U.S. Department of Jus~ice 

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice 

Assessment of Pretrial 

U rille Testing in the 

District of Columbia 

! JAN 15 1990 --

, 

,-

ACQUISiTIONS ' 

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.
--------------------------~ .. 

About the National Institute of Justice 

The National Institute of Justice is a principal research branch of the U.S. Department of Justice. The 

Institute's mission is to develop knowledge about crime, its causes and control. Priority is given to 

policy-relevant research that can yield approaches and infOImation that State and local agencies can 

use in preventing and reducing crime. The decisions made by criminal justice practitioners and 

policymakers affect millions of citizens, and crime affects almost all our public institutions and the 

private sector as well. Targeting resources, assuring their effective allocation, and developing new 

means of cooperation between the public and private sector are some of the emerging issues in law 

enforcement and criminal justice that research can help illuminate. 

Carrying out the mandate assigned by Congress in the Justice Assistance Act of 1984, the National 

Institute of Justice: 

• Sponsors research and development to improve and strengthen the criminal justice system and 

related civil justice aspects, with a balanced program of basic and applied research. 

• Evaluates the effectiveness of justice improvement programs and identifies programs that 

promise to be successful if continued or repeated. 

• Tests and demonstrates new and improved approaches to strengthen the justice system, and 

recommends actions that can be taken by Federal, State, and local governments, private 

organizations, and individuals to achieve this goal. 

• Disseminates information from research, demonstrations, evaluations, and special programs to 

Federal, State, and local governments, and serves as an international clearinghouse of justice 

information. 

• Trains criminal justice practitioners in research and evaluation findings, and assists practitioners 

and researchers through fellowships and special seminars. 

The Director of the Institute is appointed by the President of the United States, and upon confirmation 

by the Senate, serves at the President's pleasure. The Director establishes the research and development objectives of the Institute. The Director has final authority to approve grants, contracts, and 

cooperative agreements, and maintains responsibility for fiscal operations of the Institute. In establishing its research agenda, the Institute is guided by the priorities of the Attorney General and the 

needs of the criminal justice field. The Institute actively solicits the views of law enforcement, courts, 

and corrections practitioners as well as the private sector to identify the most critical problems and to 

plan research that can help resolve them. 

James K. Stewart 

Director 
U.S. Department or Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice 

Assessment of Pretrial Urine Testing 

in the District of Columbia 

119968 

U.S. Department of Justice 

National Institute of Justice 

This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the 

person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated 

in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily 

represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of 

Justice. 

Permission to reproduce this CSfI'lli@ilmtmaterial has been 

gra'{i~lic Domain/OJP /NIJ 

u.s. Dept. of Justjce 

to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). 

Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permission of the ~ owner. 

Mary A. Toborg 

John P. Bellassai 

Anthony M.J. Yezer 

and 

Robert P. Trost 

December 19.89 

II'I9.6,r 

Prepared for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, by Toborg Associates, Inc., under 

Grant No. 83-IJ-CX-K046. Points of view and opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and 

do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
National Institute of Justice 

James K Stewart 

Director 

The Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice 

Programs, coordinates the activities of the following 

program Offices and Bureaus: National Institute of 

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. and Office for Victims of Crime. 
(.~ 

--

F'oreword 

Early in 1984, the National Institute of Justice devised a 

research plan to delernline the effect of required drug testing 

on the behavior of drug-using defendants granted pretrial 

release in the community. Earlier research had shown that 

offenders committed crimes at much higher rates during 

periods when they were actively using drugs than durillg 

times when they were drug free. We hypothesized that the 

risk of pretrial misconduct could be reduced if defendants 

who used drugs could be identified at arrest, their release 

conditioned on the requirement to remain drug free, and their 

compliance with that condition monitored by mandatory 

drug testing during the pretrial release period. Working in 

cooperation with the Superior Court and the Pretrial Services 

Agency of the District of Columbia, the Institute sponsored 

the operation and evaluation of such a program, thus 

building a bridge between criminal justice research and 

poHcy formuiation. 

As the authors of this study report, systematic pretrial drug 

testing can decrease the risk of defendants' pretrial 

misconduct. Defendants who participated in the program 

had rearrest rates similar to those of non-drug users, while 

defendants who violated conditions and dropped out were 

-------------~----

= 

rearrested at a rate funy twice that of those who participated 

and of nonusers. 

The District of Columbia assumed full funding for continued 

operation of the program after the study period. The Bureau 

of Justice Assistance is currently funding repUcations in six 

jurisdictions across the f.:ountry; three of these are being 

evaluated by the National In::;titute of Justice. Indeed, these 

efforts provide the foundation for elements of the President's 

National Drug Control Strategy, which calls for the adoption 

of drug testing program s throughout the criminal justice 

system, including testing at arrest and during pretrial release. 

Thus, information on the experience and operation of pretrial 

testing programs is important as State and local governments 

wrestle with the problems of drug abuse and drug-related 

crime. The National Institute of Justice is proud to have 

sponsored the iniltial research on this topic and hopes the 

findings will be useful to both public officials and justice 

professionals throughout the country. 

James K. Stewart 

Director 
Acknowledgments 

A study of this scope required the as);1stance of a great many 

persons. We would especially like to thank James K. 

Stewart, Director of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), 

for his keen and abiding interest in pretrial urine testing and 

its potential usefulness to the criminal justice system. We 

would also like to thank other individuals at NI] for their 

help during the course of the project-in particular, Paul 

Cascarano of the Office of Communications and Research 

Utilization (OCRU), which had oversight of this project, 

Virginia Baldau and Jonathan Budd of the Research 

Applications and Training Division, and John Spevacek of 

the Adjudication and Corrections Division. Also, Bernard A. 

Gropper of the Center for Crime Control Research provided 

helpful, substantive suggestions throughout the study. 

The project would not have been possible without the 

support of the D.C. Superior Court, particularly Chief Judge 

Fred B. Ugast and former Chief Judge H. Carl Moultrie. 

Other judges and hearing commissioners also contributed 

significantly. We especially appreciated their willingness to 

discuss their views with us during the research project, which 

helped the study reflect these practitioners' perspectives on 

events as well as the results of data analyses. 

In addition, the cooperation of the entire staff of the D.C. 

Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) was necessary for the 

ii 

successful implementation not only of the urine-testing 

program but also of our research and evaluation. Although 

thanks are owed to the entire staff, we would especially like 

to thank John A. Carver, Director; Kathy Reade-Boyer, 

Director of Administrative Services; Johnny Jordan, 

Director of the Drug Detection Unit; and Edmond Pears, 

former Director of the Drug Detection Unit, for working with 

us to develop operational procedures compatible with the 

research study. Also, Marcello Macherelli, Matthew 

McCauley, and J. Daniel Welsh assisted uS in compiling the 

data base for analysis. 

We also appreciate the assistance of Eric Wish, who 

conducted a research project involving urine testing of 

arre<;tees in New York City. Dr. Wish was genemus in 

sharing interim findings from hi:;; study with us. 

We would like to thank Carmela Quintos and Hormoz 

Hekmatpanah, research assistants on the project, for their 

help with the quantitative analyses of risk classification and 

signaling discussed In chapters 3 and 4 of this Summary 

Report. Finally, we would like to thank Faye Logan, 

administrative assistant to the projcct, for hcr hclp with the 

many administrative and secretarial tasks that this project 

entailed. 
Table of Contents 

Foreword ......................... 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• c. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• It ....... c. .................................... i 

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................................................ ii 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................ vi 

Chapter 1: Description of PSA's Urine-Testing Program ....................................................................................................... 1 

Program Goals ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Initial Urine Testing in the Lockup ...................................................................................................................................... 1 

Periodic Urine Testing as a Condition of Pretrial Release ................................................................................................... 1 

Special Court-Ordered Urinalyses of Pretrial Releasees ...................................................................................................... 2 

Management of Drug-Testing Information .......................................................................................................................... 2 

Chapter :'t: ResuJts of Lockup Testing ....................................................................................................................................... 4 

Rates of Drug Use Among Arrestees ................................................................................................................................... 4 

Comparison of Urine-Test Results With Defendants' Self-Reports ..................................................................................... 5 

Drug Use by Charge ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 

Rates of Drug Use by Age and Gender ................................................................................................................................ 6 

Rates and Types of Pretrial Release ..................................................................................................................................... 7 

Chapter 3: The Efficacy of Using Urine-Test Results in Risk Classification of Arreste-2S ................................................... 9 

Chapter 4: Periodic Urine Testing as a Signaling Device for Pretrial Release Risk ................................ " ......................... 12 

lBackground .................................................................................................................... , ................................................... 12 

Major Findings ................................................................................................................................................................... 13 

Conclusions and Policy Implications ................................................................................................................................. 15 

Chapter 5: Outlook for the Future .......................................................................................................................................... 17 

Appendixes 

A: Detailed Results of Risk Classification Analyses ............................................................................................................. 19 

B: Description of the Experimental Component of the D.C. Pretrial Services Agency's 

Urine-Testing Program for Defendants Awaiting Trial .................................................................................................. 23 

C: Detailed Results of Analyses Supporting Conclusions on Signaling ............................................................................... 26 

D: Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................................................ 30 

Glossary of Variables ..•...........•......•................•..•...•......•. ., ........................................................................................................... 34 

iii 
List of Tables 

1 Comparison of Urine-Test Results With Arrestces' Self-Reported Drug Use in Washington, D.C ..................................... 5 

2 Drug Use by Charge, Washington, D.C ............................................................................................................................... 6 

3 Drug Test Results by Age, Gender, and Drug ...................................................................................................................... 7 

4 Pretrial Release Rates by Number and Types of Drugs Used, Washington, D.C ................................................................. 8 

5 Results of Multivariate Analyses To Identify Major Factors Affecting Pretrial Outcomes ................................................. 9 

6 Pretrial Rearrest, Failure-To-Appear, and Misconduct Rates by Urine-Testing Status ...................................................... 14 

A-I Trivariate Probit Estimates of Pretrial Rearrest, Failure To Appear, and Pretrial Misconduct .......................................... 20 

C-l Differences in Probability of Pretrial Rearrest, Failure To Appear, and Overall Pretrial Misconduct Based on 

Appearance for Urine Testing ............................................................................................................................................. 26 

C-2 Relation Between Defendant Characteristics, Including Lockup Test Results and Pretrial Misconduct ........................... 27 

iv 
List of Figures 

I Drug Test Results for Selected Drugs .................................................................................................................................. 4 

A-I Three-Stage Model of Pretrial Misconduct ........................................................................................................................ 21 

B-1 Flow Diagram for Arrested Drug Users in the District of Columbia (June 1984-Jan. 1985) .......................................... .,. 24 

v 
Introduction 

Concern about drug abuse permeates American society. For 

example, a recent national poll found that 96 percent of 

American voters would like to see effective programs to 

fight the drug problem. This item ranked highest of any item 

on a list of actions that might be undertaken by the new 

President. In fact, 72 percent of the voters surveyed thought 

that programs to combat drug abuse would begin during the 

next 4 years.! 

Although the widespread concern about drug abuse has many 

aspects, the relationship between drug use and crime is of 

particular importance in many communities. Interest in the 

topic has increased in recent years since cocaine use-often 

in the form of "crack"-has spread throughout the Nation 

and compounded preexisting drug problems stemming from 

the illicit use of heroin, phencyclidine (PCP), amphetamines, 

and other substances. As a result, there is great interest in 

finding effective programs to deal with the drugs-and-crime 

problem. This summary report presents the results of such a 

program, one aimed at drug use by defendants arrested on 

criminal charges in the District of Columbia. 

Beginning in March 1984, the D.C. Pretrial Services Agency 

(PSA), an independent agency of the D.C. government, 

inaugurated a comprehensive pretrial urine-testing program 

for the criminal justice system of the District of Columbia, 

initially with funds awarded by the National Institute of 

Justice (NIl), and subsequently with funds provided by the 

D.C. government. PSA is charged by law with (1) 

interviewing all arrestees to determine their eligibility for 

pretrial release; (2) making recommendations to the court on 

appropriate terms for pretrial release in all criminal cases; 

and (3) monitoring compliance with pretrial release 

conditions for all defendants, except those released on surety 

bond. 

PSA and its predecessor, the D.C. Bail Agency, have 

performed these functions for more than two decades. It has 

been publicly recognized for its innovative approaches to 

pretrial release. In 1982, NIJ designated PSA an "Exemplary 

Project."2 

In Washington, D.C., virtually all arrestees are brought to the 

D.C. Superior Court lockup; the exceptions are defendants 

charged with Federal offenses or relatively minor crimes. 

At the time of arrest, PSA attempts to test all adult arrestees 

for the presence of specific drugs in their urine. These drugs 

are opiates (primarily heroin), cocaine, PCP, amphetamines, 

and methadone. After the arrestees have provided urine 

vi 

samples, PSA staff members take the samples from the court 

lockup directly to PSA's laboratory (located in the same 

building), where they are analyzed using the enzyme 

multiplied immunoassay technique (EMIl). 

With test results available that same day, PSA's incourt 

representatives, who are present at the bail-setting hearing, 

make pretrial release recommendations to the court. A 

pretrial release hearing in the District of Columbia is an 

adversarial proceeding between the defendant and defense 

attorney on one hand and the prosecutor on the other. 

After listening to both sides and reviewing PSA's report, the 

hearing commissioner makes a release decision. A release 

hearing usually takes only a few minutes in Superior Court. 

Under D.C. law, a defendant may be released on personal 

recognizance; on nonfinancial conditions (Le., subject to 

certain restrictions on travel, association, behavior, etc.); on 

financial conditions (Le., cash, surety, or deposit bond); or 

into the custody of a third party. He or she may also be 

preventively detained if no condition or combination of 

cnnditions will adequately protect against the defendant's 

fleeing or endangering the community. 

Most arrestees (about 85 percent) in the District of Columbia 

are released pending trial, rather than detained. Of the 

released defendants, more than 80 percent are released on 

some form of nonfinancial pretrial release.3 PSA monitors 

compliance with any nonfinancial conditions of release 

imposed on defendants; this monitoring continues until a 

case reaches disposition. 

Before PSA 's urine-testing program began, the only release 

option specific to the needs of drug users had been referral to 

treatment. With the advent of Ihe drug-testing program, 

however, a new release alternative became available for 

drug-using defendants, namely, placement in PSA's program 

of periodic urine testing before trial. The court considers 

continued drug use by a defendant, as shown by the urinetest results, a violation of pretrial release conditions. When 

PSA reports the violation to the court, it may impose 

sanctions. Because of the increased likelihood that sanctions 

would be imposed for a violation of release conditions, PSA 

considered placement in this program likely to encourage 

defendants to forego drug use during the pretrial period. If 

drug use and crime are often related, as research indicates, 

lower drug use could reduce defendants' pretrial criminality.4 

FinaIly, defendants who succeeded in the urine testing 

program could be expected to be better risks for release than 

those who failed the program. 
Under a parallel NIJ grant, distinct from PSA' s grant for 

program operations, Toborg Associates, Inc., evaluated 

PSA's urine-testing program. The evaluation focused on an 

8-month period (June 1984 to January 1985) early in PSA's 

pretrial urine-testing program. For analyses of failure to 

appear and pretrial rearrest, cases initiated during this 8-

month period were followed to final disposition. The study's 

findings are the subject of a series of five monographs, as 

follows: 

• Background and Description of the Urine-Testing 

Program presents background information on drug-andcrime relationships generally and, in particular, in the 

District of Columbia; on the workings of the D.C. criminal 

justice system; and on the overall organization and mission 

of PSA. It also describes in detail the operations of PSA' s 

urine-testing program, the program components, and the 

ways they were implemented.5 

• The Views of Judicial Officers presents the findings from 

interviews with 15 D.C. Superior Court hearing 

commissioners and trial judges who had recently heard 

criminal cases, conducted approximately 1 year after the start 

ofPSA's urine-testing program. Topics covered include 

judges' use ofPSA's urine-testing information, their 

comparison of the current drug- testing program with the 

situation before PSA's program began, their opinion about 

the program's impact, and their assessment of the drug-{;rime 

problems in the District of Columbia.6 

• Analysis of Drug Use Among Arrestees presents major 

findings from PSA's urine testing of arrestees in the D.C. 

