By Doris James Wilson

BJS Statistician

In 1998 an estimated 417,000 jail

inmates (70% of all inmates in local

facilities) had committed a drug offense

or used drugs regularly, compared to

261,000 (67%) in 1989. About 138,000

convicted jail inmates were under the

influence of drugs at the time of the

offense. About 72,000 convicted jail

inmates had used marijuana or hashish

and 59,000 had used cocaine or crack

cocaine. 

Offenders in local jails reported a

history of prior drug use similar to that

of State prison inmates. Over half of jail

(55%) and State inmates (57%) said

they had used drugs in the month

before the offense. About a fifth of

these jail inmates and a third of State 

inmates had participated in substance

abuse programs or treatment since

admission. Compared to offenders on

probation (32%), jail inmates were

more likely to report using drugs in the

month before the offense. A higher

percentage of probationers than jail

inmates had participated in treatment

since beginning their sentence (42%). 

This report, the third in the series on

prior drug use and treatment of offenders, focuses on local jail inmates and

jail jurisdictions. Past BJS reports

include Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners,

1997, and Substance Abuse and Treatment of Adults on Probation, 1995.

Samples for drug tests

collected from inmates

during June 1998* 

Percent

Number positive

Total 36,215 10.5%

Random only 3,776 7.6

Indication of use only 2,904 13.6

Random/indication of use 9,190 12.7

Combined methods 20,344 9.6

*Multiple samples may have been collected

from one inmate.

 Local jail jurisdictions with 1,000 or

more inmates collected 48% of the

samples for drug testing in June 1998.

Seven percent of the samples from

these larger jurisdictions were

positive.

 An estimated 61,000 (16%)

convicted jail inmates committed their

offense to get money for drugs. 

 Two-thirds of convicted jail inmates

were actively involved with drugs prior

to their admission to jail.

 Overall, 71% of local jail jurisdictions

reported that they had a policy to test

inmates or staff for drug use in 1998.

In June, a fourth of the jails tested

samples from inmates.

 Among jurisdictions that tested for

drugs, 70% reported loss of privileges

as the usual response to a positive

test. Over half said that they take

away good time. 

 Nearly 5 in 10 jurisdictions that test

staff reported dismissal from employment as the only action taken when

staff test positive for drug use.

 On June 30, 1998, about 92,600 jail

inmates had participated in drug and

alcohol programs or substance abuse

treatment, including inmates who may

have been enrolled in more than one

program.

 Highlights

Percent of Estimated 

 inmatesa

 1998 

All inmates

Drug offense/regular use 70.3% 417,000

Any drug offense 25.6 152,000

Convicted inmates

Under the influence

at time of offense 35.6% 138,000

Use in month before 55.0 213,000

Drugs used at time of offense

Marijuana or hashish 18.5% 72,000

Cocaine/crack 15.2 59,000

Heroin 5.6 22,000

Active drug involvementb

 65.5% 253,000

a

Based on personal interviews, 1996.

b

See page 3 for definition. 

About 10% of drug tests conducted on jail inmates in June 1998 

showed drug use

In 1998 an estimated 7 in 10 local jail inmates had used drugs regularly 

or had committed a drug offense

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs Revised 9/29/00

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report

Drug Use, Testing, 

and Treatment in Jails

May 2000, NCJ 179999
Jails are correctional facilities operated

by cities, counties, or other local

authorities. Jail inmates are persons

usually sentenced to a short term

(generally under a year) but may

include any detention status, such as

sentenced to more than a year to be

served in jail, held for State prisons

due to overcrowding, awaiting trial or

sentencing, or not yet arraigned.

Data on drug testing and treatment in

local jail jurisdictions are from the 1998

Annual Survey of Jails. A special

addendum on drug testing, sanctions,

and interventions was included with the

standard survey questions on supervised population and inmate counts

and movements. A representative

sample of 820 jail jurisdictions out of

2,890 provided information on policies

for conducting drug tests on inmates

and staff, criteria for selection for

testing, number of positive tests for

inmates, sanctions for positive test

results, and substance abuse

programs or treatment. (See Methodology for sample description.)

Other findings in this report are based

on data from the Survey of Inmates in

Local Jails, 1996. Over 6,100 inmates

from 431 jails in personal interviews

answered a series of questions on their

current and past offense history, drug

and alcohol use and treatment, family

background, and conditions of confinement. (Data on these topics with

comparison to surveys conducted in

1989 and 1983 are available in Profile

of Jail Inmates, 1996, NCJ 164620).

BJS surveys and special collections

provide a national perspective on the

prevalence of drug use and drug

crimes among local jail inmates. (See

adjacent box.) In 1996, 82% of all jail

inmates said they had used drugs at

least once in their life. Among

convicted jail inmates, 55% said they

had used illegal drugs in the month

before the offense. A quarter of jail

inmates had a current drug offense,

and over a quarter had a prior conviction for drug law violations.

2 Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails

55% of convicted jail inmates were using drugs in the month 

before the offense; 36% at the time of the offense

 A quarter of jail inmates had a current charge or conviction 

for drug law violations. About 15% had a charge or conviction for drug

possession and 9% for trafficking.

 30% of convicted jail inmates had been previously sentenced or 

incarcerated for drug possession, trafficking, or other drug offenses,

compared to 21% of unconvicted jail inmates.

 About 82% of all inmates said they had ever used drugs at least once 

and 64% said they had used drugs regularly (that is, at least once a week 

for at least a month).

