DOI: 10.3886/icpsr34494.v1
title: Evaluating a Presumptive Drug Testing Technology in Community Corrections Settings, 2011, Alabama, Florida and Wyoming
title: Version 1

description: These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This study was a multi-site evaluation of a presumptive drug detection technology (PDDT) developed by Mistral Security Incorporated (MSI). The evaluation was conducted by Justice and Security Strategies, Inc. (JSS) in work release programs, probation and parole offices, and drug courts in three states: Alabama, Florida, and Wyoming. Also, interviews with the offenders, corrections staff, and program administrators were conducted.
description: The purpose of the study was to determine whether presumptive drug detection technology (PDDT) has a place in the field of community corrections. The specific questions asked were as follows: Will this technology increase agencies' success in identifying offenders and/or settings that have been exposed to drugs? ; Does the technology help to decrease the overall cost of drug testing (i.e., less use of urine analysis)? ; What is the overall cost/effectiveness of using this product? ;
description: The evaluation of the presumptive drug detection technology (PDDT) was conducted in six community corrections programs in Alabama, Florida, and Wyoming over 11 months in 2011. With programs in Wyoming visited on multiple occasions as it served as an intensive case study site. At each site the testing of PDDT was evaluated in the following ways: Observation of adherence to study protocols. Officer compliance with device instructions (using test papers on the requisite areas). ; Examination of PDDT result records: number and type of reactions (e.g., single or multiple drugs present). ; Track follow-up urinalysis results to assist in determining positive/false positive rates. ; Develop a system for tracking the number of transactions, successes or failures in using the PDDT. ; Interviews with correctional officers and/or staff at each testing site to obtain their opinions as to how well PDDT worked and the operational efficiency of PDDT and to ascertain what, if any, challenges occurred during the study. ; Interviews with a sample of offenders subject to PDDT at each site to elicit their opinions of the experience. Questions included an assessment of their level of objection to the swiping on their skin and/or possessions (e.g., did the offender find the procedure was invasive or offensive? In addition, offenders were queried as to their perception of the effectiveness of the spray to detect different types of drugs. ; Obtain limited background information on the offenders who were subject to a PDDT in order to determine if participant characteristics and criminal background may be factors. ;
description: Evaluating a Presumptive Drug Testing Technology in Community Corrections Settings dataset (n= 560) contains 51 variables on the test site, demographics and criminal record of the offender, and PDDT and urine test results.
description: Response Rates: 94 of the 565 offenders (or 16.8 percent) tested in the PDDT project were interviewed.
description: Datasets: 
 
 DS1: Dataset
description: face-to-face interview 
 These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
description: Offenders in community corrections programs in the states of Alabama, Florida and Wyoming. Corrections officers, probation staff and community corrections administrators were also interviewed as part of the process evaluation. Smallest Geographic Unit: County
description: Wyoming Department of Corrections (WDOC). WDOC Phase I of the presumptive drug detection technology (PDDT) evaluation was conducted at the Cheyenne Transitional Center (CTC) in February 2011. 55 offenders were tested and 27 were interviewed. Four CTC staff were interviewed. ; WDOC Phase II of the PDDT evaluation was conducted at the CTC in August 2011. 58 offenders were tested of which 24 was also tested in Phase I, and 14 were interviewed. Tests were also conducted at the Cheyenne District Parole and Probation Office in August 2011. 44 were tested and 16 were interviewed. Four staff were interviewed. ; In addition interviews were held with state level community corrections and CTC administrators. ; Alabama Montgomery County Community Corrections (MCCC), Alabama PDDT evaluation was conducted in August 2011. 58 offenders were tested and 4 were interviewed. Three staff members were interviewed. In addition interviews were held with MCCC administrators. ; Mobile County Community Corrections, Alabama PDDT evaluation was conducted in August 2011. 104 offenders were tested. ; Florida Department of Corrections Plantation Probation Office PDDT evaluation was conducted in November 2011. 150 offenders were tested and 20 were interviewed. Eight staff members were interviewed. ; Miami Gardens Probation Office PDDT evaluation was conducted in December 2011. 94 offenders were tested and 13 were interviewed. Three staff members were interviewed. ;