Superior Court lockup. The monograph discusses the rates 

and types of drug use found; the characteristics of drug users 

as compared with nonusers; the results of urine tests 

compared with defendants' self-reports of drug use; and the 

pretrial release rates of drug users? 

• The Efficacy of Using Urine-Test Results in Risk 

Classification of Arrestees considers the extent to which the 

initial urine-test results from the lockup testing can predict 

differences in expected pretrial misconduct (Le., pretrial 

rearrest and/or failure to appear for court).8 The statistical 

analysis of this issue, presented in the monograph, takes into 

account the "selection bias" that arises because (1) some 

arrestees were not tested; and (2) some arrestees were not 

released before trial. 

• Periodic Urine-Testing as a Signaling Device for Pretrial 

Release Risk presents a stat.istical analysis of the relation and 

possible correlation between the behavior of defendants 

ordered by the court into PSA's pretrial urine-testing 

program and subsequent pretrial misconduct, that is, pretrial 

rearrest and/or failure to appear for court. In particular, the 

-

monograph considers whether the urine-testing program can 

be viewed as a "signaling device" in which defendants, 

released to await trial, pose either high or low pretrial release 

risks.9 

This summary report presents the majoli findings and 

conclusions from four of these monographs; it parallels the 

more detailed discussions in the individual monographs 

summarized above. 1o Chapter 1 describes PSA's pretrial 

urine-testing program; chapter 2 considers the results of the 

initial lockup testing; chapter 3 discusse& the efficacy of 

using urine-test results in risk classification of arrestees; and 

chapter 4 assesses periodic urine testing as a signaling device 

for pretrial release risk. Chapter 5 provides a brief 

discussion of the outlook for the future, both in the District 

of Columbia and elsewhere. This report provides no separate 

summary of the monograph, The Views of Judicial Officers; 

instead, it integrates salient comments by the judges and 

hearing commissioners into the various chapters. 

Notes 

1. These results were reported in The Washington Post, 

"Bush Will Increase Taxes, Most People in Survey Believe; 

Work on Drugs, Arms, Environment, Deficit Most 

Uniformly Supported," November 12, 1988, AlD. 

2. Giannina P. Rikoski and Debra Whitcomb, An Exemplary 

Project: The D.C. Pretrial Services Agency, Washington, 

D.C. (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. 

Department of Justice, May 1982). 

3. Mary A. Toborg et al., Pretrial Release Assessment of 

Danger and Flight, Appendix G (report to the D.C. Pretrial 

Services Agency, June 1984) and D.C. Pretrial Services 

Agency, 1985 Annual Report, as well as Annual Reports for 

later years (Government of the District of Columbia). 

4. Major findings from these studies are reviewed in several 

articles, including Robert P. Gandossy et al., Drugs and 

Crime: A Survey and Analysis of the Literature 

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 

1980); Bernard A. Gropper, Probing the Links Between 

Drugs and Crime (Washington, DC: National Institute of 

Justice Research in Brief, February 1985); William H. 

McGlothlin, "Drugs and Crime," in Handbook on Drug 

Abuse, ed. Robert L. Dupont et aI. (Rockville, MD: National 

Institute on Drug Abuse, 1979); Maxine L. Stitzer and Mary 

E. McCaul, "Criminal Justice Interventions With Drug and 

Alcohol Abusers: The Role of Compulsory Treatment," in 

Behavioral Approaches to Crime c<JldDelinquency, ed. 

Edward K. Morris and Curtis J. Braukmann, eds., (New 

vii 
York: Plenum Press, in press); Jared R. Tinklenberg, "Drugs 

and Crime," in Drug Use in Arnerica: Problem in 

Perspective, Appendix, Vol. I, National Commission on 

Marihuana and Drug Abuse (Washington, DC: U.S. 

GovemmentPrinting Office, 1973); James C. Weissman, 

"Understanding the Drug!> and Crime Connection: A 

Systematic Examination of Drugs and Crime Relationships," 

Journal of Psychedelic Drugs 10 (1979): 171-192; and Eric 

D. Wish and Bruce D. Johnson, "The Impact of Substance 

Abuse Upon Criminal Careers," in Criminal Careers and 

"Career Criminals," Volume II, ed. Alfred Blumstein ct al. 

(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1986). 

5. Mary A. Toborg and John P. Bellassai, Background and 

Description of the Urine-Testing Program (monograph 

prepared under a grant from the National Institute of Justice, 

U.S. Department of Justice, as part of the study entitled, 

Assessment of Pretrial Urine Testing in the District of 

Columbia, March 1988). 

6. Mary A. Toborg and John P. Bellassai, The Views of 

Judicial Officers (monograph prepared under a grant from 

the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 

as part of the study entitled, Assessment of Pretrial Urine 

Testing in the District of Columbia, Mard" 1988). 

viii 

7. Mary A. Toborg, Anthony M.J. Yezer, and John P. 

Bellassai, Analysis of Drug Use Among Al'restees 

(monograph prepared under a grant from the National 

Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, as part of the 

study entitled, Assessment of Pretrial Urine Testing in the 

District C'fColumbia, March 1988). 

8. Anthony M.J. Yezer, Robert P. Trost, and Mary A. 

Toborg, The Efficacy of Using Urine-Test Results in Risk 

Classification of Arrestees (monograph prepared under a 

grant from the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department 

of Justice, as part of the study entil.led, Assessment of 

Pretrial Urine Testing in the District of Columbia, March 

1988. 

9. Anthony M.J. Yezer et al., Periodic Urine Testing as a 

Signaling Device for Pretrial Release Risk (monograph 

prepared under a grant from the National Institute of Justice, 

U.S. Department of Justice, as part of the study entitled, 

Assessment of Pretrial Urine Testing in the District of 

Columbia, May 1988). 

10. These monographs are available from the National 

Criminal Justice Reference Service, P.O. Box 6000, 

Ro<:kville, MD 20850. 
Chapter 1 

Description of PSA's Urine-Testing Programl 

Program Goals 

Washington, D.C., unlike many other urban jurisdictions 

with a substantial crime problem, has always had a high rate 

of pretrial release. Moreover, nonfinancial pretrial releaserelease on personal recognizance or release with nonfinancial 

conditions-has been ordered for the majority of defendants 

in recent years.2 High rates of nonfinancial pretrial release 

re~ult, in large part, from PSA gathering and verifying 

background information on defendants for the bail-setting 

judges to usc; setting reasonable release conditions for bail 

under D.C. law (to insure return for trial and avoidance of 

criminal activity while released); effectively monitoring 

conditions of release in individual cases; and reporting 

violations to the court. 

PSA's purpose for its pretrial drug testing program was 

twofold: (1) to provide a more reliable method (via lockup 

urine testing) for the bail-setting judges to determine whether 

a defendant had recently uscil drugs; and (2) to offer the 

court a reasonable and reliable new condition of pretrial 

release-periodic urine testing, monitored by PSA-that will 

reduce the risk of failure to appear and the risk of pretrial 

rearrest, while providing a signaling mechanism for pretrial 

release risk. 

Initial Urine Testing in the Lockup 

The initial determination of drug use is made, in most cases, 

while arrestees are held in the Superior Court lockup 

awaiting pretrial release determination.3 Starting at 7:00 

a.m., PSA staff interview defendants. They ask about 

residence, employment, health, criminal history, drug and 

alcohol usc, and any pending court cases. Since the 

establishment of the drug detection program, urinalysis data 

have supplemented this information by showing whether 

samples of the defendants' urine, taken in the lockup, contain 

traces of illegal drugs. 

PSA staff working in the cellblock, as part of pretrial 

interviewing, request that defendants provide urine; and staff 

then collect the specimens. Urinalysis results are then used 

to set the conditions for pretrial release. Although compliance is voluntary at this stage, relatively few defendants 

refuse to provide urine specimens.4 

Technicians collect the first batch of urine samples, then 

hand-carry the specimens from the lockup area to PSA's 

laboratory, where they are tested. Strict chain-of-custody 

procedures are maintained at all times. 

Any sample that tests positive for a dn.!g is retested, again 

using EMIT, to verify the finding. Test results on the first 

batch of lockup samples are ready for presentation to Ll)e 

court by 10:30 a.m., when the day's first pretrial release 

hearings are held. 

Periodic Urine Testing as a Condition 

of Pretrial Release 

Defendants who test positive for one or more drugs at the 

initial (lockup) screening may be ordered by the court into a 

weekly urine-testing program. Each day, the PSA drug 

unit's intake workers process and track defendants who are 

scheduled for urine testing. In addition, intake workers 

provide defendants with a written appointment sheet 

indicating the date of the next scheduled urine test, and 

explain the sanctions they could face for noncompliance. 

When defendants appear for their appointments, intake 

workers obtain urine samples and, using the lockup testing 

procedures, enter the results in PSA's computerized 

information system. They also record if defendants fail to 

appear for scheduled urine-testing appointments during the 

pretrial release period. Defendants are in violation of the 

program's rules after (a) two consecutive positive drug tests; 

or (b) one positive test and one failure to appear in 2 

consecutive weeks; or (c) three positive tests, or failures to 

appear, within a 3-month period. 

Under the procedures in effect when PSA conducted this 

study, defendants who failed the regular urine testing 

program were given a choice of entering a drug abuse 

treatment program or entering a PSA program of intensive 

urine testing. Defendants who entered the intensive urinetesting program had to report twice a week for urinalysis. If 

they failed to report or if they were found drug-positive 

twice, they failed the intensive urine-testing program. At 

that point, PSA would report to the court that the defendant 

had violated the conditions of pretrial release. PSA's urinetesting program had-and still has-two stages of sanctions. 

PSA initially imposes internal administrative sanctions by 

1 
requiring the defendant to enter treatment or to report for 

more frequent urine testing. If the defendant fails to comply 

with the enhanced program requirements, PSA sends an 

official violation notice to the court, along with a 

recommendation that a hearing determine whether the 

defendant is in contempt of court. 

Judges have reacted in various ways to PSA's notices that 

defendants have violated their release conditions. Many 

judges have held "show cause" hearings, with many 

defendants sentenced for contempt. Some judges will 

sentence the defendant to 30 or 60 days in jail for contempt 

of court but will.suspend all but 2 or 3 days of the sentence. 

According to judges who use this approach, it provides an 

additional hold over defendants when they are subsequently 

released, because they know the balance of the suspended 

contempt sentence may be imposed if they continue to 

violate their release conditions. Another approach is to 

sentence a defendant to 1 day of incarceration for contempt 

of court-a sentence that can be served in the court's lockup, 

and therefore does not require that the defendant be booked 

in and out of the crowded D.C. jai1.s 

Special Court-Ordered Urinalyses of 

Pretrial Releasees 

On occasion, the court may request a "one test" urinalysis 

when a defendant returns to court as scheduled for pretrial 

motions, plea entry, sentencing, etc. In these cases, PSA 

col1cets and processes samples using procedures employed in 

initial screening. The test result is taken directly to the 

requesting judge, usually within an hour of the request. If 

the test is positive for drugs, the judge may order the 

defendant into PSA's urine testing program. 

Management of Drug-Testing 

Information 

PSA conducts thousands of urine tests each month and, 

hence, faces a major management information task. The 

Agency must ensure that all test results are recorded 

accurately and can be retrieved for any given defendant on 

short notice. PSA can manage the drug-testing information 

effectively by using the automated management information 

system (MIS) in place before the initiation of the drugtesting program in March 1984. 

2 

Within hours of arrest, PSA's MIS will contain comprehensive information for each defendant on present 

offense; concurrent probation, parole, or pretrial release 

status in other criminal cases; prior criminal history; 

community ties; employment status; and other personal 

history information. PSA obtains these data from interviews 

with al1 D.C. criminal defendants and from telephone 

verification with outside sources. With the advent of the 

drug-testing program, PSA expanded the MIS to include the 

results of the initial lockup test, subsequent tests during the 

pretrial release period, scheduled testing dates, and whether 

the defendant appeared. 

PSA's enabling legislation6 stipulates that information from 

defendants to set conditions of release may not be used 

against the defendant in any subsequent proceeding. PSA 

interprets this broad restriction to cover urine-test results 

during the pretrial period. Consequently, urine-test results 

cannot be used to determine guilt or innocence on the 

underlying charge, nor can positive test results be used 

against defendants who are arrested while on parole or 

probation on condition they remain drug free.7 

Consistent with its sWtutory authorization, PSA places strict 

limits on access to test results, compliance information, and 

drug program participation. PSA provides such information 

only on a need-to-know basis and with the defendant's 

consent, and only to the court, defense attorneys, and 

prosecuting attorneys for pretrial release representations and 

decisions. PSA does not provide urine-test results to 

families of defendants, victims, witnesses, the police, or the 

media. 

The limits that PSA has placed on who can be tested and on 

access to test results are keys to the program's success and 

its acceptance within the local criminal justice system. 

PSA has worked closely with individual Superior Court 

judges, the prosecutor's office, and the police department, as 

well as with probation and parole personnel. PSA has gained 

acceptance for its interpretation of confidentiality in its 

governing statute, and use of urine-test results in the criminal 

justice system. 

The next chapter presents key findings on drug use among 

arrestees in the District of Columbia, as determined by 

PSA's urine-testing program. It also details how the 

objective data on defendants' drug use changed commonly 

held views on the extent of drug use among arrestees and on 

the types of drugs used. 
Notes 

1. This discussion applies to procedures in effect during the 

period of the research study, which ended January 31, 1985; 

some procedures were changed subsequently. See also John 

A. Carver, "Drugs and Crime: Controlling Usc and 

Reducing Risk Through Testing," National Institute of 

JusticeResearch in Action series, September/October 1986; 

and James K. Stewart, "Quid Pro Quo: Stay Drug Free and 

Stay on Release," George Washington Law Review 57, no. 1 

(November 1988): 68-76. 

2. See Introduction, note 3. 

3. Formerly, defendants charged with misdemeanors and 

released on citations from police stationhouses were not 

tested for drug use. However, after the first year of 

operation, the Superior Court's hearing commissioners began 

to request with increasing frequency that citation releasees be 

tested for drug use at their first scheduled court appearance. 

4. A hearing commissioner or judge will sometimes order a 

defendant who refused to provide PSA with a urine sample 

in the lockup to report to PSA for a urine test as a condition 

of release. 

5. Toborg and Bellassai, The Views of Judicial Officers, 5-6. 

6. D.C. Code, Chapter 13, Pretrial Services and Pretrial 

Detention, Sec. 23-1301, et seq. 

7. Some judges reported that defendants' perfomJance in the 

urine-testing program, either before trial or after conviction 

but pending sentencing, affected sentencing decisions for 

those defendants who were convicted. Successful urine-test 

results prior to sentencing were viewed as good indicators 

that probation outcomes were likely to be successful as well. 

On the other hand, continued drug use before trial or pending 

sentencing was considered a strong indicator that drug use 

would likely continue, if the user was placed on probation. 

Because of the perceived relationship between drug use and 

crime, several judges reported a reluctance to place persons 

who cannot abstain from drug use on probation. Toborg and 

Bellassai, The Views of Judicial Officers, op. cit., pp. 9-10. 

3 
Chapter 2 

Results of Lockup Testing 

As discussed in the last chapter, PSA's urine-testing program 

has two major components: (1) lockup testing of defendants 

shortly after arrest; and (2) periodic testing of selected 

defendants who are awaiting trial. This chapter presents 

major findings from the lockup testing, including the rates of 

drug use and the kinds of drugs used, and provides a 

comparison of urine-test results with defendants' self-reports 

of drug use. 