 18% of convicted jail inmates said they had used intravenous drugs 

in the past, compared to 15% of unconvicted inmates.

 Nearly 1 in 6 of convicted jail inmates committed their offense 

to get money for drugs. 

Note: Based on the Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, 1996. Of the estimated

507,026 jail inmates in 1996, 62.7% were convicted on their current offense 

or serving a sentence for a prior offense; 33.4% were unconvicted, awaiting trial,

on trial, or not yet arraigned; and 3.9% had an unknown conviction status. 

/Not reported. 

a

Excludes inmates for whom the offense was unknown.

b

Excludes inmates for whom the offense of a prior probation 

or incarceration was unknown.

c

Used drugs at least once a week for at least a month.

Committed offense to get money for drugs / 15.8% /

Used at time of the offense / 35.6 /

Used in the month before the offense / 55.0 /

Intravenous drug use 17.0 18.3 14.5

Ever used regularly 64.2 67.2 59.8 c

Ever used drugs 82.4% 84.5% 79.0%

Prior drug use

Prior sentence for drug offensesb 26.6% 29.6% 21.4%

Trafficking 9.3 9.7 9.0

Possession 14.6 16.6 11.9

Current drug offensesa 25.6% 28.4% 22.1%

 All Convicted Unconvicted

 Percent of jail inmates

Drug involvement of jail inmates, 1996
In recent years drug testing and treatment have increasingly become the

focus of efforts to detect and control

drug use in jails. In assessing who

should be tested and treated for drug

use, jurisdictions may consider past

drug involvement or active drug

involvement prior to the current

admission.

Jail inmates reported high levels of

drug involvement

On specific measures of reported past

drug involvement, 64% of jail inmates 

had used drugs regularly, 42% had

received treatment, 17% had used

intravenous drugs, and 27% had a

prior sentence for drug law violations.

In combination, 74% of all jail inmates

reported some past involvement with

drugs.

In the 1996 inmate survey only convicted jail inmates were asked about

the level of drug use immediately prior

to the current offense. An estimated

66% of convicted jail inmates reported

active involvement with drugs. For this

report, active drug involvement is

defined as those who had used drugs

in the month before the offense (55%)

or at the time of the offense (36%),

committed the offense for money for

drugs (16%), had received treatment

since admission (13%), or had a

current drug charge (26%).

Nearly a third of convicted jail inmates

who had been involved with drugs in

the past were not using drugs in the

month before the offense. Among

convicted inmates about 37% said they

were using marijuana or hashish a

month before their offense, and 24%

said they were using cocaine or crack

cocaine. 

Actively drug-involved jail inmates

younger and more likely to be black

than other inmates

The proportions of actively druginvolved jail inmates varied across

gender, racial or ethnic groups, and

age categories. Males made up the

Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails 3

 had received treatment since admission

 were sentenced for a current drug offense

 committed the offense for money for drugs

 used drugs at the time of the offense 

 used drugs in month before the offense

Includes persons who 

Active drug involvement prior to current 65.5%

admission of convicted inmates

 were sentenced for past drug offenses

 used intravenous drugs

 may not currently use drugs regularly

 received drug treatment in the past

 regularly used drugs in the past

Includes persons who 

Past drug involvement of all inmates 73.7%

Percent of 

inmates Drug use of jail inmates, 1996

Assessing the need for testing and treatment in jails

*Other includes Asians, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific 

Islanders, American Indians, and Alaska Natives.

55 or older 0.4 3.4

45-54 4.2 9.2

35-44 24.6 24.4

30-34 20.2 17.4

25-29 20.3 18.2

18-24 29.0 25.9

17 or younger 1.3% 1.4%

Age

Other* 2.7 4.0

Hispanic 17.9 19.2

Black non-Hispanic 41.2 34.5

White non-Hispanic 38.2% 42.3%

Race/Hispanic origin

Female 11.0 8.7

Male 89.0% 91.3%

Gender

Other

Active drug

involvement 

Percent of convicted

jail inmates

Selected characteristics of convicted jail inmates, 1996

Note: Details may add to more than total because inmates 

may have used more than one drug. 

a

Depressants include barbiturates, tranquilizers, and Quaalude. 

b

Stimulants include amphetamine and methamphetamine. 

c

Hallucinogens include LSD and PCP.

Inhalants 1.0 0.3

Hallucinogens 4.6 1.6 c

Stimulants 10.4 6.1 b

Depressants 5.9 2.4 a

Heroin or opiates 8.8 5.6

Cocaine or crack 24.1 15.2

Marijuana or hashish 36.8% 18.5%

Any 55.0% 35.6%

At time of

the offense

In month 

before offense

Used drugs 

Type of drugs used by convicted jail inmates, 1996
majority of both actively drug-involved

and other inmates. However, women

were a larger percentage of actively

drug-involved inmates (11%) than of

other inmates (9%).

Black or African American inmates

were 41% of actively drug-involved

inmates, compared to 35% of other

inmates. Nearly equal percentages of

actively drug-involved (18%) and other

inmates (19%) were Hispanic.

About 65% of actively drug-involved

inmates were between ages 25 and 44,

compared to 60% of other inmates.

Inmates between 18 and 24 were 29%

of actively drug-involved inmates and

26% of other inmates.

