

Maricopa 

County

Dade Manhattan

County

Predicted Probability of Failure to Appear
5

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

No effects were found at three (Dade

County, Washington, D.C., juveniles,

and Manhattan) of the five sites where

sample sizes were sufficiently large to

support an analysis of first-time

arrestees. First-time arrestees in 1984

in Washington, D.C., who tested positive for cocaine or heroin were less

likely to be rearrested than first-time

arrestees who tested negative for any

drugs. However, first-time arrestees in

1989–90 in D.C. who tested positive

for cocaine were more likely to be rearrested.

Overall, the significance of a positive

correlation between a positive drug

test and rearrest appeared slight. Firsttime drug users who tested positive for

any illicit substance were better risks

for release than repeat offenders who

did not test positive for recent drug

use.3

Issues and implications

Interpreting these findings is complicated by the lack of a clear theoretical

basis. Drug users are not a homogeneous group.4

 Some are compulsive

users while others use drugs occasionally. Criminal behavior increases with

heavy drug use, but infrequent users

may comprise a considerable percentage of arrestees testing positive for

drugs.

The inability to differentiate serious

users from infrequent users and to understand the role of drugs in the lives

of arrestees may account for the inconsistency of these and other study findings. For example, in this study 18

percent of Washington, D.C., adult defendants in 1984 and 73 percent of

Dade County defendants in 1987

tested positive for cocaine. Are they

equivalent? In 1984, D.C. users were

probably a select group using powdered cocaine, while in 1987, Dade

County users probably were using

crack primarily. Yet they have been

considered as the same category of cocaine users when analyzing whether

urine tests predicted pretrial misconduct.

Thus, one implication of these findings

is that much of the ambiguity of drugtesting results derives from the inability of urinalysis to separate high-rate

users from low-rate users, those who

are addicted and who will commit

crimes to maintain their drug needs

from those who may buy drugs on a casual basis with money they earned legitimately. Several ways may exist to

make this distinction:

● Use urine test results from two or

more previous sequential arrests to

establish that an arrestee is a problem

user. This could only be done in areas

that have established drug-testing programs, but reconstructing drug histories using a computer would be

practical. Evidence from other studies

supports the possibility that use of previous tests could help predict future

pretrial misconduct.5

● Conduct many urine tests during

the pretrial period to determine the

level of drug use. Most programs gave

the judge the option to continue testing

during pretrial release supervision,

and other researchers found that sites

replicating the D.C. program tested

defendants an average of 10 times before trial.6

 Such prospective screens

would be less expensive if they were

limited to defendants who were identified by criteria for risk that involved

more than a single positive urine test.

● Use other tests for drugs, such as

hair testing. Hair testing appears to be

a better determinant of long-term drug

consumption.

Future research might concentrate on

determining the effectiveness of these

approaches and on developing a better

understanding of the role of drug use

in offenders' lives. At present, in its

current form, pretrial drug testing may

best be used to identify those who

need treatment for drug abuse.

Notes

1. Courts in Manhattan and Dade County

did not receive drug test results.

2. The t-score was 1.805, which is just statistically significant at p <0.05. See also

Goldkamp, J., M. Gottfredson, and D.

Weiland, "Pretrial Drug Testing and Arrest Risk," The Journal of Criminal Law

and Criminology, 81:3(1990) 585–652.

3. See Smith, D., and C. Polsenberg,

"Specifying the Relationship Between

Arrestee Drug Test Results and Recidivism," The Journal of Criminal Law and

Criminology, 83:2(1992)364–77. They

analyzed the 1989–90 data for District of

Columbia adults and reported that a positive test for recent cocaine use was highly

predictive of being rearrested, especially

for first-time arrestees. However, they also

reported that these first-time arrestees

with positive cocaine tests did not have

higher rearrest rates than those who had

negative drug tests but prior criminal

records. (The researchers are indebted to

Jan Chaiken for making this observation.)

4. Chaiken, M., and B. Johnson, Characteristics of Different Types of Drug-Involved

Offenders, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1988.

5. See Toborg, M., J. Bellassai, A. Yezer,

and R. Trost, Assessment of Pretrial Urine

Testing in the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1989; Visher,
6

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

NCJ 157108

The National Institute of Justice is a

component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau

of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for

Victims of Crime.

William Rhodes is a senior scientist and acting area director,

Raymond Hyatt is a senior analyst,

and Paul Scheiman is an analyst

with Abt Associates Inc. The full

report of this study, performed

under NIJ grant OJP–89–C–009, is

available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Box

6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000;

tel. 800–851–3420, or e-mail

askncjrs@ncjrs.aspensys.com.

Ask for NCJ 150551.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20531

____________________________

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

Permit No. G–91

C., "Using Drug Testing to Identify HighRisk Defendants on Release: A Study in

the District of Columbia," Journal of

Criminal Justice, 18(1990)321–32. They

reported that defendants who failed multiple drug tests during pretrial release

were most likely to engage in pretrial misconduct. This also points to the possibility

that retrospective drug tests may be

equally useful.

6. Bureau of Justice Assistance, "Estimating the Cost of Drug Testing for A Pretrial

Services Program," Washington, D.C.,

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1989.