Rates of Drug Use Among Arrestees 

With the initiation ofPSA's urine-testing program in March 

1984, objective data became available about the extent of 

drug use among arrestees in the District of Columbia. 

These data showed a much higher rate of drug use than 

expected: more than half the tested arrestees used one or 

more of the five drugs for which the tests were 

Figure 1 

Drug Test Results for Selected Drugs 

(Based on 70,489 tests of arrestees, Mar. 1984-Dec. 1988) 

Percent 

80 

60 

40 

20 

Any Drug 

eonducted-opiates, cocaine, PCP, amphetamines, and 

methadone. Before the urine-testing program, local criminal 

justice officials had thought that about one-fourth of 

arrestees would test positive. The extent of drug use among 

arrestees, as determined by urine tests, was approximately 

double this level. Moreover, because urinalysis detects drugs 

in the urine for a limited time (approximately 2 to 8 days, 

depending on the drug) and because the urine tests are 

conducted only for selected drugs, it is likely that the extent 

of drug use among arrestecs is higher than the urine tests 

indicate. 

Drug use among arrestees has not declined since PSA' s 

urine-testing program began. As shown in figure 1, rates of 

drug use have increased since that time. In December 1988, 

for example, almost three-fourths of the arrestees tested 

drug-positive. 

o L-~ ______ -L ______ ~ ______ L-____ ~ ______ -L ______ ~ ______ ~ ____ ~ ______ ~ __ ~ 

June December I 

1984 

June December I 

1985 

June December I 

1986 

June December I 

1987 

June December 

1988 

4 
When PSA's urine-testing program first began, the rate of 

drug use was highest for pcp (used by about one-third of the 

tested arrestees), followed by opiates (used by about onefifth of those tested), and cocaine (used by about one-sixth of 

those tested). Use of amphetamines or methadone was 

comparatively rare (less than 5 percent of the tested arrestees 

used each of these drugs). The high rate of pcp use 

surprised many people in the jurisdiction. As a result of this, 

and the subsequent media attention it received, new efforts 

were initiated to expand the treatment facilities for pcp users 

in the District ,of Colum bia. 

Over time, PCP use increased and then declined, while 

opiate use remained fairly stable for more than 2 years and 

then declined slightly. Cocaine use increased dramatically 

over the same time period. By December 1988, fully 64 

percent of the tested arrestees were positive for cocaine; 

this is four times higher than the rate of cocaine use when 

PSA's urine-testing program began in March 1984. 

Many drug-positive defendants used more than one drug; 

indeed, approximately one-third of the drug-positive 

Table 1 

defendants used several drugs. The most common 

drug-use combinations were (1) opiates and cocaine and (2) 

cocaine and PCP. 

Comparison of Urine-Test Results With 

Defendants'Self-Reports 

Because PSA asks defendants about their drug use in its 

lockup interview, the defendants' self-reported drug use can 

be compared with the urine-test results. As shown in table 1, 

during the 8-month period (June 1984-January 1985) studied 

by the Toborg Associates' research project,' less than onehalf of the drug users identified by urine tests told PSA they 

were using drugs. 

PCP users were especially unlikely to report that they were 

using drugs--only about one-third did so. Heroin users were 

the most likely to report drug use, perhaps because the signs 

of intravenous heroin use are frequently difficult to disguise. 

Even so, more than one-third of the heroin users did not 

report any drug use. 

Comparison of Urine-Test Results With Arrestees' Self-Reported Drug Use in Washington, D.C. (June 1984-Jan.1985) 

Total number Arrestees who self-reported their drug use 

Type of drug use of drug users 

identified by identified by Percent of 

urine test urine test Number total users 

Any drug 3,282 1,457 44.4% 

One drug only 2,172 819 37.7 

Two or more drugs 1,110 638 57.5 

Cocaine only 376 130 34.6 

Opiates only 446 277 62.1 

PCP only 1,264 386 30.5 

Opiates and cocaine only 439 325 74.0 

Cocaine and PCP only 302 108 35.8 

Opiates and PCP only 140 65 46.4 

Cocaine, opiates, and PCP 104 59 56.7 

Any use of cocaine 1,221 622 50.9 

Any use of opiates 1,129 726 64.3 

Any use of PCP 1,810 618 34.1 

5 
These findings strongly suggest that reliance on 

arrestees' self.reports of drug use will significantly 

underestimate its extent. Moreover, recent research in New 

York City had similar findings: 50 percent of the drug users 

identified by urine tests had reported in a confidential 

research interview that they used drugs; 67 percent of the 

opiate users, 48 percent of the cocaine users, and 25 percent 

of the PCP users reported their use of these drugs.2These 

findings also confirm those of an earlier (1976) study of six 

cities, which concluded that there was low correspondence 

between interview data and urinalysis results for all drugs 

except heroin.3 

Drug Use by Charge 

A substantial percentage of defendants in all charge 

categories tested positive for drug use, as shown in table 2. 

For example, more than half the tested defendants charged 

with robbery, two-fifths of the tested defendants charged 

with burglary, and about one-third of the tested defendants 

charged with assault were drug-positive. 

These findings are inconsistent with the argument that 

selective urine screening for defendants facing certain 

charges would be more efficient than mass urine screening of 

Table 2 

Drug Use by Charge, Washington, D.C. 

(June 1984-Jan. 1985) 

Number Percent 

Tested for positive for 

Offense charged drugs drugs 

Drug possession or sale 2,292 71.8 

Receiving stolen property 161 54.0 

Robbery 359 52.S 

Flight or escape 141 48.2 

Auto theft 318 47.8 

Larceny 423 47.0 

Weapons 224 43.8 

Burglary 368 41.6 

Prostitution 436 39.2 

Destruction of property 186 34.4 

Assault 670 33.3 

Other offenses 335 43.0 

Total 5,913 54.0 

6 

all arrestees. Based on the experience in the District of 

Columbia, such an approach would miss substantial numbers 

of drug users. For example, a program that tested only 

arrestees charged with drug possession or sale would miss 

one-half of all arrestees who used drugs in the 'District of 

Columbia. If urine tests were also conducted for arrestees 

charged with robbery, burglary, larceny, fraud, or forgery, 

approximately one-third would still be missed. Hence, 

comprehensive identification of drug-using arrestees would 

seem to require urine testing of all arrestees. Screening by 

selected charges is likely to miss a substantial portion of 

drug-using arrestees. 

Rates of Drug Use by Age and Gender 

Patterns of drug use vary considerably by age and gender, as 

shown in table 3. Rates of PCP use are highest for the 

youngest arrestees (ages 18-21) and are sharply higher for 

men than women. In general, rates of opiate or cocaine use 

increase for both men and women until ages 31-35 and then 

decline. 

Women, who constituted 18 percent of all arrestees during 

the period studied, had the same overalI rate of drug use (52 

percent) as men. However, when comparing age groups, 

PSA found that women arrestees were more likely to use 

opiates or cocaine and less likely to use PCP. 

Once again, the findings from the research in New York City 

were similar: PCP use was concentrated among the young; 

use of opiates or cocaine increased until ages 31-35 and then 

declined; and women used opiates and cocaine at earlier ages 

and at higher rates than did men.4 

The strikingly high rates of drug use found among younger 

arrestees in the District of Columbia provided impetus for 

establishing a program of urine testing for juveniles facing 

criminal charges. As one judge, interviewed about the adult 

urine-testing program, said, "We may be losing the battle at 

the juvenile level. The adult courts see drug users at age 18, 

but you know they didn't just start using drugs then." 

Similarly: "If you can get young kids identified as drug 

users at 14 or 15, you can really deal with the problem. 

You have a much higher chance of success than with older 

drug users. Juvenile drug testing should be our number one 

priority now.'tS It was partly as a result of these widely 

expressed concerns about drug use among juveniles that the 

National Institute of Justice funded a demonstration project 

in the District of Columbia to conduct urine testing of 

juvenile respondents and probationers. This program, also 

run by PSA, began operation in October 1986 and is being 

evaluated by Toborg Associates. 
Table 3 

Drug-Test Results by Age, Gender, and Drug 

Age group " 

Item 18-21 22-25 26-30 

Percent 

positive for 

any drug 

Males 56% 58% 55% 

Females 43 53 59 

Percent 

positive for 

cocaine 

Males 10 17 22 

Females 16 23 28 

Percent 

positive for 

opiates 

Males 3 10 24 

Females 7 18 29 

Percent 

positive for 

PCP 

Males 52 46 29 

Females 30 23 17 

Percent 

positive for 

morethan 

one drug 

Males 10 15 21 

Females 13 18 27 

Number 

tested 

Males 934 988 1,089 

Females 215 289 272 

Rates and Types of Pretrial Release 

Table 4 shows the pretrial release rates for no{)users of drugs 

compared with users of only one drug and with users of two 

or more drugs (defendants are categorized as drug users or 

nonusers based only on the urine-test results). Also shown 

are the pretrial release rates for users of specific drugs. By 

number of drugs used, release rates were highest for 

nonusers,,:' w-ugs (82.2 percent), followed by users of only 

one drug 2 percent); pretrial release rates were lowest for 

users of tVYv or more drugs (74.1 percent). By type of drug 

31-35 36-40 41-up Total 

53% 46% 32% 52% 

60 56 27 52 

22 19 15 18 

31 25 6 23 

27 24 19 17 

37 31 14 22 

17 12 5 31 

9 16 3 19 

20 15 13 16 

32 34 13 22 

822 397 465 4,695 

138 68 63 1,045 

used, release rates were highest for users of PCP only (84 

percent) and lowest for users of opiates and cocaine (69.5 

pertent).6 

Before PSA's urine-testing program began, there had been 

some concern that rates of pretrial detention might increase, 

and rates of nonfinancial release might decrease, if judicial 

officers possessed accurate information on the extent of drug 

use by arrestees. No such changes in release practices 

occurred. Indeed, rates of nonfinancial release rose slightly 

after initiation of the program: from 67 percent in 1983 to 70 

7 
Table 4 

Pretrial Release Rates by Number and Types 01' Drugs 

Used, Washington, D.C. (June 1984-Jan. 1985) 

Pretrial 

release Number 

Drug use rate released 

No drugs 82.2% 2,367 

One drug only 80.2 1,741 

Two or more drugs 74.1 822 

Cocaine only 79.0 297 

Opiates only 70.2 313 

PCP only 84.0 1,062 

Opiates and cocaine only 69.5 305 

Cocaine and PCP only 79.5 240 

Opiates and PCP only 77.9 109 

Cocaine, opiates, and PCP 73.1 76 

percent in 1984 and 71 percent in 1985.1 When 

interviewed, judges and hearing commissioners explained 

that they were now willing to "take a chance" on releasing 

drug-using defendants who might previously have been 

detained on high bond if the judge had suspected drug use 

(e.g., due to a drug-related charge or history of drug abuse). 

Now, judicial officers were willing to consider release on 

condition of participation in PSA's pretrial urine-testing 

program.8 

Most of the judges interviewed thought that drug use was a 

good indicator that a defendant might fail to appear for court 

or be rearrested before trial. The next chapter presents the 

results of empirical analysis of this point. 

8 

Notes 

1. The numbers presented in table 1 and all subsequent 

tables in this chapter are based on a 6O-percent random 

sample of the full data set. 

2. Eric D. Wish, Elizabeth Brady, and Mary Cuadrado, 

"Drug Use in Arrestees: Findings From Manhattan," paper 

presented at the NIl conference "Drugs and Crime: 

-

Detecting Use and Reducing Risk," Washington, D.C., June 

5,1986). 

3. William C. Eckerman et aI., "Insights Into the 

Relationship Between Drug Usage and Crime Derived From 

a Study of Arrestees," in Appendix to Drug Use and Crime: 

Report of the Panel on Drug Use and Criminal Behavior, 

National Institute on Drug Abuse and Research Triangle 

Institute, (September 1976). 

4. Wish, Brady, and Cuadrado. 

5. Toborg and Bellassai, The Views of Judicial Officers, 

14-15. 

6. Release rates are somewhat understated, due to 

incomplete data on (1) whether defendants who had bonds 

set as their release conditions eventually posted those bonds; 

and (2) whether defendants initially detained on 3- or 5-day 

holds were subsequently released. However, these release/ 

detention options are imposed on only a minority of D.C. 

defendants; the vast majority of D.C. defendants-about 

three-fourths-are released on some type of personal 

recognizance. 

7. Data provided by John A. Carver, Director, D.C. Pretrial 

Services Agency. 

8. Toborg and Bellassai, The Views of Judicial Officers, 

11-12. 
Chapter 3 

The Efficacy of Using Urine-Test Results in Risk 

Classification of Arrestees 

Systematic urine testing for all arrestees raised the possibility 

that urine-test results could improve pretrial risk classification of defendants in the District of Columbia.! Whether 

urine tests improve pretrial risk classification depends on the 

test results' contribution over and above the factors already 

used for risk classification (e.g., community ties and prior 

record). 

Pretrial risk classification is difficult because defendants are 

selected for different types of pretrial release based on the 

court's judgment that they pose different levels of pretrial 

release risk. Hence, some defendants are released unconditionally before trial; others are released on compliance 

with certain restrictions during the pretrial period (e.g., 

curfew, or posting a money bond); and others are detained 

Table 5 

until trial. Because of these differences in release conditions, 

it is difficult to develop statistical estimates of pretrial 

release risk posed by all arrestees. 

For example, only those defendants who are actually 

released before trial could be rearrested before trial or fail to 

appear for court. Hence, direct observation of those 

outcomes is limited to released defendants. However, 

released defendants are only part of the total population of 

arrestees. Moreover, released defendants are, presumably, 

better release risks than detained defendants. Released 

defendants-the only defendants who could be rearrested 

before trial or fail to appear for court-constitute a biased 

sample of all arrestees. To be useful, though, risk 

classification for pretrial rearrest and/or failure-to-appear risk 

Results of Multivariate Analyses To Identify Major Factors Affecting Pretrial Outcomes 

Independent variable 

Constant 

Employed 

Probation, parole, or 

pending case 

Prior convlction(s) 

Lockup drug test results 

Cocaine only 

Opiates only 

PCP only 

Opiates and cocaine 

Opiates and PCP 

PCP and cocaine 

Three ormore drugs 

Note: 

Pretrial 

rearrest 

o 

+ 

+ 

o 

o 

+ 

o 

o 

o 

+ 

Failure to 

appear 

o 

o 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

o 

o 

o 

Pretrial 

mlsconJuct 

o 

o 

+ 

+ 

+ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

u+" indicates that, at the time of arrest, a positive urine-test result for the drug(s) shown had a positive and statistically significant 

association with subsequent failure to appear, pretrial rearrest, or pretrial misconduct. 

"-" indicates a negative and statistically significant association. 

"0" Indicates no statistically significant association. 

9 
must apply to all arrestees-those detained after arrest as 

well as those released. 

The Toborg Associates' analysis of risk classification used 

multivariate statistical techniques (trivariate probit) that are 

designed to deal with the problem of selection bias.2 

Specifically, these techniques provide unconditional 

statistical estimates of arrestees' release risks, rather than 

estimates conditional on the type of pretrial release they 

received. Stated differently, these statistical techniques 

provide estimates of release risks for all defendants, not just 

those released before trial. Moreover, the analysis estimates 

the incremental contribution of urine-test results to risk 

classification for all arrestees. Finally, the classification 

analysis does not require resolution of the debate on whether 

drug usage and criminality are causally related or simply 

highly correlated behaviors (perhaps stemming from joint 

causation by other factors). 