Jails emphasized testing to control

drug use

In response to the inmates’ high levels

of drug involvement, many jail jurisdictions have established drug testing

policies to help control drug use in their

facilities. In 1998 about 7 in 10 jail jurisdictions reported that they had a policy

to conduct urinalysis or other tests,

such as blood, hair, and saliva

analysis, to determine drug use by

inmates or staff (table 1). (For details

on drug testing methods and procedures, see Integrating Drug Testing

into a Pretrial Service System: 1999

Update, Bureau of Justice Assistance,

NCJ 176340.)

Small jurisdictions (with fewer than 50

inmates) were less likely than jurisdictions with 1,000 inmates or more to

have a policy to conduct tests for

drugs. Six in ten small jurisdictions

said they tested inmates or staff for

drugs, compared to 8 in 10 large jurisdictions. The size of jail jurisdiction is

based on the average daily population

for the 12 months ending June 30,

1998, and reported in the Annual

Survey of Jails.

Over a fifth of the jurisdictions said they

tested inmates only, while nearly a

quarter tested staff only. A quarter

said they tested both inmates and staff.

Half of all inmates were in jails that

tested for drug use

Relative to the average daily

population, nearly 54% of all inmates

(an estimated 318,100 jail inmates)

were in jails that tested for illegal drug

use. Four percent of the inmates

subject to drug testing policies were in

small jurisdictions, although these jurisdictions represented 40% of those with

a policy to test inmates for drugs.

In contrast, the largest jurisdictions

(with 1,000 inmates or more) represented 5% of jurisdictions that tested

inmates and held 47% of inmates

subject to drug testing. 

69% of jurisdictions test inmates

mainly on indication of use

Jurisdictions use a variety of methods

to select inmates for drug testing. All

inmates in some facilities may be

tested upon entry for the first time;

inmates in other facilities may be

selected at random after a set length 

of stay or at unpredictable times or

may be tested upon indication of use 

of an illegal drug. Some jurisdictions

also test all inmates upon reentry into a

facility after an absence for activities

such as a work release, furlough, or

court visit.

4 Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails

*Based on the average daily population

between July 1, 1997, and June 30, 1998. 

1,000 or more 302,216 150,204 49.7

500-999 87,731 55,208 62.9

250-499 64,063 42,511 66.4

100-249 73,421 37,419 50.1

50-99 35,289 19,862 56.3

31,088 12,907 41.5%

Fewer than 50

inmates

Total 593,808 318,110 53.6%

 Jail inmates in

jurisdictions that

 test for drugs 

 Number Percent

All jail

inmates

Size of

jurisdiction*

*Based on the average daily population between July 1, 1997, and June 30, 1998. 

See Methodology for definition of average daily population.

1,000 or more 123 82.0 56.6 70.5

500-999 125 87.0 62.6 73.2

250-499 188 86.1 65.9 67.5

100-249 473 79.0 50.3 61.0

50-99 519 80.4 57.7 51.4

Fewer than 50 inmates 1,462 61.1% 37.5% 38.3%

Total 2,890 71.1% 46.9% 49.2%

Inmates Staff

Inmates

or staff

Number of 

Size of jurisdiction* jurisdictions

Percent of jurisdictions 

with testing policies

Table 1. Jail jurisdictions reporting drug testing policies,

by size of jurisdiction, 1998

Note: Jurisdictions may use multiple methods to test for drugs.

*Based on the average daily population between July 1, 1997, and June 30, 1998. 

1,000 or more 59.4 71.0 10.1 42.0

500-999 62.3 81.8 11.7 37.7

250-499 66.1 69.4 8.1 33.9

100-249 59.7 66.4 4.6 35.7

50-99 43.3 57.3 6.0 39.7

Fewer than 50 inmates 40.0% 74.0% 1.8% 19.0%

Total 48.9% 68.8% 4.7% 30.1%

 

Other

All at

admissions

Indication

Size of jurisdiction* Random of use

Percent of jurisdictions with testing policies

Table 2. Criteria for selecting jail inmates for drug tests,

by size of jurisdiction, 1998
In 1998 over two-thirds of the jurisdictions selected inmates for testing on

indication of use; about half selected

inmates at random; and 5% had a

policy to test all inmates at admission

(table 2).

Jurisdictions that specified other criteria for selecting inmates for testing

(30%) generally reported that they

systematically tested all offenders who

returned to the facility from a temporary

absence from custody. They also

tested inmates when requested or

required by another agency, such as

the courts, probation or parole departments, or medical services. 

Nearly 60% of jurisdictions with 100 or

more inmates said they tested inmates

randomly, compared to 40% of jurisdictions with fewer than 100 inmates.

Seven in ten of both small jurisdictions

and those with 1,000 or more inmates

reported that they tested on indication

of use. About 2% of the jurisdictions

with fewer than 50 inmates, compared

to 10% of those with 1,000 or more

inmates, reported testing all inmates at

admission.

Over two-thirds of the jails that

tested inmates had at least one

positive test

Of the jail jurisdictions that had a policy

to conduct urinalysis or other tests on

inmates for drug use, 712 jurisdictions

collected over 36,200 samples from 

inmates between June 1 and June 30,

1998 (table 3). Multiple samples may

have been taken from one inmate.

Jurisdictions with fewer than 50

inmates collected 4% of the samples;

however, they comprised about a third

of the jurisdictions that tested samples

for drugs. About half of the samples

were collected in jurisdictions with

1,000 inmates or more.

