DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03259
title: National Evaluation of Operation Drug Test, 1998-1999
title: Archival Version

description: This study is an evaluation of Operation Drug TEST (ODT), a
 pretrial intervention program that was implemented in fiscal year 1997
 in 25 of the 94 federal judicial districts in the United States. The
 name of the program, "TEST," is both a reference to testing and an
 acronym representing the program's three objectives: (1) Testing to
 identify drug-involved defendants before their first court appearance,
 (2) Effective Sanctions when defendants on release were found to be
 using drugs, and (3) Treatment referrals for drug-using defendants, as
 needed. The program was based on the view that drug testing, when
 closely linked to sanctions and treatment placements in response to
 ongoing drug use, can reduce drug use among defendants on pretrial
 release. The overall goal of the program was to deter drug use and its
 adverse consequences among defendants on pretrial release. The
 purposes of the evaluation were to describe the process of program
 implementation and to document ODT's impact on sanctioning and
 treatment. Data for this evaluation were gathered from official
 records collected from the ODT database, which was maintained by the
 Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC). Parts 1 and
 2 contain data from fiscal year 1998 for initial drug tests and
 subsequent drug tests, respectively. Data from fiscal year 1999 (Parts
 3 and 4) were divided into two groups, depending on the model of ODT
 implementation and the stage at which initial drug testing took place.
 DOJ and AOUSC determined that districts could choose to implement the
 program under either of two models. Model 1 (Part 3) followed the
 original concept, namely, initial testing at the pre-bail stage. In
 Model 2 (Part 4), the initial test was to occur as soon as possible
 after the defendant's first court appearance, if he/she was being
 released, but before release into the community. Variables unique to
 Part 1 include date of birth, arrest date, initial hearing date,
 hearing date, decision date, and release date. Variables for all parts
 include the district name, its circuit and office, which model a
 defendant conformed to, current or prior drug charges, and drug
 history. Additional variables for all parts include whether the
 defendant tested positive for amphetamines, cocaine, cannabis,
 opiates, PCP, and other drugs, whether testing had increased, type of
 test administered, if treatment was added or had increased, whether a
 test was taken by pretrial services or by a contractor, and if by
 pretrial services, where it was taken, testing devices used, whether
 an outside laboratory was used, and if results were reported to the
court.
description: This study is an evaluation of Operation Drug
 TEST (ODT), a pretrial intervention program that was implemented in
 fiscal year 1997 in 25 of the 94 federal judicial districts in the
 United States. The name of the program, "TEST," is both a reference to
 testing and an acronym representing the program's three objectives:
 (1) Testing to identify drug-involved defendants before their first
 court appearance, (2) Effective Sanctions when defendants on release
 were found to be using drugs, and (3) Treatment referrals for
 drug-using defendants, as needed. The program was based on the view
 that drug testing, when closely linked to sanctions and treatment
 placements in response to ongoing drug use, can reduce drug use among
 defendants on pretrial release. The overall goal of the program was to
 deter drug use and its adverse consequences among defendants on
 pretrial release. The purposes of the evaluation were to describe the
 process of program implementation and to document ODT's impact on
 sanctioning and treatment. In particular, the following research
 questions were addressed: (1) How many defendants got the initial test
 before their release? (2) How many "hidden" users were detected on the
 initial test (i.e., defendants for whom there was no other indication
 of drug involvement)? (3) How much surveillance testing was done with
 defendants on release? (4) Did ODT affect districts' responses to
 defendants who tested positive on release? (5) Was there evidence of
 change in the likelihood of sanctioning or the types of sanctions
 applied? (6) How did ODT affect the districts' use of treatment
placements for defendants who tested positive on release?
description: The Department of Justice (DOJ) had lead
 responsibility for launching ODT. The Administrative Office of the
 United States Courts (AOUSC) oversaw program implementation in
 participating districts and provided training and technical assistance
 in areas such as selection of the drug test technology, recordkeeping,
 and reporting. DOJ sent letters inviting participation in ODT to all
 94 federal judicial districts. About one-third expressed interest, and
 the Judicial Conference and DOJ selected 25 districts. One district
 later dropped out. Each district was assured that their participation
 in ODT would be compatible with and readily incorporated into pretrial
 procedures and policies already in place. Data for this evaluation
 were gathered from official records collected from the ODT database,
 which was maintained by the AOUSC. Parts 1 and 2 contain data from
 fiscal year 1998 for initial drug tests and subsequent drug tests,
 respectively. Data from fiscal year 1999 (Parts 3 and 4) were divided
 into two groups, depending on the model of ODT implementation. As
 originally conceived and approved by the Judicial Conference in June
 1996, ODT's operational concept or "program model" was to be the same
 in all districts. The initial drug test was to occur at the pre-bail
 stage, i.e., before the defendant's first court appearance. Thereafter,
 defendants on release would undergo further drug testing. In some
 districts, circumstances precluded drug testing before the defendant's
 first court appearance. DOJ and AOUSC determined that districts could
 choose to implement the program under either of two models. Model 1
 (Part 3) followed the original concept, namely, initial testing at the
 pre-bail stage. In Model 2 (Part 4), the initial test was to occur as
 soon as possible after the defendant's first court appearance, if
 he/she was being released, but before release into the community.
 Among the 24 participating districts, 18 adopted Model 1 at the outset
and six adopted the alternative, Model 2.
description: Variables unique to Part 1 include date of birth,
 arrest date, initial hearing date, hearing date, decision date, and
 release date. Variables for all parts include the district name, which
 circuit and office, which model a defendant conformed to, current or
 prior drug charges, and drug history. Additional variables for both
 parts include whether the defendant tested positive for amphetamines,
 cocaine, cannabis, opiates, PCP, and other drugs, whether testing had
 increased, type of test administered, if treatment was added or had
 increased, whether a test was taken by pretrial services or by a
 contractor, and if by pretrial services, where it was taken, testing
 devices used, whether an outside laboratory was used, and if results
were reported to the court.
description: Response Rates: Not applicable.
description: Presence of Common Scales: None.
description: Not applicable.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: 1998 First Test Data
DS2: 1998 Subsequent Test Data
DS3: 1999 Model 1 Site Data
DS4: 1999 Model 2 Site Data
description: Drug-involved defendants under pretrial supervision within
one of 24 participating program districts.
description: The user guide, codebook, and data collection
 instruments are provided by ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF)
 files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated
 and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe
 Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat
Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.