The analyses demonstrate that urine-test results make a 

consistent, significant, incremental contribution to 

pretrial risk classification for arrestees in the District of 

Columbia. Analysis by type of drug also shows that specific 

drugs and combinations of drugs relate in different ways to 

the risk of pretrial rearrest, failure to appear, or overall 

pretrial misconduct (a composite measure, consisting of 

failure to appear, pretrial rearrest, or both). This point is 

illustrated in table 5, which simplifies the results of a typical 

set of multivariate analyses, based on data for a sample of 

7,883 arrestees (see appendix A for the detailed results). 

As shown in table 5, the use of pcp only or the use of three 

or more drugs (determined by the lockup urine test 

conducted shortly after arrest) had a positive, significant 

association with pretrial rearrest. The use of cocaine only, 

opiates only, or the combination of opiates and cocaine had a 

positive, significant association with failure to appear, while 

the use of PCP only had a negative, significant association 

with that outcome. For overaU pretrial misconduct, the use 

of cocaine only or opiates only showed positive, significant 

associations. 

Note that use of pcp only is positively related to pretrial 

rearrest and negatively related to failure to appear. When 

both outcomes are combined in the single variable pretrial 

misconduct, the individual effects offset each other. This 

finding indicates that classification systems designed to 

deal only with failure to appear should assess urine-test 

resu!ts substantially differently from systems for the 

prevention of pretrial rearrest or the prevention of both 

failure to appear and pretrial rearrest. In this regard, 

PSA's dual recommendation system, with separate risk 

assessments for failure to appear and rearrest, seems 

particularly appropriate. 

10 

Although table 5 shows only the direction of the 

relationship, it is important to stress that the mRgnitude of 

the effects shown is sometimes quite large. For example, a 

positive urine test for cocaine only resulted in an increase in 

the marginal probability of failure to appear of about 15 

percentage points. Given that the mean probability of failure 

to appear is approximately 20 percentage points, a marginal 

probability effect of 15 points is 75 percent of the mean. 

Clearly, this is a huge probability increase for failure to 

appear associated with positive urine tests for cocaine only. 

The results shown in table 5, as stated previously, are based 

on multivariate analyses assessing the incremental 

contribution of urine-test results to risk classification. Thus, 

the analysis first scanned for other factors that might affect 

failure to appear, pretrial rearrest, or pretrial misconduct, and 

then considered the additional effect of urine-test results. As 

shown in table 5, there were only a few variables besides 

urine-lest results that were significant in these pretrial 

outcomes. Those variables were employment, which was 

negatively related to all three outcomes siudied; prior 

conviction(s), which was positively related to all three 

outcomes; and probation, parole, or pending case when 

arrested, which were positively related to pretrial rearrest 

(though not to failure to appear or overall pretrial 

misconduct). 

Visher and Linster analyzed the District of Columbia urinetesting data and applied a hazard (or survival) model of 

pretrial rearrest risk to the data for a sample of 2,662 male 

defendants released on their own recognizance prior to trial. 

The authors concluded that "the most striking result in these 

analyses is the size of the risk multiplier associated with a 

positive drug test result. For subjects testing positive for a 

single drug other than PCP, the rearrest risk in the early 

weeks after release is three to four times as great as their 

drug-negative counterparts; and if two drugs are involved, it 

is nearly five times as great."3 The hazard model is not 

appropriate for failure to appear, but these rearrest results are 

consistent with those obtained using probit techniques. 

In addition, Smith, Wish, and Jarjoura analyzed urine-test 

results for a sample of 2,606 New York City arrestces to 

assess whether urine-test data improved pretrial risk 

classification.4 The authors considered two pretrial risk 

outcomes: failure to appear for court and pretrial rearrest. 

For each of these outcomes, analyses using censored probit 

models found that drug-positive urine-test results were 

significantly associated with release risk, over and above the 

other information typically available to judges making 

release decisions. 

Specifically, after scanning for other factors that might affect 

those outcomes, the study found that the number of drugs for 
which an arrestee tested positive was significantly related to 

the subsequent probability of failure to appear and of pretrial 

rearrest. The drug(s) used affected the release risk; persons 

testing positive for heroin or cocaine had a higher probability 

of failure to appear, while those testing positive for pcp 

were significantly more likely to be rearrested.s 

Thus, the New York City analysis had findings similar 

overall to those of the District of Columbia study. In 

particular, the results of urine tests conducted shortly after 

arrest were important, statistically significant predictors of 

pretrial release risk. The urine-test results made an 

incremental contribution to pretrial risk assessment, over and 

above the explanatory power provided by other factors used 

for risk classification, such as prior record and community 

ties. This suggests that use of urine-test results in an 

operational context, such as the District of Columbia, can 

indeed improve risk classification of arrestees. 

Notes 

1. For recent studies of pretrial risk classification, see John 

S. Goldkamp, Michael R. Gottfredson, and Susan MitcheIIHerzfeld, Bail Decisionmaking: A Study in Policy 

Guidelines (report to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. 

Department of Justice, 1981); Samuel Myers, ''The 

Economics of Bail Jumping," Journal of Legal Studies 10 

(June 1981): 381-396; WiIliam Rhodes et al., Pretrial 

Release and Misconduct in Federal District Courts (Special 

Report to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department 

of Justice, December 1984); Liese Sherwood-Fabre, An 

Experiment in Bail Reform: Evaluating Pretrial Release 

Services Agencies in Federal District Courts (report to the 

National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 

1984); and Mary A. Toborg et aI., Classification Systems for 

the Accused: An Empirical Analysis of Washington, DC. 

(Final Report to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. 

Department of Justice, 1986). 

2. See Lung-Fei Lee, "Sequential Discrete Choice 

Econometric Models With Selectivity" (mimeograph, 

University of Minnesota, 1984); and Mary A. Toborg et aI., 

Classification Systemsfor the Accused: An Empirical 

Analysis of Washington, DC. Final Report to the National 

Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 1986). See 

also Robert P. Trost and Anthony MJ. Ye7..er, "Sequential 

Selection and Selectivity in a Model of the Market for Bail 

Bond," Business and Economics Section, Proceedings of the 

American Statistical Association (1985). Additionally, see 

the work based on the bivariate probit model by John M. 

Abowd and Henry S. Farber, "Job Queues and the Union 

Status of Workers," Industrial and Labor Relations Review 

35 (1982) 354-367; Henry S. Farber, "Worker Preference for 

Union Representation," Research in Labor Economics 2, 

Supplement (1983): 171-205; Raymond H.P. Fishe, Robert 

P. Trost, and Philip Lurie, "Labor Force Earnings and 

College Choice Among Young Women: An Examination of 

Selectivity Bias and Comparative Advantage," Economics of 

Education Review (1981): 169-191; Chung-Lo Meng and 

Peter Schmidt, "On the Cost of Partial Observability in the 

Bivariate Probit Model," International Economic Review 26, 

no. 1 (February 1985): 71-85; and Dale 1. Poirier, "Partial 

Observability in the Bivariate Probit Model," Journal of 

Econometrics 44 (February 1980): 210-217. 

3. Christy Visher and Richard Linster, "A Survival Model of 

Pretrial Failure" (draft discussion paper presented at the 1988 

annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology), 

23. 

4. Douglas A. Smith, Eric D. Wish, and G. Roger Jarjoura, 

"Drug Use and Pretrial Misconduct in New York City," 

Journal of Quantitative Criminology 5 (June 1989): 

101-126. 

5. Ibid. 

11 
Chapter 4 

Periodic Urine Testing as a Signaling Device for 

Pretrial Release Risk 

Background 

One component ofPSA's pretrial urine-testing program is 

periodic analysis of urine specimens from selected drugusing defendants who are on release awaiting trial. This 

chapter presents the results of statistical analyses of the 

relationship between participation in this program and 

pretrial rearrest, failure to appear, or overall pretrial 

misconduct (defined as pretrial rearrest and/or failure to 

appear). 

The analysis covers defendants arrested during an 8-month 

period (June 1984-January 1985) shortly after PSA's urinetesting program began. During that time drug-using 

defendants released to await trial were randomly assigned to 

three groups. One group was placed in the periodic urine 

testing before trial program; a second was referred for 

treatment to the citywide drug abuse treatment agency (an 

established practice predating the PSA urine-testing 

program); and the third was a control group, released with 

neither urine testing nor referral to treatment. Altogether, 

approximately 2,000 defendants were placed in these three 

groups during the 8-month experiment. . 

During the design phase of the experiment, PSA concentrated on developing criteria for failure in the urinetesting program and determining an appropriate response. 

PSA staff, other local criminal justi1ce practitioners, and the 

Toborg Associates research team discussed the issues 

extensively; their resolution required that tradeoffs be made 

between program needs and research needs. The final 

solution divided the urine-testing program into two phases. 

Defendants were first placed in regular urine testing, which 

provided once-a-week urinalysis. Those who failed this 

phase of the program-by testing positive for drugs, or by 

failing to appear for a drug test, either twice in a row or three 

limes over 3 months-entered a second phase. They were 

given the option of either entering intensive urine testing, 

which provided for twice-a-week urinalysis, or being 

referred to treatment. A violation was reported to the court 

only for failure in intensive urine testing or treatment, not for 

failure in the first phase (regular urine testing) of the 

program. (See appendix B for more information about the 

experiment.) 

12 

This approach was taken for two reasons. First, PSA had a 

history of offering defendants a second chance before 

reporting release condition violations, and it did not want to 

change this policy. Second, there was some concern by PSA 

that its reports of urine-testing violations would lack 

credibility with the court if those defendants who were 

reported to have failed had never been offered the option of 

treatment. 

The following analysis is limited to those defendants who 

were part of this experiment; it does not apply to all arrested 

defendants or even to all released defendants during that 

time. Rather, it deals with defendants who (1) tested 

positive-at the lockup test, shortly after arrest-for drugs 

and/or who admitted drug use, (2) were not already in 

treatment and did not request referral to treatment, and (3) 

were released pretrial on nonfinancial conditions. 

While participants in the experiment were selected because 

they were drug users, the object of the experiment was to 

evaluate the potential role of urine testing as a pretrial release 

condition, rather than to test relationships between drug use 

and crime. For a variety of reasons, any urine test is an 

imperfect indicator of drug use. Most important is the 

problem of detecting drug use, particularly opiates and 

cocaine, which are eliminated from the body relatively 

quickly (within about 48 hours after use). Also, false 

positives and false negatives can be important, and these 

vary by type of drug. PSA made no attempt to adjust the 

urine-test results for problems such as differential 

detectability, because the hypotheses predicted the effects of 

urine tes!...;;, not the effects of drug use. 

The analyses examined two fundamental questions: 

1. Did the relative success of the defendants in PSA's 

urine-testing program correlate statistically with rates 

IOf pretrial rearrest, failure to appear, or overall pretrial 

misconduct? 

2. Did an initial urine-testing program assignmentrather than a treatment referral or a referral to a control 

group-result in a lower than expected rate of pretrial 

rearrest, failure to appear, or overall pretrial 

misconduct? 
-

These questions stem from the role of urine tests (and other 

pretrial release conditions) in changing defendants' 

incentives and, hence, their behavior. Two types of 

defendant responses are of particular interest. A direct 

incentive effect occurs when defendants placed in urinetesting programs lower their dIUg use and/or their level of 

pretrial misconduct because they fear the consequences of 

failure in the pretrial urine-testing program. The direct 

incentive effect operates by reducing the chances for the 

defendant to engage in pretrial misconduct without being 

detected (the "detection" effect) and/or by increasing the 

penalties facing the defendant if misconduct is discovered 

(the "punishment" effect). The second fundamental research 

question listed above concerns the size of the direct incentive 

effect generated by the urine-testing condition of pretrial 

release.! 

Besides the direct incentive effect, a urine-testing condition 

of pretrial release may provide information through 

"signaling." Defendants may show-or "signal"-that they 

are good release risks by complying with the pretrial urinetesting condition. This is the basis of the first fundamental 

question listed above.2 

The effectiveness of a signaling device depends on its ability 

to separate defendants who are less likely to engage in 

pretrial misconduct from those who are more likely to do so. 

Consequently, a successful signal must be based on behavior that is comparatively more difficult to achieve for 

individuals whose greatest tendency is to engage in misconduct. For example, a requirement to call in periodically 

during the pretrial release period would probably not serve as 

an effective signal of law-abiding behavior because defendants engaged in illegal activities could produce the signal 

(Le., report daily by telephone) as well as anyone else 

without lowering the benefits of engaging in crime. A good 

signaling mechanism must also permit reliable screening at 

acceptable cost. 

Periodic urine testing appears to meet the criterion for an 

effective postarrest signal for pretrial releasees. Modem 

technology makes screening for drug use through urinalysis 

both relatively precise and relatively inexpensive. It is also 

likely that defendants who engage in pretrial misconduct will 

have greater difficulty eliminating or substantially reducing 

drug use than those who do not. This hypothesis seems 

reasonable because the same discipline that promotes the 

elimination of illegal drug use should lower pretrial 

misconduct, and because the greater the drug dependence of 

the defendants, the more likely the association with crime. 

One of the interesting features of pretrial urine testing as a 

signaling mechanism is that it is a postarrest signal; i.e., 

defendants signal their level of pretrial release risk by actions 

they take after pretrial release. The signaling mechanism 

does not depend-as many risk classification systems doon prearrest variables, such as residence, employment, or 

prior record. Although prearrest signaling mechanisms (or 

classification systems) have been widely used to separate 

high- from low-release-risk defendants, few postarrest 

signaling mechanisms now exist at the pretrial stage. 

Note that the argument that the continued use of drugs (or 

nonuse) serves as a postarrest signal of risk does not require 

resolution of the controversy over whether drug use is a 

cause or a correlate of crime. Rather, the efficiency of drug 

testing as a signaling device rests on the hypothesis that, 

among arrested defendants who test positive for drugs, those 

who are less likely to engage in pretrial misconduct are also 

those who will find it easier to reduce drug use. It may be 

that drug use, once reduced, will also lower the need or 

desire for pretrial misconduct, but it is not necessary to prove 

this to show that urine testing is a good signaling device. 

Major Findings 

With regard to the first question, our study statistically 

analyzed pretrial arrest, failure to appear, and overall pretrial 

misconduct by estimating equations that incorporated 

personal characteristics, criminal history, current charge(s), 

and lockup urine-test results for the defendants during the 8-

month study.3 Defendants were "successful participants" in 

the program if they appeared as scheduled for three or more 

urine tests beyond the initial lockup test. They were 

considered "nonparticipants" otherwise (Le., if ti,ey failed to 

report for urine testing at all or if they dropped out before the 

third test beyond the lockup test).4 These analyses showed 

that the defendants' decisions to participate or not participate 

in urine testing separated them into two groups with 

differences in expected pretrial rearrest rates, failure-toappear rates, and overall pretrial misconduct rates. These 

differences were large and statistically significant, indicating 

that successful participation in the pretrial urine-testing 

program signaled defendants' pretrial release risks. 

(Detailed results of the analyses appear in appendix C.) 

Table 6 shows that, for all three outcome measures, the 

defendants who participated in the PSA urine-testing 

program-defined as appearing for four or more total 

tests (the lockup test plus three subsequent tests)-

performed better than other defendants, while those who 

dropped out did notably worse. Rates of pretrial rearrest, 

failure to appear, and overall pretrial misconduct for 

defendants who participated in urine testing were about onehalf the rates for defendants who dropped out of the urinetesting program. This large difference may reflect an 

unwillingness to appear for urine testing by the heaviest drug 

users, who know that their test results would certainly be 

13 
positive. Furthennore, heavy drug users may have personal 

characteristics that are difficult to measure but that are 

systematically associated with higher rates of pretrial rearrest 

and failure to appear. This, of course, is precisely the 

manner in which a successful signal works. In this case, 

urine testing allows defendants with the best release risks to 

demonstrate theirreliability. 

Table 6 

Altogether, approximately two-thirds of all defendants 

referred to the urine-testing program part-icipated in itagain, participation defined as appearing for at least four 

total tests. Defene' 'nts who participated in the urine-testing 

program also performed better than persons referred to 

treatment or tho~ placed in the control group. 