10% of tests conducted in June 1998

were positive for one or more drugs

Ten percent of the samples overall

(3,800) were positive for one or more

drugs. Over two-thirds of jurisdictions

that tested inmates had at least one

positive test, while the rate of positive

tests in jurisdictions with 1,000 inmates

or more (7%) was lower than that for

jurisdictions with fewer than 50 inmates

(28%). 

The percentage of tests found positive

for drug use varied by testing policy.

Samples that were selected on indication of use only had the highest rate of

positive results (14%), followed by both

random or indication of use (13%).

Within jurisdictions that tested only

randomly, 8% of samples were positive

for drugs.

Most jurisdictions take away inmate

privileges for a positive test result

Among the legal and administrative

sanctions that may be imposed when

inmates test positive for drugs, 70% of

the jurisdictions reported that they

usually take away inmates privileges,

while about half said they take away

good time or reclassify the offender to

a higher security level (table 4).

Twenty percent of the jurisdictions

reported that they add time to the

inmate sentence for a positive test

result, compared to 39% that charge

the offender with a new offense.

Around a quarter of all jurisdictions

said they increase drug testing after a

positive test.

Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails 5

Other combined methods 20,344 9.6

Random/indication of use 9,190 12.7

Indication of use only 2,904 13.6

Random only 3,776 7.6%

Percent

Criteria for testing Number positive

Samples collected

Other sanctions 19.9%

Mandatory treatment 8.0

Increased testing 25.4

Separation 30.0

Reclassify security level 48.9

Loss of privileges 69.9

Loss of good time 52.2%

Administrative sanctions

Add time to sentence 20.3

Charge with offense 39.3%

Legal sanctions

Percent of

Type of sanctions jurisdictions

Table 4. Sanctions imposed by 

jurisdictions after inmates test

positive for drugs, 1998

Note: Excludes jurisdictions that did not collect samples during June 1998. 

Multiple samples may have been collected from one inmate. 

*Based on the average daily population between July 1, 1997, and June 30, 1998.

1,000 or more 53 81.1 17,218 7.4

500-999 59 84.8 5,983 11.4

250-499 85 77.7 4,680 8.8

100-249 146 65.5 4,855 12.3

50-99 141 65.3 2,149 20.9

Fewer than 50 inmates 229 62.5% 1,328 28.1%

Total 712 68.8% 36,215 10.5%

Percent

Number positive

Percent with at least 

Size of jurisdiction* Number one positive test

Jail jurisdictions testing for drugs Samples collected

Table 3. Number of samples collected in jails from June 1 to June 30, 1998, 

and the percent positive for one or more drugs
Jail inmates were more likely to be

reclassified to a higher security level 

in large jail jurisdictions after a positive

test for drugs. About 7 in 10 jurisdictions with 1,000 or more inmates

reclassified offenders, compared to

almost 2 in 6 jurisdictions with fewer

than 50 inmates. 

Across all jurisdictions, only a small

percentage said that they imposed

mandatory treatment for a positive test.

About 22% of larger jurisdictions

imposed mandatory treatment for

inmates who tested positive for drugs,

followed by 10% of jurisdictions with

100 to 249 inmates, and 9% of those

with 500 to 999 inmates. Seven

percent of jurisdictions with fewer than

50 inmates mandated treatment. About

19% of small jurisdictions reported that

they separate inmates from the general

population after a positive test,

compared to 52% of large jurisdictions.

70% of jail jurisdictions tested all

staff; 20%, new employees only 

Drug testing policies to detect and

control drug use in jails also include jail

employees. About 49% of jurisdictions

said they tested staff, and 47% test

inmates. Among the 1,418 jail jurisdictions that had a policy to test staff, 70%

said that all staff were subject to testing

for illegal drug use, including supervisors, administrative staff, corrections

officers, and program or treatment

personnel. A fifth of the jurisdictions

tested only prospective employees as

a condition of employment, and 1%

tested corrections officers only. Around

7 in 10 large jurisdictions had a policy

to test staff, compared to 4 in 10 small

jurisdictions.

Jail jurisdictions were similar to other

employers with regard to testing staff

for illegal drug use. In general, employers nationwide have implemented

workplace drug testing programs to

comply with Federal regulations or

insurance requirements, to protect the

organization from safety problems and

costs associated with illegal drug use

on the job, or for a variety of other

reasons.

In the 1997 National Household Survey

on Drug Abuse, 49% of employees

who were working 35 hours or more a

week at the time of the interview said

their workplace had a drug testing

program.* The survey also included

prevalence estimates of drug testing in

the workplace by the number of

employees at an establishment. About

74% of employees at large establishments (500 or more employees) said 

their workplace had at least one type of

workplace drug testing program,

compared to slightly more than 28% for

small establishments (24 or fewer

employees).

 

*See, SAMHSA, The National Household Survey

on Drug Abuse, Workplace Drug Testing

Programs, 1997, http://www.samhsa/gov/oas/

NHSDA/A-11/WrkplcPlcy2-06.htm

6 Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails

Note: Excludes jurisdictions that did not test staff. Jurisdictions may impose multiple sanctions on staff. 

*Based on average daily population between July 1, 1997, and June 30, 1998. 