Pretrial Rearrest, Failure-To-Appear, and Misconduct Rates by Urine-Testing Status 

Pretrial 

rearrest 

Urine-testing status rate 

Participated in urine testing 16.4% 

Dropped out of urine testing 33.1 

Referred to treatment 20.4 

Placed in control group 20.7 

The differences in percentage rates of pretrial misconduct 

between defendants who participated and those who did not 

participate in urine testing were very large and very 

significant statistically. This is the type of separation 

associated with signaling. By continuing to appear for urine 

testing, defendants signal that they pose low risks of pretrial 

misconduct. Screening is easily achieved because the simple 

criterion of appearing for four tests is sufficient to establish a 

separation. In 1988, Visher conducted another analysis of 

the Washington, D.C., urine-testing data. Visher uscd 

different analytic techniques, was limited to male defendants, 

and considered only pretrial rearrest. She found that the 

pretrial rearrest rate of the defendants who participated in the 

pretrial urine-testing program was about one-third lower than 

the pretrial rearrest rate for defendants who dropped out of 

the program.s The analysis also shows that the pretrial urinetesting program signals that program participants have lower 

rates of pretrial rearrest than nonparticipants. 

, With regard to the direct incentive effect of assignment to 

urine testing, probabilities of pretrial misconduct did not 

vary significantly by the initial assignment to the urine 

testing, treatment referral, or control groups. Given the 

structure of the experiment, which permitted defendants 

initially assigned to the urine-testing group to seek treatment 

subsequently, this result is understandable. 

Moreover, afterPSA's assignments of defendants to the 

three groups for the experiment, some judges ordered 

defendants from the treatment referral and control groups 

into urine-testing. This was possible because the pretrial 

period in Washington, D.C., often spans many months, with 

14 

Failure- Pretrial 

to-appear misconduct 

rate rate 

16.9% 29.0% 

33.4 52.6 

19.7 35.7 

18.6 34.7 

defendants making many court appearances prior to final 

case adjudication. As knowledge of the urine-testing 

program spread, judges began ordering defendants into itafter the initial release decision but before the final 

disposition of the case. Ironically, although the judges' 

actions showed their high regard for the urine-testing 

program-an outcome measure for the program as a whole--

these actions degraded the comparability of the three groups 

(attained by random assignment) for the balance of the 

pretrial period. The experiment therefore could not test the 

effect of urine testing versus (1) referral to treatment or (2) 

no intervention on pretrial rearrest and/or failure to appear. 

In addition, no clear-cut findings could emerge from the 

analysis of the direct incentive effect because data are 

incomplete on which sanctions the court imposed on 

defendants who violated the urine-testing conditions of their 

pretrial release. According to the data provided by PSA, 

failure in urine testing did not significantly result in adverse 

actions by the court, as the number of "show cause" hearings 

attest, as well as the actions taken at those hearings. 

However, D.C. Superior Court judges reportedly often 

handled violations of pretrial urine-testing conditions as 

"add-ons" to reguiarly scheduled hearings on other matters in 

the case, rather than as specially scheduled show-cause 

hearings. PSA representatives were usually not prescnt at 

such ad hoc hearings (though they usually were present at 

show-cause hearings on urine-testing condition violations), 

and no routine reporting procedures informed PSA of 

sanctions imposed on defendants for violations of pretrial 

urine-testing requirements. Hence, the data base used for the 
present analysis does not reflect all the sanctions that were 

imposed on defendants. Unfortunately, there is no way to 

estimate the effect of sanctions not reflected in the data base. 

Conclusions and Policy Implications 

In conclusion, the results of the analysis ofPSA's pretrial 

urine-testing program for released defendants suggest that 

the program operates as an effective signaling mechanism. 

Defendants, because many of them are active drug users, can 

nevertheless often be safely released before trial. If such 

release is conditioned on periodic reporting for urinalysis, 

the Washington, D.C., experience indicates that they will 

soon sort themselves into two subgroups: (1) those who 

comply with the release conditions by appearing for urine 

testing, and (2) those who do not comply, either by failing to 

appear or by dropping out after only a few tests. Moreover, 

those defendants who do comply with the urine-testing 

requirements have sharply lower rates of pretrial rearrest, 

failure to appear, and overall pretrial misconduct (Le., 

pretrial rearrest and/or failure to appear) than those who fail 

to comply. Participation in the urine-testing progranl signals 

that the defendant's behavior poses a lower risk of pretrial 

misconduct 

Other implications for public policy stem from these 

findings. One is the need to develop additional risksignaling devices based on pretrial defendants' postrelease 

behavior. Selected programs that may serve as pilots are 

underway in various communities. For example, in 

Washington, D.C., certain defendants unable to make bail are 

granted conditional nonfinancial release-first to a 

residential halfway house, and later to the community under 

restrictive conditions of supervision, including urine testing. 

In this case, good behavior in the halfway house signals that 

the defendant is a good candidate for supervised pretrial 

release in the community. 

Release conditions that include reporting requirements or 

electronic monitoring can provide an opportunity for 

defendants to differentiate their individual degree of risk for 

rearrest or failure to appear from the risk profile of other 

defendants with a similar criminal record. It may be useful 

to perform tests similar to those conducted for pretrial 

release to determine whether other signals exist. 

Such approaches may eventually identify a number of 

postarrest signals that can be used to separate high- from 

low-risk defendants. Under these circumstances, pretrial 

release policies and practices could monitor the signals 

provided by defendants so that probable high risks could be 

placed under more restrictive release conditions. Such action 

would create a direct incentive effect by responding to the 

signaling behavior of defendants. At the same time that 

high-risk defendants were placed under more restrictive 

conditions of release, those whose behavior after release 

identified them as low risks could remain under current 

supervision levels or reduced levels. In this way a better 

tailoring of risk level to pretrial supervision could occurone based on defendants' demonstrated actions after release, 

rather than on risk predictions made at the time of arrest. 

Notes 

1. The analysis of direct incentive effects follows the 

"economics of crime" literature, including Gary S. Becker, 

"Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," in 

Essays in the Economics o/Crime and Punishment, ed. Gary 

S. Becker and William Landes (New York: Columbia 

University Press, 1974); and Michael K. Block and John M. 

Heineke, "A Labor Theoretic Analysis of Criminal Choice," 

American Economic Review 65 (September 1975): 314-325. 

The economics of crime model assumes that criminal 

behavior arises from rational self-interest on the part of the 

criminal who seeks to maximize utility. Criminal activity 

increases when the individual has few alternative sources of 

earnings; rewards of crime are large; the probability of 

punishment is small; and/or the magnitude of expected 

punishment is small. A few papers deal with this topic, 

including work by William M. Landes, "The Bail System: 

An Economic Approach," in Essays in the Economics of 

Crime and Punishment, ed. Becker and Landes; Charles F. 

Manski, "Prospects for Inference on Deterrence Through 

Empirical Analysis ofIndividual Behavior," in Economic 

Models of Criminal Behavior, ed. by John M. Heineke (New 

York: North-Holland Publishing, 1978); Samuel L. Myers, 

Jr., "The Economics of Bail Jumping," Journal of Legal 

Studies, Vol. 10 (June 1981): 381-396; and Ann Dryden 

Witte, "Estimating the Economic Model of Crime With 

Individual Data," Quarterly Journal of Economics 48 

(February 1983): 167-175. Of these works, only those by 

Landes and Myers deal with the pretrial release period. 

These works provide general support for the direct incentive 

effects of release conditions hypothesized here, although the 

issue of urine-testing conditions has not been studied in the 

economics of crime literature. 

2. First developed in the classic work by Michael A. Spence, 

Market Signaling: Information Transfer in Hiring and 

Related Screening Processes (Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University Press, 1974), market signaling has been shown to 

characterize decisions about individuals based on behavioral 

traits that cannot be directly observed. In the process of 

hiring, for example, individuals are screened based on 

indicators of t.heir future performance because work habits 

and productivity cannot be directly observed. Such decisions 

15 
:;! 

are based on records of past educational achievement and 

work history, which are assembled with some care by the 

applicant, who submits these to the prospective employer to 

signal future performance. Obviously, education has some 

direct effect on productivity, but signaling models predict 

that education is also used by individuals to signal their 

potential and intent to be good employees. Tests of the 

extent to which higher education serves as a "filter" have 

been made by James W. Albrecht, "A Procedure for Testing 

the Signalling Hypothesis," Journal o/Public Economics 

(February 1981): 123-132; Kenneth Arrow, "Higher 

Education as a Filter," Journal o/Public Economics 

(Februarj 1981): 193-216; and John Riley, "Testing the 

Educational Screening Hypothesis," Journal o/Political 

Economy (1979): S227-S252. The results of these works 

suggest that employers behave as if education provides extra 

information in applications for positions where it is difficult 

to objectively measure productivity. 

Signaling, or screening, is used in the criminal justice system 

as well. For example, information on good behavior in 

prison is used to make decisions on parole. This 

postincarceration signal is transmitted by the convicted and 

confined individual. Indeed, experiences in prison may be 

16 

structured to provide opportunities for inmates to signal their 

fitness for release by participating in work and other 

responsible behavior in prison. 

3. Some variables, which have been used in other studies to 

predict criminal behavior, were not systematically available 

in the data. These variables include marital status, education, 

and the time pattern of prior convictions. 

4. Of the 455 defendants placed in the urine-testing program 

who were analyzed, 299-or about two-thirds-met the 

definition of "successful participants." The possibility that 

appearance failure in urine testing was due to completion of 

the case was eliminated by considering only cases that took 

more than 30 days to reach disposition. The possibility that 

appearance failure in urine testing could be triggered by 

rearrest was eliminated by counting subsequent lockup tests 

performed at rearrest as appearances for urine testing. This 

adjustment tends to produce a false-positive association 

between urine-testing and pretrial rearrest. 

5. Christy A. Vis her, "Assessment of Pretrial Urine Testing 

in the District of Columbia: A Reanalysis" (unpublished 

paper, 1988),9-11. 
Chapter 5 

Outlook for the Future 

Today, PSA's urine-testing program for adult arrestees and 

defendants awaiting trial is a well-accepted component of the 

criminal justice system in the District of Columbia. Since 

the end of the NU grant, which provided the initial funding, 

the program has been supported each year by the D.C. 

government. Reasons for the program's high degree of local 

acceptance-which seems likely to continue-include the 

following: 

• High-level criminal justice officials support PSA's 

program. Before the program started, they were already 

familiar with the ways in which urine-test results could be 

used, because screening of arrestees through urinalysis has 

been common in the District of Columbia, off and on, since 

1971. However, no previous program was as systematic, 

comprehensive, or responsive to the needs of the court as is 

PSA's. 

• PSA's program was carefully planned and implemented. 

Considerable attention was given to such issues as 

developing rigorous chain-of-custody procedures and 

determining the proper uses of urine-test results-while 

acting to prcclude other uses of them and training and 

educating PSA staff and other criminal justice practitioners 

about the program. 

• Arrestees' urine-test results are used at the time of arrest 

solely to determine conditions of pretrial release; they 

cannot be used to determine guilt or innocence on the current 

charge or as evidence of probation or parole violation in 

another case. Similarly, urine-test results for defendants who 

are tested periodically as a condition of pretrial release are 

used to monitor compliance with release conditions, not 

for other purposes. The carefully constrained uses of the 

urine-test results from PSA's program has bolstered the 

widespread acceptance of the program. 

• The urinalysis technology used-the EMIT (enzyme 

multiplied immunoassay tcchnique)-has been objectively 

rated as having a high level of accuracy; moreover, the 

equipment does not require a toxicologist to operate it. As a 

result, PSA staff quickly learn to use the equipment and 

consistently provide the court with reliable test results. 

• There are a series of sanctions of increasing severity 

that can be imposed on defendants who fail to comply 

with the urine-testing condition of pretrial release. These 

sanctions range from warnings and administrative sanctions, 

such as requiring wore frequent urine testing, to sentences 

for contempt of court. The most severe sanctions are 

imposed only after a defendant has repeatedly failed to 

appear for testing or has repeatedly tested positive for drug 

use. 

Based on the results of the Washington, D.C., urine-testing 

program, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has funded 

replications in other communities as part of its mandate 

under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. To date, BJA has 

funded pretrial urine-testing programs in six jurisdictions: 

Pima County, Arizona; Multnomah County, Oregon; New 

Castle County, Delaware; Prince George's County, 

Maryland; Maricopa County, Arizona; and Milwaukee 

County, Wisconsin.! 

Moreover, in the District of Columbia a preadjudication 

urine-testing program for juveniles has now been 

implemented by PSA. Initially funded by NU, this 

program-like the adult urine-testing program-has 

subsequently been supported entirely by the D.C. 

government. The juvenile urine-testing program is currently 

being evaluated by Toborg Associates, under a separate grant 

from NU. 

The juvenile urine-testing program originated with the adult 

lockup test results, which disclosed very high rates of drug 

use among young adults. These findings sparked interest in 

earlier interventions-before juveniles entered the adult 

criminal justice system. 

The lockup testing of adult arrestees also showed-from the 

inception of the program-that rates of drug use were much 

higher than estimated previously and, additionally, that PCP 

use was a much more significant problem than anticipated. 

As time passed, the lockup test results also documented the 

sharp increase in cocaine use among adult arrestees. These 

findings led to increased local efforts to provide more 

resources for drug abuse treatment, especially for PCP and 

cocaine users. Even so, most criminal justice officials in the 

District of Columbia still view treatment resources as far 

from adequate. 

This lack of adequate treatment resources is of particular 

importance, given the findings of this project that show that 

criminal justice practitioners and the public at large have 

17 
good reason to be concerned about drug use among 

defendants. Defendants who have been drug users, as shown 

by the results of the lockup urine tests, pose higher pretrial 

release risks-for both pretrial rearrest and failure to 

appear-than nonusers, after screening for other factors that 

might affect pretrial release risk (e.g., background 

characteristics and prior record). 

Moreover, defendants who participated in PSA's pretrial 

urine-testing program-defined as appearing for four or 

more tests (the lockup test plus three subsequent tests)-

performed significantly better than other released defendants, 

while those who dropped out did notably worse. Indeed, 

rates of pretrial rearrest and failure to appear for defendants 

who participated in the program-about two-thirds of all 

persons ordered into the program-were about one-half the 

rates of the defendants who did not participate. Thus, not 

only does the initial lockup urine test help classify 

defendants for pretrial release risk, but the defendants' 

18 

participation or nonparticipation in the pretrial urine-testing 

program after release also helps to identifY'high versus low 

risks for continued pretrial release. 

The replication sites funded by BJA should provide 

important insights into the extent to which similar findings 

emerge in other jurisdictions and about the significance of 

the relationships. In the meantime, the findings from the 

District of Columbia strongly suggest that pretrial urine 

testing can be an important component ofa community's 

response to the drugs-and-crime problem. 

Notes 

1. See The Pretrial Reporter 12, no. 5 (October 1988) and 

no. 6 (December 1988) for more information on these 

programs (Washington, D.C.: Pretrial Services Resource 

Center, 1988). 
AppendixA 

Detailed Results of RiskClassification Analyses 

Table A-I presents the results of trivariate probit estimates 

of pretrial rearrest, failure to appear, and pretrial misconduct 

(i.e., the combination of pretrial rearrest and/or failure to 

appear). The trivariate probit estimatorl allows for the 

estimation of parameters of three-stage models of pretrial 

misconduct, such as the one shown in figure A-I. Note that 

there are really two complete trivariate processes shown in 

figure A-I. One consists of the system where there is a 

urine-test result, Yli=Y2i=I,and pretrial misconduct 

behavior in outcomes (2) and (3) is observed, Y3i=0,1. The 

other is based on pretrial misconduct of persons released 

with no urine-test result, outcomes (4) and (5) Yli=I and 

Y 2i=0, in figure A-I. In the subsequent discussion, these 

will be termed path A and path B, respectively. Estimates 

performed on path A indicate the determinants of pretrial 

misconduct among accused individuals who were released 

on recognizance with urine-test results. 