Other actions 8.4 5.2 11.2 7.3 17.2 7.8 11.6

Restrictions on inmate contact 3.8 3.4 2.6 3.5 5.5 6.7 5.8

Increased urinalysis surveillance 10.9 11.8 0.4 11.1 15.0 16.9 24.4

Referral to treatment 29.1 28.4 18.7 30.9 34.6 38.9 40.7

Referral to internal affairs or police 28.8% 19.6% 24.3% 35.8% 37.5% 37.8% 57.0%

Continued employment with 

Temporary suspension 19.9 22.3 6.7 21.5 23.4 27.8 26.7

Dismissal 70.7% 72.2% 65.2% 72.2% 66.9% 71.1% 77.9%

1,000 

50-99 100-249 250-499 500-999 or more

Fewer than

Sanctions Total 50 inmates

Percent of jurisdictions that test staff, by size of jurisdiction*

Table 6. Sanctions imposed on jail staff after a positive test for drug use, by size of jurisdiction, 1998

Note: Excludes jurisdictions that did not test staff. Jurisdictions may use one or more criteria.

*Based on the average daily population between July 1, 1997, and June 30, 1998. 

1,000 or more 55.8 60.5 3.5 39.5

500-999 50.0 51.1 1.1 34.4

250-499 59.8 48.0 7.9 25.8

100-249 64.2 40.6 9.4 24.0

50-99 50.4 31.8 12.7 31.1

Fewer than 50 inmates 72.5% 36.6% 9.5% 16.3%

Total 63.1% 39.9% 9.0% 24.0%

Other

All at least

once a year

Indication

Size of jurisdiction* Random of use

 Percent of jurisdictions that test staff

Table 5. Criteria for testing jail staff for drugs, by size of jurisdiction, 1998

*Based on the average daily population between

July 1, 1997, and June 30, 1998. 

1,000 or more 71.0 52.2 21.7

500-999 66.7 48.1 9.1

250-499 59.7 43.5 4.0

100-249 67.6 42.9 10.1

50-99 45.7 25.3 6.3

34.9% 18.5% 6.9%

Fewer than 50

inmates

Mandatory

Separation treatment

Reclassify

security

level

Size of

jurisdiction*

Type of sanctions

1,000 or more 56.6 70.5

500-999 62.6 73.2

250-499 65.9 67.5

100-249 50.3 61.0

50-99 57.7 51.4

37.5% 38.3%

Fewer than 

50 inmates

Total 46.9% 49.2%

Inmates Staff

Size of

jurisdiction

Percent of jurisdictions

with testing policies
Most jail employees are tested at

random

About 63% of jail jurisdictions reported

that they tested staff at random,

followed by 40% that tested on indication of use (table 5). Nearly threequarters of jurisdictions holding fewer

than 50 inmates said that staff were

selected at random for drug testing,

compared to over half of jurisdictions

with 1,000 or more inmates. Small

jurisdictions were less likely to select

staff on indication of use (37%) than

large jurisdictions (61%).

Around 45% of jurisdictions said that

they used a combination of criteria to

select staff for testing. About 41%

selected staff at random only, and 15%

selected on indication of use only. 

In 7 in 10 jail jurisdictions a positive

test was grounds for dismissal

Jurisdictions usually fired staff or did

not hire prospective employees after a

positive result on a test for drugs.

About 71% percent overall reported

that dismissal was the usual action

taken after a positive test result.

Nearly half (49%) of the jurisdictions

used dismissal as the only disciplinary

action for an employee who tested

positive for drugs.

In establishing policies to test staff or

inmates for drugs, jurisdictions have

adopted rules and procedures to

ensure that disciplinary actions are not

imposed for false positive test results

or for legitimate reasons such as overthe-counter or prescription medications that can cause a positive test.

Drug testing procedures generally

include chain of custody documentation, a confirmation test after the initial

positive test, drug cut-off levels for

positive or negative results, and a

medical review to certify that testing

procedures were followed. During the

review and confirmation process,

sanctions may be imposed while an

employee continues working.

Among the sanctions that permitted jail

staff to continue working after a

positive test for drugs, about 4% of

jurisdictions said they allowed staff to

continue to work with restrictions on

contact with inmates. An equal

percentage (29%) said they referred

staff either to internal affairs or the

police or to substance abuse treatment

(table 6). About 11% increased drug

testing of staff after a positive test.

Over half of the jurisdictions with 1,000

or more inmates said they referred

employees to internal affairs or police

after a positive test for drugs, compared to nearly a fifth of small jurisdictions. About 3 in 8 jurisdictions in each

category between 100 and 999

inmates said they referred staff for

legal actions after a positive drug test. 

Across all jurisdictions, a larger

percentage said they referred staff to

treatment after a positive test than

required mandatory treatment for

inmates. About 41% of large jurisdictions and 28% of small jurisdictions 

referred staff to treatment. Except jurisdictions with 1,000 inmates or more,

around 10% or less in each size

category mandated treatment for

inmates. 

Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails 7

Note: Jurisdictions may have more than one program.

*Based on the average daily population between July 1, 1997, and June 30, 1998. a

Includes residential facilities, detoxification units, professional group or individual 

counseling, rehabilitation, and maintenance drug programs. b

Includes drug or alcohol education or awareness programs, self-help groups, such 

as Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, and other peer counseling groups.