In contrast, estimates on path B allow the prediction of 

pretrial misconduct associated with individuals released with 

no urine-test results. Of course, it is not possible to estimate 

the effects of drug use as indicated by urine-test results on 

pretlial misconduct on path B because no urine-test data are 

available. 

The system in figure A-I may be illustrated using the 

equations shown below. The actual outcomes in figure A-I 

are structured so that, if the defendant is released on 

recognizance, Y li= I; and Y li=O if the defendant is given a 

financial condition or held. 

Yli* = Gl + ZI$I + eli 

Y2i* = G2 + ZZ$2 + e2i 

Y3i* = G3 + Z3$3 + e3i 

where Gj is a constant term, Zji is a matrix of observed values 

of independent variables, gj is a vector of parameters to be 

estimated, and e'i is an identically and independently 

distributed randbm variable. If test results are observed 

Y2i=I, and release without test results is indicated if Y2i=0. 

Finally, Y 3i= I for the cases in which misconduct occurs, and 

it is equal to 0 in the absence of misconduct This system 

has two levels of selectivity and three possibilities for 

correlation between the error terms. 

For the pretrial misconduct problem described in figure A-I 

and in the equations presented above, individuals who are 

held or have financial conditions set should be the worst 

risks. It follows that the correlation between eli and e3i, r13, 

will be negative: any accused with a large positive value of 

e3i tends to be perceived as a poor risk for release and hence 

likely to be held or have a financial condition set. It is also 

likely that defendants released on personal recognizance 

without urine testing are persons perceived as the lowest 

risks. Thus Y 2i and eZi are like Y3i and e in that the 

observation of the dependent variable equal to unit is more 

likely for the highest risk individuals. This means that the 

correlation between eZi and e3i'r23, should be positive also and 

that the correlation between eli and e2i, r.2, should be 

negative. Thus, there i3 reason to believe, a priori, that r

12<0, 

r13<0 and r23>O for the pretrial misconduct system presented 

here. 

Put another way, omitted variables which enter eZi and e3i so 

that they vary directly with the implicit probability of pretrial 

misconduct are likely to vary inversely with the implicit 

probability of release on personal recognizance in the first 

equation and with the omitted variables which enter eli' If 

the defendants with the highest risk for pretrial misconduct 

are selected out of the sample because they are given 

financial release conditions andlor held, then single-equation 

estimates of pretrial misconduct determinants on either path 

A or path B will tend to understate the likely amount of 

pretrial misconduct if all defendants were released. 

Specifically, estimates ofG3 would be biased downward and 

some of the parameters in the vector g3 would also be biased, 

depending on the correlation between eli and the independent 

variables. Estimates of path A will also be influenced by the 

selection process in which many of the best risks are sent 

along path B with t23>O. This will generate an upward bias 

in G3 which, to some extent, will compensate for the 

downward bias due to selection at the first stage. Thus, the 

overall selection bias that appears in single-equation 

estimates of pretrial misconduct using the sample selected to 

run through path A only will be the result of two 

compensating forces due to the negative rl3 and positive r

23. 

The results presented in table A-I address the issue of 

whether urine-test results, available shortly after arrest, make 

an incremental contribution to the explanation of pretrial 

rearrest, failure to appear, or pretrial misconduct. The 

statistical test for such incremental contribution is simple. 

Urine-test results on released defendants, along with other 

variables usually included in classification schemes, are 

related statistically to the subsequent observation of pretrial 

misconduct. The usefulness of urine-test results is affirmed 

19 
if the estimated coefficients for the variables reflecting urinetest results are statistically significant. 

There is a modest literature on pretrial misconduct 

classification functions. 2 Generally, the most successful 

variables in such equations arc those which indicate the 

previous criminal record and the current labor market 

. activity of the defendant. These variables are represented in 

the basic empirical tests performed here by PPP, a variable 

equal to the sum of the number of pending cases, parole, and 

Table A-I 

probation, and EXCON, the number of prior convictions. 

Labor market status is captured by EMPLOYED, a dummy 

variable equal to 1 if the defendant is employed and 0 

otherwise. It would be desirable to have information on the 

timing of prior convictions but that was not available. Also 

missing were details on type of employment, education, and 

marital status. 

Urine-test results are captured by a series of dummy 

variables which are represented as: COCAINE, equal to 1 if 

Trivariate Probit Estimates of Pretrial Rearrest, Failure To Appear, and Pretrial Misconduct 

Pretrial Failure to Pretrial 

Variable rearrest appear misconduct 

CONSTANT -0.794 -0.322 -0.445 

(0.922) (0.699) (0.62) 

EMPLOYED -0.127* -0.205- -0.228-

(0.070) (0.057) (0.066) 

PPP 0.317* -0.020 0.160 

(0.146) (0.26) (0.19) 

EX-CON 0.066- 0.024- 0.055" 

(0.021 ) (0.15) (0.011 ) 

COCAINE -0.046 0.379 0.264-

(0.095) (0.11 ) (0.11 ) 

OPIATES 0.211 0.173" 0.149-

(0.14) (0.094) (0.081 ) 

PCP 0.184- -0.111- 0.031 

(0.11 ) (0.063) (0.05) 

OPIATES&COCAINE -0.092 0.257· 0.004 

(0.085) (0.098) (0.073) 

OPIATES&PCP 0.092 -0.217 -0.089 

(0.34) (0.132) (0.099) 

PCP&COCAINE 0.037 0.047 0.046 

(0.07) (0.09) (0.08) 

MULTI DRUG 0.316- -0.103 0.232 

(0.12) (0.18) (0.16) 

NOB 7883 7883 7883 

F(11,3841) 

r12 .. 0.439 -0.397 -0.60 

(0.86) (0.91 ) (0.77) 

r13 -0.661 -0.251 -0.40 

(0.76) (1.05) (0.83) 

r23 0.102 0.472 0.45 

(0.45) (0,46) (0.43) 

-Indicates significance at 10 level; standard errors in ( 

20 
the defendant tested positive for cocaine only; OPIATES, 

equal to 1 if the accused tested positive for opiates only; 

PCP, equal to 1 if the defendant tested positive for PCP only; 

OPIATES&COCAINE, equal to 1 if the defendant tested 

positive for opiates and PCP only; PCP&COCAINE, equal 

to 1 if tests for PCP and cocaine only were positi ve; and 

MULTIDRUG, which was 1 if the defendant tested positive 

for three or more drugs. 

It is important to remember that the statistical relation is 

between urine-test results and misconduct, not drug use and 

misconduct. Drug use is not observable. The urine-test 

results provide a qualitative indication of drug use during the 

days before arrest. 

The estimation results in table A-I show that the type of 

drug for which a positive result was obtained has 

important implications for the probability of rearrest. 

Specifically, positive tests for "opiates only" or "PCP only" 

Figure A-I 

Three-S tage Model of Pretrial Miscond uct 

or for "three or more drugs" are directly related to the 

probability of pretrial rearrest, although the estimated 

coefficient of opiates is only significant under a one-tailed 

test. Urine-test results which indicate the presence of 

cocaine are not associated with higher probability of pretrial 

rearrest. Surprisingly, the estimated coefficient of 

OPIA TES&PCP, while positive, is nonsignificant in all three 

estimates. Of course, only a small proportion of all 

defendants tested positive for OPIA TES&PCP and negative 

for all other drugs but this result is surprising in view of the 

direct effects of "opiates only" or "PCP only" test results. 

The individual urine-test outcomes also have very distinctive 

effects on the probability of failure to appear. The estimated 

coefficient of COCAINE is positive, significant, and very 

large. Indeed, the estimated coefficient of 0.379 implies an 

increase in the marginal probability of failure to appear of 

about 15 percentage points associated with a positive urine 

test. Given that the mean probability of failure to appear is 

Arrested 

Held or Bail Set 

Yll=O 

[1] 

Misconduct 

Y31=1 

[2] 

I 

Urine Test 

Performed 

Y21=1 

I 

Path A 

I 

No Misconduct 

Y31=O 

[3] 

Released on 

Recognizance 

Y11=1 

I 

I 

No Urine Test 

Performed 

Y21=O 

Path B 

I 

Misconduct 

Y31=1 

No Misconduct 

Y31=O 

[4] [5] 

21 
approximately 20 percentage points, a marginal probability 

effect of 15 points is 75 percent of the mean-Le., this is a 

huge probability increase associated with positive tests 

for cocaine. 

The estimated coefficient for OPIATES is positive and 

significant, as is that for the two-drug combination, 

OPIATES&COCAINE. The estimated coefficient of 

OPIA TES&COCAINE is 0.257, which is an aver-age of the 

0.379 for COCAINE and 0.173 for OPIATES. PCP has a 

negative and significant estimated coefficient. The 

interaction terms involving PCP&COCAINE as well as 

OPIATES &PCP also appear to approximate averages of the 

individual drug coefficients. Thus, the failure-to-appear 

effects of combinations of the three major drugs appear to be 

combinations of the individual drug effects. MUL TIDRUG 

is nonsignificant. This result is surprising, but it may reflect 

the inclusion of methadone and amphetamines in the 

MULTIDRUG variable. 1t may be that positive 

amphetamine tests are detecting the use of legal medicines. 

In earlier specifications, an amphetamine test variable often 

had very counterintuitive values. 

For pretrial misconduct, the estimated coe~ficients of the 

urine-test result variables are easily summarized. COCAINE 

and OPIATES have effects on the probability of misconduct 

which are large, particularly for COCAINE, and statistically 

significant. None of the urine-test variables reflecting drug 

combinations is statistically significant at the lO-percent 

level selected as a standard. However, MULTI DRUG would 

be significant if a one-tailed t-test were adopted as a standard 

22 

and its estimated coefficient is large and positive. The 

failure of drug combination variables which-include PCP test 

results to be significant is understandable in the misconduct 

equation, given that the effect of PCP on pretrial rearrest is 

positive and significant but the effect on failure to appear is 

negative and significant. The estimated coefficients in the 

misconduct equation appear to reflect a combination of the 

pretrial rearrest and failure-to-appear results. 

Overall, the results presented in table A-I show that urinetest results do indeed make a consistent, significant, 

incremental contribution to pretrial risk classification for 

arrestees in the District of Columbia. Moreover, analysis by 

type of drug shows that specific drugs and combinations of 

drugs are related in different ways to the risk of pretrial 

arrest, failure to appear, or overall pretrial misconduct. 

1. See Lung-Fei Lee, "Sequential Discrete Choice 

Econometric Models With Selectivity (mimeograph, 

University of Minnesota, 1984); and Mary A. Toborg etal., 

Classification Systems for the Accused (report to the 

National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 

1986). 

2. See, for example, Samuel Myers, Jr., "The Economics of 

Bail Jumping," Journal a/Legal Studies 10 (June 1981): 

381-396; and Toborg et. aI., C lassificat ion Systems/or the 

Accused: An Empirical Analysis a/Washington, DC. (Final 

Report to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department 

of Justice, 1986). 
Appendix B 

Description of the Experimental Component of the DoC. 

Pretrial Services Agency's Urine-Testing Program for 

Defendants Awaiting Trial 

In March 1984, the D.C. Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) 

initiated a comprehensive program of urine testing for 

defendants awaiting trial in the District of Colum bia. One 

component of this program was an experiment, designed to 

test the efficacy of periodic urine testing before trial-as 

compared to (1) referral to treatment and (2) no drug-related 

intervention-in reducing pretrial rearrest and failure-toappear rates for defendants released before trial on 

nonfinancial conditions. As originaUy designed, the urinetesting program would operate as follows: 

• All arrestees processed through the lockup of the D.C. 

Superior Court would be tested for the presence of five drugs 

in their urine: opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), 

amphetamines, and methadone. 

• Defendants would be eligible for participation in the 

experiment if they (1) tested positive for any of these drugs 

or admitted drug abuse when interviewed by PSA staff; (2) 

were not already in treatment; (3) did not request referral to 

treatment at the time of t1:e PSA interview; and (4) were 

released by the court on nonfinancial conditions, subject to 

reporting to PSA for appropriate assignment of specific drugrelated release conditions. 

• Eligible defendants would be randomly assigned by PSA 

to one of three groups: one group would participate in a new 

program, to be run by PSA, of periodic urine testing before 

trial; a second group would be referred to drug abuse 

treatment, usually at the citywide treatment agency; and the 

third group would be a control group for whom no special 

release conditions related to drug abuse would be imposed. 

Overall, approximately 30 percent of the defendants who met 

the eligibility criteria for the experiment would be assigned 

to PSA's new urine-testing program; 50 percent would be 

referred to treatment; and 20 percent would serve as the 

control group. 

(> Defendants who violated their conditions of release-e.g., 

by continuing to use drugs and/or by failing to report as 

scheduled for testing or treatment-would have those 

violations reported by PSA to the court, which could then 

impose a variety of sanctions, ranging from a warning with 

rerelease to jail sentences for contempt of courL 

The pretrial urine-testing program consisted of two phases. 

Defendants were first placed in "regular urine testing," 

which provided for once-a-week urinalysis. 'DlOse persons 

who failed this phase of the program-by testing positive for 

drugs, or by failing to appear for a drug test, either twice in a 

row or three times over 3 months--entered a second phase: 

they were given the option of either entering "intensive urine 

testing," which provided twice-a-week urinalysis, or being 

referred to treatment. A violation was reported to the court 

only for failure in intensive urine testing or treatment, not for 

failure in the first phase (regular urine testing) of the 

program. 

Figure B-1 provides a flow diagram of the process of 

selecting defendants for the experiment and monitoring their 

progress. It shows the ways in which defendants could be 

exclude~ irom eligibility for participation in the experiment 

as well as the different paths that defendants, once selected, 

might follow. 

Although PSA's urine-testing program began in March 1984, 

it took several months for the various procedures to stabilize. 

Consequently, the first few months of operations were 

excluded from the analysis of the experimental results. That 

analysis was based on arrests during the 8-month period 

from June 1, 1984, through January 31,1985. There were a 

total of 16,130 arrests during this period. These involved a 

total of 11,458 individuals, with repeat arrests accounting for 

the difference between arrest cases and persons arrested. 

Lockup test results were available for 62 percent of all 

arrests. Approximately 60 percent of the lockup tests were 

positive for at least one drug. Based on the lockup test and 

the specific decision to release on personal recognizance 

with conditions, 2,153 cases were initially placed in the 

experiment, including 650 in urine testing, 1,109 in treatment 

referral, and 394 in the control group. The rates of 

predisposition rearrest for these three groups were 22 

percent, 23.5 percent, and 24.1 percent, respectively. These 

small differences in the rates of rearrest subsequently proved 

to be nonsignificant. 

Analyses showed that these three groups had indeed been 

assigned randomly. While there were very significant 

23 
Figure B~l 

Flow Diagram for Arrested Drug Users in the District of Columbia (June 19~Jan. 1985) 

I Arrested Drug Users 

I .""," 

I I 

Released to PSA I Not released to PSA 

-Released on surety bond 

-Released without drug condition 

-Not Released 

J 

Excluded from controlled experiment I Included in controlled experiment -In treatment when arrested I 

-Requested treatment 

-Ordered into treatment or urine testing 

by court 

I I 

Placed in Placed in Placed in 

urine-testing group control group treatment group 

i I I I • 

Suceeds in regular Fails in regular Succeeds or 

urine testing urine testing continues in Fails in treatment 

treatment 

I 

I I I 

Opts for intensive Opts for treatment Violation reported to 

urine testing court 

I 

Succeeds in Fails in intensive Succeeds or Fails in treatment intensive urine urine testing continues in 

testing 

I 

Violation reported to 

court 

differences in the demographics, prior criminal record, and 

other background characteristics of defendants in the 

experiment, these differences were not significantly related 

to the initial assignments to the three groups. 