Self-help programs 63.7 52.1 67.8 73.5 86.2 87.8 88.5

Education or awareness 29.6 20.2 30.0 32.0 46.8 61.8 72.1

Other programsb 67.5% 57.3% 70.1% 77.0% 87.8% 88.0% 89.4%

Detoxification 32.1 26.0 26.2 39.7 48.1 51.2 56.6

Substance abuse treatmenta 42.8% 33.5% 38.7% 53.3% 62.2% 70.2% 73.8%

Any treatment or program 72.8% 63.2% 75.0% 83.9% 91.0% 91.9% 90.2%

1,000 or

50-99 100-249 250-499 500-999 more

Fewer than

Type of treatment Total 50 inmates

Percent of jurisdictions with treatment or programs by size of jurisdiction*

Table 7. Substance abuse treatment or programs in local jails, by size of jurisdiction, 1998
Self-help programs like Alcoholics

Anonymous or Narcotics 

Anonymous common in jails

Although jurisdictions were unlikely to

mandate treatment for inmates after a

positive drug test, almost threequarters provided substance abuse

treatment or other programs for their

inmates (table 7). Substance abuse

treatment includes detoxification,

professional counseling, a residential

stay, or maintenance drug programs.

Other programs include Alcoholics

Anonymous (AA), Narcotics Anonymous (NA), and other self-help groups,

and drug or alcohol education or

awareness.

About 43% of jurisdictions provided

substance abuse treatment, while 68%

provided other programs. Within the

specific types of substance abuse

programs provided in jails, self-help

groups (such as AA, NA, and other

peer group counseling) were the most

common (64%). About 30% had

education or awareness programs. 

Overall, 12% of jail jurisdictions

provided all types of programs and

treatment, and about 22% had only AA,

NA, or other self-help programs.

Smaller jurisdictions were less likely to

have substance abuse treatment or

programs than larger jurisdictions.

About 63% of jurisdictions with fewer

than 50 inmates had some type of

treatment or program. About 26% of

jurisdictions with fewer than 50 inmates

and of those with 50 to 99 inmates had

a detoxification unit. These jurisdictions primarily had self-help groups, 

52% and 68%, respectively. 

About 90% of jurisdictions that held

250 or more inmates provided some

type of treatment or program. Over

half of large jurisdictions had a detoxification unit. Seven in ten jurisdictions

with 1,000 or more inmates provided

education or awareness, and 8 in 10

provided self-help groups.

Large jails had three-quarters of the

total capacity for substance abuse

treatment

In the Annual Survey of Jails, jurisdictions were asked to report the capacity

for substance abuse treatment, including detoxification, professional counseling, rehabilitation, and maintenance

drug programs. About 10% or 282

jurisdictions reported that they had the

capacity to provide substance abuse

treatment. Nearly three-quarters of the

reported capacity was in jurisdictions

with 500 or more inmates.

92,600 inmates participated in drug

or alcohol programs or treatment

As of June 30, 1998, an estimated

92,600 inmates had participated in

substance abuse treatment or

programs. This included 42,100 in AA,

NA, or other self-help groups, 27,000 

in drug or alcohol education or

awareness, 2,100 in detoxification, and

21,400 in other substance abuse treatment. Inmates may have been in more

than one program. 

61% of inmates who had used drugs

at the time of the offense had

received treatment in the past

Based on self-reported information in

the jail inmates survey, over half of jail

inmates who said they had ever used

drugs and those who used regularly

had participated in substance abuse

treatment or programs in the past

(table 8). Among convicted inmates 

58% of those who had used drugs in

the month before the offense and 61%

of those who had used drugs at the

time of the offense had participated in

substance abuse treatment or

programs.

8 Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails

Note: Details add to more than total because inmates may have 

participated in more than one type of program. a

Regularly is defined as once a week for at least a month. b

Includes alcohol or drug treatment or programs. c

Includes detoxification units, professional group or individual 

counseling, rehabilitation, and maintenance drug programs. d

Includes drug or alcohol education or awareness programs, 

self-help programs, such as Alcoholics Anonymous and 

Narcotics Anonymous, and other peer counseling groups.

 Education or awareness 3.8 4.5 5.5 6.5

 Self-help 9.3 10.4 12.5 13.7

Other programsd 10.8% 12.0% 14.6% 16.0%

 Counseling 1.4 1.7 2.2 2.5

 Special facility 1.9 2.3 3.0 3.9

 Detoxification 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.4

Any treatment 3.9 4.7 5.5 6.9 c

Participated since admission 12.5% 14.0% 16.9% 19.0%

On probation/parole 23.4 26.2 30.3 32.8

In prison/jail 25.2 28.4 31.7 34.3

35.1% 38.7% 43.7% 46.6%

Participated while under

correctional supervision

Any treatment or programb 51.4% 55.7% 58.3% 61.4%

At time

of

offense

In month

before 

offense 

Ever used

regularlya Type of treatment Ever used

All jail inmates Convicted jail inmates used

Table 8. Substance abuse treatment history of jail inmates, 

by reported prior drug use, 1996
Overall, an estimated 10% of jail

inmates said they had participated in

substance abuse treatment or

programs since their admission to jail.

Of jail inmates who had ever used

drugs or had ever used them regularly,

13% and 14%, respectively, had

participated in substance abuse treatment or programs since admission.

About 17% of inmates who had used in

the month before the offense had

participated since admission. Around

19% of jail inmates who had used

drugs at the time of the offense had

participated in substance abuse treatment or programs. 

Self-help programs were the most

common activity since admission

(around 13%) for each category of

convicted jail inmates. Among all jail

inmates who had ever used drugs or

used regularly, 10% or fewer had

participated in self-help programs. 

A small percentage of jail inmates who

had ever used drugs or used regularly

(4%) had received substance abuse

treatment since admission. Around 7%

of convicted jail inmates who were

using drugs at the time of the offense

and 6% who had used drugs in the

month before the offense had participated in substance abuse treatment. 

Among convicted jail inmates who

were actively involved with drugs prior

to their admission to jail, 20% had

participated in substance abuse treatment or programs since admission.

Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails 9

About 20% of actively druginvolved offenders were on parole;

44% were on probation prior to 

their current admission to jail.

 8 in 10 actively drug-involved 

offenders had a prior offense 

or sentence to incarceration,

compared to 7 in 10 other 

offenders. 

 Over a third of actively druginvolved jail inmates had been

convicted of a violent crime in the

past, while about 13% had only

prior drug sentences. 

 Over half of drug-involved jail

inmates had served three or 

more sentences to probation 

or incarceration. 

 21% of actively drug-involved 

offenders were sentenced to 

served time in prison, compared 

to 15% of other offenders.

 Actively drug-involved offenders

who were sentenced to jail had a

median sentence of 11 months,

compared to 6 months for other

offenders. Note: Based on self-reported data in the Survey

of Inmates in Local Jails, 1996. Data on

convicted jail inmates only. a

Includes jail inmates who used drugs in the

month before the offense, had a current drug

offense, committed the offense for money for

drugs, or had received treatment since 

admission to jail. b

Includes mandatory supervised release.

Jail 11 6

Prison 60mos. 60mos.

Median maximum

sentence

Jail 57.6 69.1

Prison 20.9% 15.1%

Location to serve 

current sentence

11 or more 12.4 6.2

6-10 18.9 16.0

3-5 23.1 20.9

2 12.4 14.7

1 19.9 23.9

0 13.3% 18.3%

Number of prior sentences 

to probation or incarceration

Drug recidivists only 12.7 0.0

Violent recidivists 35.2 35.5

Priors 80.5 72.1

None 19.5% 27.9%

Criminal history

Escape 1.4 0.6

Bail/bond 15.1 11.6

Pretrial 4.7 5.1

On probation 44.1 39.6

On parole 19.3 10.9 b

Status 71.8 58.1

None 27.8% 41.2%

Status at arrest

Other 

Active drug

involvementa

Percent of convicted 

jail inmates

Criminal history profile of actively drug-involved jail inmates

72% of convicted jail inmates who had an active involvement 

in drugs were on criminal justice status at arrest 
Methodology

Survey of Inmates in Local Jails

The 1996 Survey of Inmates in Local

Jails was conducted from October

1995 through March 1996 in personal

interviews with 6,133 inmates. Similar

surveys of jail inmates were conducted

in 1972, 1978, 1983, and 1989. 

The sample for the 1996 survey design

was a stratified two-stage selection

from a universe of 3,328 jails. In the

first stage, six separate strata were

formed based on the size of the male

and female populations. In two strata

all jails were selected – those jails

housing only females and those with

more than 1,000 males or more than

50 females or both. 

In the remaining four strata, each jail

within a stratum had an equal probability of selection in the sample. Overall,

462 jails were selected. Interviews

were conducted in 431 jails; 19

refused, 8 were closed, and 4 were on

the universe list in error.

In the second sampling stage, interviewers visited each selected facility

and systematically selected a sample 

of male and female inmates using

predetermined procedures. Approximately 1 in every 100 males were

selected in 4 strata, and 1 in 83 

in the male stratum. Depending 

on the stratum, 1 in 50, 25, 24, or 21

females were selected. 

Estimates from the 1996 Survey of

Inmates in Local Jails are affected by

sampling and measurement errors.

Sampling error may occur by chance

because a sample rather than a

complete enumeration of the population was conducted. Measurement

error can be attributed to nonresponse,

differences in the interpretation of

questions among inmates, recall difficulties, and processing errors. In any

survey the full extent of the measurement error is never known.

Estimates of the standard errors for 

jail inmates identified as drug-involved

have been calculated for the 1996

survey of jail inmates (see appendix

tables 1 and 2). These standard errors

may be used to construct confidence

intervals around percentages. For

example, the 95% confidence interval

around the percentage of convicted jail

inmates who had active involvement

with drugs is approximately 65.5% 

plus or minus 1.96 times 0.90% (or

63.7% to 67.3%).

*Convicted inmates only.

Actively drug-involved* 65.5 0.90

Drug-involved in past 73.7 0.68%

Standard

error

Percent

of jail

inmates

10 Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails

...Not applicable.

money for drugs ... 0.70% ...

Committed offense to get 

Used at the time of the offense ... 0.89 ...

Used in the month before ... 0.95 ...

Intravenous drug use 0.60 0.77 0.95

Ever used regularly 0.74 0.90 1.32

Ever used drugs 0.59% 0.71% 1.06%

Prior drug use

Prior drug offense 0.71% 0.89% 1.13%

Trafficking 0.45 0.55 0.81

Possession 0.54% 0.72% 0.86%

Current drug offense

 Convicted Unconvicted

All jail

inmates

Standard errors for estimated percentages

Appendix table 1. Standard error estimation for measures of

drug involvement of jail inmates, 1996

...Not applicable. 