Although the initial random assignment process worked as 

planned, problems subsequently arose in maintaining the 

comparability of the three groups throughout the pretrial 

period. These problems developed in part because of the 

length of the pretrial period in the District of Columbia. It is 

not unusual for a case to take 6 to 8 months-or even 

longer-to reach disposition, and during this time a 

24 

treatment 

I 

Violation reported to 

court 

defendant may be required to appear in court on several 

occasions on a variety of matters related to the same case. 

After PSA's urine-testing program began, and judges became 

more knowledgeable about it, a number of judges started 

ordering defendants who had not been initially assigned to 

the urine-testing program to enter it and comply with its 

requirements. These judicial orders often occurred during 

court proceedings that were held several months after the 

defendant's initial release to await trial and, thus, several 

months after the initial assignments to the experimental 

groups had been made. 
Another problem in maintaining group comparability arose 

because some defendants in both the urine-testing and 

control groups opted to enter treatment during the course of 

the pretrial period. As stated previously, any defendant who 

wanted to enter treatment at the time of the initial arrestwhich was also the time ofPSA's interview and initial 

(lockup) urine test-was permitted to do so; such defendants 

were excluded from eligibility for the experiment. This 

procedure seemed fair and reasonable, given that 

Washington, D.C., has a citywide drug abuse treatment 

program (with both outpatient and residential components) 

that any D.C. resident can seek to enter at any time. To deny 

any defendants the opportunity to enter treatment would have 

deprived them of a service available to all other District ~Jf 

Columbia residents-and of a service that would have been 

available to them, but for the experiment. This was, therefore, rejected as an option. 

Although it was anticipated that defendants who wanted to 

enter treatment would indicate this at the time of initial 

arrest-and many did so--other defendants decided to seek 

treatment later in the pretrial period. Some of these 

defendants had initially been assigned to the experiment's 

urine-testing or control groups. Again, this problem arose in 

part because the pretrial period is often a long one in the 

District of Columbia. Also, as discussed previously, the 

urine-testing program was designed to give defendants who 

failed the first stage of it the option of seeking treatment 

before a violation was reported. 

Finally, some problems with maintaining group comparability arose because many defendants had multiple 

arrests during the experimental study period. Although PSA 

attempted to keep rearrested defendants in their originally 

assigned groups (i.e., urine testing, treatment referral, or 

control), the releasing magistrates in new cases would 

sometimes order them into different groups. Thus, a 

defendant who was originally assigned to urine testing could 

have been ordered by the court at the time of rearrest to enter 

treatment. Similarly, a rearrested defendant originally 

assigned to the treatment referral group could have been 

ordered by the court into urine testing. Additionally, rearrest 

could change the release status of a defendant from own 

recognizance to bond or preventive detention; such 

defendants would no longer be supervised by PSA and, 

hence, would be removed from the experiment. 

Thus, after the initial random assignment of defendantll but 

before case disposition, a variety of events occurred that 

affected the comparability of the three experimental groups. 

As a result, straightforward comparisons of pretrial rearrest 

rates and failure-to-appear rates across the three groups-a 

key feature of the original analysis plan-were inconclusive. 

Those comparisons showed no significant differences across 

groups, but it is impossible to determine whether that was (1) 

because there was no difference in the impact of urine 

testing, treatment referral, or no intervention; or (2) because 

the comparability of the three groups was not maintained 

throughout the pretrial period and, if it had been maintained, 

important differences in outcomes might have been found. 

Although this question could not be resolved in the context 

of this experiment, there are a number of important findings 

that stem from the analysis of the data collected in 

connection with the experiment. These are discussed in the 

body of the report and have to do in particular with the way 

in which participation in the pretrial urine-testing program 

served as a "signaling" device that separated defendants 

according to levels of pretrial release risk. 

25 
Appendix C 

Detailed Results of Analyses 

Supporting Conclusions on Signaling 

The material in this appendix provides the statistical 

estimation results for the pretrial misconduct analyses 

discussed in chapter 4, concerning signaling behavior by 

participants in the pretrial urine-testing program. Estimation 

was performed using a linear probability model in which 

ordinary least squares regression was employed to estimate 

the relation between the independent variables and a binary 

dependent variable equal to one in the case of pretrial 

misconduct and zero otherwise. . 

Estimated coefficients of this model provide unbiased and 

consistent estimates of the partial effect on-the probability of 

TableC-l 

pretrial misconduct (or pretrial rearrest or failure to appear, 

as the case may be) of changes in the independent variable. 

The linear probability model estimated under ordinary least 

squares is not efficient, but there were sufficient observations 

so that efficiency was not a problem; and the ease of 

interpretation of results was deemed an advantage over 

nonlinear probit or logit estimates. Similar results were 

obtained with a binary probit estimator. 

The summary numbers in the first part of table C-l indicate 

the decrease in the expected probability of pretrial rearrest 

compared to the reference group, that is, defendants assigned 

Differences in Probability of Pretrial Rearrest, Failure To Appear, and Overall Pretrial Misconduct Based on 

Appearance for Urine Testing 

Ur'ne-testing status/appearance 

Urine testing/dropped out (ref. group) 

Urine testing/appeared 

Treatment refer(al group 

Control group 

Urine testing/dropped out (ref. group) 

Urine testing/appeared 

Treatment referral group 

Control group 

Urine testing/dropped out (ref. group) 

Urine testing/appeared 

Treatment referral group 

Control group 

Increase In 

probability 

Standard 

error 

Results for pretrial rearrest, mean probability = 0.204 

0.000 

0.167* 

-0.127* 

-0.123* 

0.000 

0.040 

0.035 

0.041 

Results for failure to appear, mean probability = 0.197 

0.000 

-0.165* 

-0.137· 

-0.148* 

0.000 

0.039 

0.034 

0.040 

Results for overall pretrial misconduct, mean probability = 0.357 

0.000 

-0.236* 

-0.169* 

-0.179* 

0.000 

0.047 

0.041 

0.047 

·Indicates significant difference from reference group at 1-percent level 

Results are presented as decreases in expected probability compared to those assigned to urine testing who dropped out by failing 

to appear for tests. 

26 
TableC-2 

Relation Between Defendant Characteristics, Including Lockup Test Results and Pretrial Mi .. conduct 

Independent Dependent variable 

variable PTARREST FTA MISCON 

CONSTANT 0.610* 0.560* 0.956* 

(3.97) (3.75) (5.31 ) 

AGE -0.020* -0.014 -0.026* 

(-2.27) (-1.61) (-2.50) 

AGESO 0.0002 0.00019 0.00029* 

(1.58) (1.46) (1.81 ) 

MALE 0.070* 0.004 0.061* 

(2.32) (0.14) (1.72) 

EMPLYD -0.029 0.001 -0.030 

(-1.35) (0.01 ) (-1.21) 

RAPE -0.018 0.10 0.110 

(-0.16) (0.89) (0.81 ) 

BURGLE 0.054 0.115* 0.116* 

(0.90) (1.97) (1.65) 

DRUGS 0.013 0.028 0.035 

(0.33) (0.72) (0.76) 

FLIGHT -0.271 0.292 0.101 

(-0.95) (1.05) (0.30) 

FORGERY 0.058 1.54* 0.151* 

(0.60) (1.69) (1.33) 

FRAUD 0.378 0.310 0.237 

(1.33) (1.21 ) (0.71 ) 

KIDNAP -0.164 0.889* 0.743 

(-0.41 ) (2.29) (1.59) 

LARCENY 0.008 0.122* 0.118* 

(1.38) (2.14) (1.73) 

ROBBERY -0.038 0.044 0.024 

(-0.64) (0.76) (0.34) 

PROSTI -0.027 0.338" 0.291* 

(-0.38) (4.90) (3.51 ) 

STOLCAR 0.058 0.105* 0.116* 

(1.05) (1.95) (1.78) 

STOLPTY -0.030 0.229* 0.164* 

(-0.45) (3.52) (2.10) 

WEAPONS -0.028 -0.031 -0.026 

(-0.44) (-0.50) (-0.35) 

PRESCRM 0.033 -0.164 -0.059 

(0.20) (-1.00) (-0.32) 

27 
Table C-2 (continued) 

Relation Between Defendant Characteristics, Including Lockup Test Results and Pretrial Misconduct 

Independent Dependent variable 

variable PTARREST FTA MISCON 

DESTPTY -0.041 -0.024 -0.053 

(-0.53) (-0.32) (-0.58) 

EXCON 0.030* 0.008 0.032* 

(4.61) (1.13) (4.01 ) 

PENDCASE 0.095" 0.031 0.083 

(1.82) (0.60) (1.36) 

PAROLL 0.002 0.010 -0.012) 

(0.05) (0.22) (-0.49) 

PROBTN -0.026* -0.144 -0.067* 

-(0.48) (-1.34) (-1.74) 

ADMIT 0.015 -0.012 0.003 

(0.65) (-0.53) (0.09) 

AMPHAM -0.058 -0.205* -0.217* 

(-0.56) (-2.07) (-1.86) 

METHDO 0.152 -0.240 -0.052 

(0.92) (-1.49) (-0.28) 

OPIATE 0.044 -0.037 -0.024 

(1.088) (-0.93) (-0.59) 

PCP -0.043 -0.117* -0.156" 

(-1.38) (-3.80) (-4.26) 

OPICOC 0.026 -0.004 0.006 

(0.70) (-0.12) (0.41 ) 

PCPCOC 0.043 -0.041 -0.012 

(1.18) (-1.14) (-0.29) 

OPIPCP 0.022 -0.119" -0.088* 

(0.051) (-2.88) (-1.78) 

TWODRG 0.028 -0.045 -0.043 

(0.36) (-0.61 ) (-0.48) 

APPEAR -0.157* -0.143" -0.202* 

(3.44) (-3.19) (-3.75) 

CLEAN -0.020 -0.143* -0.074 

(-0.44) (-2.05) (-1.36) 

TREAT -0.127" -0.137" -0.169-

(-3.57) (-3.98) (-4.08) 

CONTROL -0.123 -0.148* -0.179* 

(-3.01 ) (-3.71 ) (-3.72) 

F(35,1458) 2.52* 3.46* 3.67* 

"t-ratios" in ( ) under estimated coefficients *Indicates statistical significance at the 1 O-percent level 

The glossary following appendix D defines each variable. 

28 
to urine testing who did not meet the appearance criterion of 

showing up fDr three tests beyond the lockup test and are 

labeled "dropped out." For example, the coefficient of 

-0.167* for the group labeled "Urine-Testing/Appeared" 

means ..hat the expected probability of pretrial rearrest for 

those assigned to urine testing who appeared for four or more 

total tests was 16.7 percentage point.') lower than for the 

reference group, i.e., those assigned to urine testing who 

appeared for fewer than four total tests. This difference of 

almost 17 percentage points associated with appearance for 

urine t(""sting is approximately 80 percent of the mean 

expected probability of pretrial rearrest of20.4 percent. 

Thus, participation in urine testing separated defendants into 

groups with significant differences in expected pretrial 

rearrest rates. 

Note that both the defendants referred to treatment and those 

in the control group had expected pretrial rearrest rates about 

12.5 percentage points below that for those assigned to urine 

testing who did not appear for four or more total tests. The 

difference in expected pretrial rearrest rate between those 

appearing for tests and defendants referred to treatment or in 

the control group is about 4 percentage points (16.7-12.5). 

While this may not appear large, 4 percentage points is 20 

percent of the 20.4 percent mean for the entire sample. 

For both pretrial rearrest and failure to appear, individuals in 

urine testing who appeared for testing had probabilities 

between 16 and 17 percentage points lower than urine-testing 

dropouts. For overall pretrial misconduct (pretrial rearrest 

and/or failure to appear), the individuals appearing in urine 

testing had expected probabilities over 23 percent lower than 

the urine-testing dropouts. This difference is approximately 

two-thirds of the mean pretrial misconduct rate. 

Those defendants assigned to urine testing who appeared for 

more than three tests (after the lockup test) can be further 

divided into two groups based on the proportion of positive 

versus negative tests. In order to secure a more or less equal 

division betwecn groups, the standard of less than 25-percent 

positive tests for any drug was used to characterize the 

defendants appearing in urine testing who are termed 

"clean," with those exceeding the 25-percent standard termed 

"dirty." Thus, in the statistical analysis, the variable CLEAN 

was equal to one for those with less than 25-percent positive 

tests for any drug and zero for those with 25-percent or more 

positive tests. 

The partial effect of membership in the group of defendants 

in urine testing who appeared and were clean was judged by 

using estimates for the linear probability model of various 

types of pretrial misconduct referred to earlier. The 

estimated coefficient of the CLEAN dummy variable is 

interpreted as the additional fall in the probability of pretrial 

misconduct associated with testing clean as opposed to dirty. 

Not surprisingly, the estimated coefficient of the clean 

variable is always negative, but it is nonsignificant in the 

pretrial rearrest equation and only significant at the 20-

percent level in the pretrial misconduct equation (see table 

C-2). It is significant at the 5- percent level in the failure to 

appear equation, with an estimated effect of 14.3-percentage 

points; i.e., the expected rate of failure to appear is 14.3-

percentage points lower for those with clean urine-test 

patterns than for those with dirty test results. This difference 

is quite consequential compared to the mean 19.7-percent 

rate of failure to appear. 

Overall, these results are consistent with signaling behavior. 

Defendants signal their low-risk status by moderating or 

eliminating drug use, so that the proportion of negative tests 

is higher for those with lower rates of failure to appear. 

29 
Appendix D 

Bibliography 

Abowd, John M. and Henry S. Farber. "Job Queues and the 

Union Status of Workers." Industrial and Labor Relations 

Review, Vol. 35 (1982), pp. 354-367. 

Albrecht, James W. "A Procedure for Testing the Signalling 

Hypothesis." Journal o/Public Economics (February 1981), 

pp. 123-132. 

Amemiya, Takeshi. "Qualitative Response Models: A 

Survey." Journal o/Economic Literature, Vol. 19, No.4 

(1981), pp.1483-1536. 

Arrow, Kenneth. "Higher Education as a Filter." Journal 0/ 

Public Economics (February 1981), pp. 193-216. 

Ball, John C. et al. "The Criminality ofH~roin Addicts 

When Addicted and When Off Opiates," in James A. 

Inciardi, ed., The Drugs-Crime Connection (Beverly Hills, 

CA: Sage Publications, 1981). 

Becker, Gary S. "Crime and Punishment: An Economic 

Approach." Essays in the Economics o/Crime and 

Punishment. Gary Becker and William Landes, ed. (New 

York: Columbia University Press, 1974). 

Bellassai, John P. and Michael J. English. The Case for the 

Pretrial Diversion 0/ Heroin Addicts in the District 0/ 

Columbia (Washington, DC: American Bar Association 

Special Committee on Crime Prevention and Control, 1972). 

Bellassai, John P. and Phyllis N. Segal. "Addict Diversion: 

An Alternative Approach for the Criminal Justice System." 

GeorgelOwnLawJournal, Vol. 60 (1970), p. 667. 

Berndt, Ernest R., Bronwin H. Hall, Robert E. Hall, and 

Jerome A. H~usman. "Estimation and Inference in NonLinear Structural Models." Annals o/Economic and Social 

Measurement, Vol. 3 (October 1974), pp. 653-665. 

Block, Michael K. and John M. Heineke. "A Labor 

Theoretic Analysis of Criminal Choice." American 

Economic Review, Vol. 65 (September 1975), pp. 314-325. 

Blumstein, A., J. Cohen, F. Martin, and M. Tonry, eds. 

Research on Sentencing: The Search/or Reform, Vol. 1 

(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1983). 