11 or more 0.74 0.77

6-10 0.94 1.21

3-5 1.00 1.21

2 0.73 1.18

1 0.94 1.38

0 0.79% 1.21%

Number of prior

sentences to probation 

or incarceration 

Drug recidivists only 0.45 ...

Violent recidivists 1.19 1.69

Priors 1.16 1.55

None 0.94% 1.41%

Criminal history

Escape 0.26 0.24

Bail/bond 0.84 0.99

Pretrial 0.47 0.74

On probation 1.23 1.60

On parole 0.96 0.99

None 1.07% 1.57%

Status at arrest

55 or older 0.13 0.58

45-54 0.45 0.94

35-44 1.00 1.36

30-34 0.93 1.17

25-29 0.88 1.21

18-24 1.05 1.43

17 or younger 0.30% 0.41%

Age

Other 0.42 0.79

Hispanic 1.01 1.39

Black non-Hispanic 1.52 1.96

White non-Hispanic 1.56% 2.02%

Race/Hispanic origin

Male/female 0.47% 0.50%

Other

Active drug

involvement

Selected 

characteristics

Standard errors for

estimated percentages

Appendix table 2. Standard errors

for selected characteristics of druginvolved jail inmates, 1996
These standard errors may also be

used to test the statistical significance

of the difference between two sample

statistics by pooling the standard 

errors of the two sample estimates.

For example, the standard error of the

difference between actively druginvolved inmates on criminal justice

status and other inmates would be

1.90% (or the square root of the sum 

of the squared standard errors for 

each group). The difference would 

be 1.96 times 1.90 (or 3.72%). Since

the observed difference of 13.7% (71.8

minus 58.1%) is greater than 3.72%,

the difference would be considered 

statistically significant. 

Annual Survey of Jails (ASJ)

Since 1982 the Annual Survey of Jails

has provided baseline data to estimate

characteristics of the Nation's jails and

jail inmates. The reference date for the

1998 survey was June 30. A representative sample of jails was based on

information from the 1993 Census of

jails. The sample included jails in 795

jail jurisdictions and 25 multi-jurisdiction

jails. 

A jurisdiction is a county (parish in

Louisiana) or municipal government

that administers one or more local jails.

A multi-jurisdiction jail is one in which

two or more jurisdictions have a formal

agreement to operate the facility. 

All of the multi-jurisdiction jails were

included in the survey. The remaining

jurisdictions were stratified into two

groups: jurisdictions with jails authorized to hold juveniles and jurisdictions

with jails holding adults only. All jails in

204 jurisdictions were included in the

survey if in 1993 the jurisdiction held

juveniles and had an average daily

population of 250 or more inmates, or if

it held only adults and had an average

daily population of 500 or more. The

other jurisdictions (591) were selected

based on stratified probability

sampling. The average daily population is the sum of the number of

inmates in jail each day for a year,

divided by the number of days in the

year.

Data were obtained by mailed

questionnaires. After followup

telephone calls to nonrespondents, the

response rate for the survey was

100%.

Estimates based on data from the

Annual Survey of Jails have associated

sampling errors. The estimated

relative sampling error for the number

of jurisdictions that had a policy to test

inmates on June 30, 1998, was 2.23% 

and for staff 2.22% (see appendix

table 3). 

Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails 11

1,000 or more 4.20 5.23 2.49 2.99 0.43 0.20 0.18 0.02

500-999 1.19 1.56 1.41 1.36 0.45 1.23 1.20 0.03

250-499 2.33 2.63 2.66 2.53 0.53 2.79 2.82 1.35

100-249 3.83 3.68 3.48 3.51 0.51 4.60 4.79 3.33

50-99 5.46 5.45 4.64 5.28 1.67 7.80 7.24 5.62

Fewer than 50 inmates 3.69% 3.70% 2.73% 3.41% 0.61% 5.44% 5.86% 3.52%

Total 2.23% 2.22% 1.73% 2.07% 0.44% 2.85% 2.88% 1.90%

All at least

once a year

On indication 

Random of use

All at

admission

On indication 

Size of jurisdiction Inmates Staff Random of use

Method of testing inmates Method of testing staff

Percent of

jurisdictions testing

Standard errors for estimated percentages

Appendix table 3. Standard error estimation for measures of drug testing and 

treatment in jail jurisdictions, 1998
12 Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails

The Bureau of Justice Statistics

is the statistical agency of the 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D., is director.

BJS Special Reports address a

specific topic in depth from one or

more datasets that cover many topics.

This Special Report presents the

findings from 1998 Annual Survey of

Jails with a special addendum on 

drug testing and treatment. 

Doris James Wilson wrote this report

under the supervision of Allen J. Beck.

Paula M. Ditton provided statistical

review. Tom Hester edited the report.

Jayne Robinson administered final

production.

Data collection and processing for the

Annual Survey of Jails were carried

out by Lisa McNelis, with assistance

from Henrietta Herrin, Martha Greene,

and Duane Cavenaugh, under the

supervision of Stephanie Brown,

Governments Division, U.S. Census

Bureau.

May 2000, NCJ 179999

The primary sources of data for

tables presented in this report are

the Annual Survey of Jails, 1998,

and the Survey of Inmates in Local

Jails, 1996.

Data can be obtained from the

archive through 1-800-999-0960 or

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/

NACJD/home.html

The archive may also be accessed

through the BJS website, where the

report, data, and supporting documentation are available:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/BJS

Permit No. G-91