30 

Carver, John A. Drugs and Crime: Controlling Use and 

Reducing Risk Through Testing. National Institute of Justice 

Research in Action series (Washington, DC: National 

Institute of Justice, September/October 1986). 

Clark, C. "The Greatest of a Finite Set of Random 

Variables." Operations Research, Vol. 9 (1961), pp. 

145-162. 

Daganw, C., F. BoutheIier, and Y. Sheffi. "Multinomial 

Probit and Qualitative Choice-A Computationally Efficient 

Algorilhm." Transportation Science, Vol. 11 (1977), pp. 

338-358. 

Eckerman, William C. et al. "Insights Into the Relationship 

Between Drug Usage and Crime Derived from a Study of 

Arrestees" Appendix to Drug Use and Crime: Report o/the 

Panel on Drug Use and Criminal Behavior, National 

Institute on Drug Abuse and Research Triangle Institute, 

September 1976. 

Farber, Henry S. "Worker Preference for Union 

Representation." Research in Labor Economics, Supplement 

Vol. 2 (1983), pp. 171-205. 

Fishe, Raymond H.P., Robert P. Trost, and Philip Lurie. 

"Labor Force Earnings and College Choice Among Young 

Women: An Examination of Selectivity Bias and 

Comparative Advantage." Economics 0/ Education Review 

(1981), 169-191. 

Gandossy, RobcrtP. et al. Drugs and Crime: A Survey and 

Analysis o/the Literature (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, May 1980). 

Goldberg, I. and F.C. Nold. "Does Reporting Deter 

BurgJars?-An Empirical Analysis of Risk and Return to 

Crime." Review o/Economics and Statistics (August 1980), 

pp.424-431. 

Goldkamp, John S. "Questioning the Practice of Pretrial 

Detention: Some Empirical Evidence From Philadelphia." 

The Journal o/Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 74, No. 

4 (1983), pp. 116-148. 

Goldkamp, John S., Michael R. GotLfredson, and Susan 

Mitchell-Herzfeld. Bail Decisionmaking: A Study in Policy 

___ ~i.~ ___ ~ 
Guidelines. Report to the National Institute of Corrections, 

U.S. Department of Justice, 1981. 

Gropper, Bernard A. "Probing the Links Between Drugs and 

Crime." Research in Brief, (Washington, DC: National 

Institute of Justice, February 1985). 

Hausman, Jerome and David Wise. "A Conditional Probit 

Model for Qualitative Choice." Econometrica, Vol. 46 

(1978), pp. 403-426. 

Heckman, James K. "Sample Selection Bias as a 

Specification Error." Econometrica, Vol. 47, No.1 (1979), 

pp. 153-161. 

Kaplan, John. The Hardest Drug (Chicago, IL: University 

of Chicago Press, 1983). 

Klepper, S., D. Nagin, and L. Piemey. "Discrimination in the 

Criminal Justice System: A Critical Appraisal of the 

Literature." In Research on Sentencing: The Searchfor 

Reform, Vol. 2, A. Blumstein et al., ed. (Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press, 1983). 

Landes, William M. "The Bail System: An Economic 

Approach." In Essays in the Economics of Crime and 

Punishment, Gary S. Becker and William M. Landes, ed. 

(New York: Columbia University Press, 1974). 

Layard, Robert and George Psacharopoulos. "The Screening 

Hypothesis and the Returns to Education." Journal of 

Political Economy (September/October 1974), pp. 985-998. 

Lee, Lung-FeL "Sequential Discrete Choice Econometric 

Models With Selectivity." Mimeograph, University of 

Minnesota, 1984. 

Lee, Lung-Fei and G.S. Maddala. "Sequential Decision 

Rules and Selectivity in Discrete Choice Econometric 

Models." Mimeograph, Center for Econometrics and 

Decision Sciences, University of Florida, 1983. 

Lerman, Steven R. and Charles F. Manski. "On the Uses of 

Simulated Frequencies To Approximate Choice 

Probabilities." In Structural Analysis of Discrete Data With 

Econometric Applications. Charles Manski and Daniel 

McFadden, ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981), pp. 

305-319. 

Mackaay, Ejan. Economics of Information and Law (Boston, 

MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff,1982). 

.it. __ _ 

Maddala, G.S. Limited Dependent and Qualitative 

Dependent Variables in Econometrics. (Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 1983). 

Manski, Charles F. "Prospects for Inference on Deterrence 

Through Empirical Analysis ofIndividual Behavior." In 

Economic Models of Criminal Behavior. John M. Heineke, 

ed. (New York: North-Holland Publishing, 1978). 

McFadden, Daniel. "Conditional Logit Analysis of 

Qualitative Choice Behavior." In Frontiers of Econometrics. 

Paul Zarembka, ed. (New York: Academic Press, 1975), pp. 

105-142. 

McGlothlin, William H. "Drugs and Crime." In Handbook 

on Drug Abuse. Robert L. Dupont et aI., ed. (Rockville, 

MD: National Institute Oal Drug Abuse, 1979). 

McGlothlin, William H. et al. An Evaluation of the 

California Civil Addict Program. (Rockville, MD: National 

Institute on Drug Abuse, 1977). 

Meng, Chung-Lo and Peter Schmidt. "On the Cost of Partial 

Observability in the Bivariate Probit Model." International 

Economic Review. Vol. 26, No.1 (February 1985), pp. 

71-85. 

Myers, Samuel L., Jr. ''The Economics of Bail Jumping." 

Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. X (June 1981), pp. 381-396. 

Poirier, Dale J. "Partial Observability in the Bivariate Probit 

Model." Journal of Econometrics. Vol. 44 (February 1980), 

pp.210-217. 

Posner, Richard A. "The Economic Approach to Law." 

Texan Law Review (1975), pp. 757-782. 

Rhodes, William. "The Adequacy of Statistically Derived 

Prediction Instruments in the Face of Sample Selectivity: 

Criminal Justice as an Example." Mimeograph, INSLAW, 

Inc., Washington, DC, 1985. 

Rhodes, William et al. Pretrial Release and Misconduct in 

Federal District Courts (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, 1984). Summary appears as Bureau of Justice 

Statistics Special Report, entitled "Federal Offenses and 

Offenders: Pretrial Release and Misconduct." January 1985. 

Rikoski, Giannina P. and Debra Whitcomb. An Exemplary 

Project: The D.C. Pretrial Services Agency, Washington, DC 

(Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, May 1982). 

31 
Riley, John. "Testing the Educational Screening 

Hypothesis." Journal of Political Economy (1979), pp. 

S227-S252. 

Roth, Jeffrey A. and Paul B. Wice. Pretrial Release and 

MiscondUct in the District of Columbia (Washington, DC: 

Institute for Law and Social Research, April 1980). 

Sherwood-Fabre, Liese. An Experiment in Bail Reform: 

Evaluating Pretrial Release Services Agencies in Federal 

District Courts. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana 

University, 1984. 

Smith, Douglas A., Eric D. Wish, and G. Roger Jarjoura. 

"Drug Use and Pretrial Misconduct in New York City." 

Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 5 (1989), 

pp. 101-126. 

Spence, A. Michael. Market Signaling: Informational 

Transfer in !-firing and Related Screening Processes 

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974). 

Stewart, James K. "Quid Pro Quo: Stay Drug Free and Stay 

on Release." George Washington Law Review, Vol. 57, 

Number 1 (November 1988), pp. 68-76. 

Stiglitz, Joseph. "The Theory of 'Screening,' Education, and 

the Distribution ofIncome." American Economic Review 

(March 1977), pp. 283-300. 

Stitzer, Maxine L. and Mary E. McCaul. "Criminal Justice 

Interventions with Drug and Alcohol Abusers: The Role of 

Compulsory Treatment." in [!~havioral Approaches to 

Crime and Delinquency, &J',r:::-~ K. Morris and Curtis J. 

Braukmann, ed. (New York_ ~ ienum Press, in press). 

Tinklenberg, Jared R. "Drugs and Crime." in Drug Use in 

America: Problem in Perspective, Appendix, Vol. I. 

National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, 

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973). 

Toborg, Mary A. et al. Treatment Alternatives to Street 

Crime (TASC) Projects. National Evaluation Program Phase 

I Summary Report (Washington, DC: National Institute of 

Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, February 1976). 

Toborg, Mary A. and John P. Bellassai. Background and 

Description of the Urine-Testing Program. Monograph 

prepared under a grant from the National Institute of Justice 

as part of the study entitled, Assessment of Pretrial UrineTesting in the District of Columbia, March 1988. 

32 

Toborg, Mary A. and John P. Bellassai. The Views of 

Judicial Officers. Monograph prepared under a grant from 

the National Institute of Justice as part of the study entitled, 

Assessment of Pretrial U rine-Testing in the District of 

Columbia, March 1988. 

Toborg, Mary A. and Michael P. Kirby. "Drug Use and 

Pretrial Crime in the District of Columbia, Research in Brief 

(Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, October 

1984). 

Toborg, Mary A., Anthony M.J. Yezer, and John P. 

Bellassai. Analysis of Drug Use Among Arrestees. 

Monograph prepared under a grant from the National 

Institute of Justice as part of the study entitled, Assessment of 

Pretrial Urine-Testing in the District of Columbia, March 

1988. 

Toborg, Mary A., Anthony M.1. Yezer, et al. Classification 

Systems for the Accused: An Empirical Analysis of 

Washington, D.C. Final Report submitted to the National 

Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, September 

1986. 

Toborg, Mary A., Anthony M.J. Yezer, et aI. Pretrial 

Release Assessment of Danger and Flight. Report submitted 

to the DC Pretrial Services Agency, June 1984. 

Trost, Robert P. and Anthony M.J. Yezer. "Sequential 

Selection and Selectivity in a Model of the Market for Bail 

Bond." Business and Economics Section, Proceedings of the 

American Statistical Association, 1985. 

Trost, RobertP. and Anthony M.J. Yezer. "Crooks and 

Their Keepers: Predicting and Preventing Criminal 

Behavior." Paper presented at the Conference on 

Asymmetric Information Models in Economics, University 

of California, Santa Cruz, May 1986. 

Visher, Christy and Richard Linster. "A Survival Model of 

Pretrial Failure." Draft discussion paper presented at the 

1988 annual meeting of the American Society of 

Criminology. 

Weissman, James C. "Understanding the Drugs and Crime 

Connection: A Systematic Examination of Drugs and Crime 

Relationships." Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, Vol. 10 

(1979), pp. 171-192. 

Wish, Eric D., Elizabeth Brady, and Mary Cuadrado. "Drug 

Use in Arrestees: Findings from Manhattan." Presented at 

the NIJ conference: Drugs and Crime: Detecting Use and 

Reducing Risk. (Washington, DC, June 5,1986). 
Wish, Eric D. and Bruce D. Johnson, "The Impact of 

Substance Abuse Upon Criminal Careers." In Criminal 

Careers and "Career Criminals," Volume II Alfred 

Blumstein, et al., ed. (Washington, DC: National Academy 

Press, 1986). 

Wish, Eric D., Mary A. Toborg, and John P. Bellassai. 

"Identifying Drug Users and Monitoring Them During 

Conditional Release." National Institute of Justice Issues 

and Practices series (Washington, DC: National Institute of 

Justice, February 1988). 

Witte, Ann Dryden. "Estimating the Economic Model of 

Crime With Individual Data." Quarterly Journal of 

Economics, Vol. 48 (February 1983), pp. 167-175. 

Witte, Ann D. and Peter Schmidt. "An Analysis of the Type 

of Criminal Activity Using the Logit Model." Journal of 

Research in Crime and Delinquency (January 1979), pp. 

164-179. 

Yezer, Anthony M.J., Robert P. Trost, and Mary A. Toborg. 

The Efficacy of Using Urine-Test Results in Risk 

Classification of Arrestees. Monograph prepared under a 

grant from the National Institute of Justice as part of the 

study entitled, Assessment of Pretrial Urine-Testing in the 

District of Columbia, March 1988. 

Yezer, Anthony M.J., RobertP. Trost, Mary A. Toborg, et al. 

"Periodic Urine-Testing as a Signaling Device for Pretrial 

Release Risk." Monograph prepared under a grant from the 

National Institute of Justice as part of the study entitled, 

Assessment of Pretrial Urine-Testing in the District of 

Columbia, May 1988. 

Zellner, Arnold and T.R. Lee. "Joint Estimation of 

Relationships Involving Discrete Random Variables." 

Econometrica, Vol. 33 (May 1965), pp. 382-394. 

33 
Glossary of Variables 

Personal Characteristics 

of the Defendant 

AGE - age of the defendant in years 

AGESQ - age in years squared 

MALE - dummy variable equal to unity for male, 

o otherwise 

EMPLYD -dummy variable equal to unity if defendant 

employed, 0 otherwise 

Criminal Justice Record 

of the Defendant 

EXCON - number of prior convictions 

PAROLL - dummy variable equal to unity if defendant on 

parole, 0 otherwise 

PENDCASE -number of cases pending against the 

defendant 

PROBATION - dummy variable equal to unity if defendant 

on probation, 0 otherwise 

Most Serious Charge at Arrest 

(all 0-1 dummy variables) 

RAPE - 1 if arrested for rape, 0 otherwise 

BURGLE - 1 if arrested for burglary, 0 otherwise 

DRUGS - 1 if arrested for drug possession or distribution, 

o otherwise 

FLIGHT - 1 if arrested for flight to avoid prosecution, 

o otherwise 

FORGERY - 1 if arrested for forgery, 0 otherwise 

FRAUD - 1 if arrested for fraud, 0 otherwise 

KIDNAP - 1 if arrested for kidnapping1 0 otherwise 

LA:f(CENY - 1 if arrested for larceny, 0 otherwise 

ROBBERY - 1 if arrested for robbery, 0 otherwise 

PROSTI - 1 if arrested for prostitution, 0 otherwise 

STOLCAR - 1 if arrested for auto theft, 0 otherwise 

STOLPTY - 1 if arrested for possession of stolen property, 

o otherwise 

WEAPONS - 1 if arrested for illegal possession of weapons, 

o otherwise 

PSESCRM -1 if arrested fat possession of criminal tools, 

o otherwise 

DESTPTY - 1 if arrested for destruction of property, 

o otherwise 

34 

Lockup Test Results 

(all 0-1 dummy variables) 

AMPHAM - 1 if test positive for amphetamines and 

negative for other drugs, 0 otherwise 

METHDO - 1 if test positive for methadone and negative for 

other drugs, 0 otherwise 

OPIATE - 1 if test positive for opiates and negative for other 

drugs, 0 otherwise 

PCP - 1. if test positive for PCP and negative for other 

drugs, 0 otherwise 

OPICOC -1 if test positive for opiates and cocaine and 

negative for others, 0 otherwise 

PCPCOC - 1 if test positive for PCP and cocaine and 

negative for other drugs, 0 otherwise 

OPIPCP - 1 if test positive for opiates and PCP and negative 

for other drugs, 0 otherwise 

TWODRG - 1 if test positive for two or more drugs but not 

for any of the three drug combinations shown above, 

o otherwise 

Urine-Testing Performance and Group 

Indicators (all 0-1 dummy variables) 

TREAT - 1 if defendant assigned to treatment referral, 

o otherwise 

CON1ROL - 1 if defendant assigned to control group, 

o otherwise 

APPEAR - 1 if in urine testing and appear for four or more 

tests, including the lockup test (Le., three tests beyond 

the lockup test), 0 otherwise 

CLEAN - 1 if APPEAR=1 and less than 25% of drug test 

results positive for each of the five drug types tested, 

o otherwise 

Pretrial Misconduct Variables 

(all 0-1 dummy variables) 

FT A-I if bench warrant issued on defendant for failure to 

appear before disposition of case or end of observation 

period, 0 otherwise 

PT ARREST - 1 if defendant arrested before disposition of 

case or end of observation period, 0 otherwise 

MIS CON - 1 if either FT A = 1 or PTCRIM = 1, 0 otherwise