The Western Criminologist:
As fall approaches, planning for the 1996 WSC conference is shifting
into high gear. The 1996 conference will be held in the lush wine country
of Northern California. We have two excellent people handling the planning:
Patrick Jackson, Professor at nearby Sonoma State, is the Program Chair,
and Barbara Bloom, from nearby Petaluma, is the Facilities Chair. Patrick
is spending much of his time this fall lining up a keynote speaker, arranging
plenary sessions, and issuing the call for papers. Barbara is working with
the staff at the Red Lion Inn in Rohnert Park to ensure we have the space
and equipment needed for our conference. Now is the time to make the commitment
to present a paper. Late February is a lovely time to visit the wine country,
the wild mustard should be blooming in the vineyards and the temperatures
should be mild. Look over the call for papers and think about what you could
contribute. A progress report on work-in-progress is one option if you are
in the middle of a study. The theme for our 1996 meeting is "Reassessing
Crime, Realizing Justice: Collaborating for a New Agenda."
Planning for the 1996 conference started in earnest at our May board meeting.
This meeting was different form previous board meetings since it utilized
video conferencing. One difficulty with getting people to serve on the WSC
board of directors is that attending the quarterly board meetings can be
expensive, since each of us must pay our own expenses to attend. If everyone
lived in California, it wouldn't be a big problem; but if we want to include
members from other states and countries, we need-ed to find a less costly
way to conduct board meetings. Currently we have board members from the
states of Washington (Julius Debro), Nevada (Matt Leone), Hawaii (voting
past president Meda Chesney-Lind), Texas (Patrick Kincade) and California
(the rest of the board). Since increasing participation is one of the goals
of the organization, the board decided to try video-conferencing for our
May meeting. Many college campuses have video-conferencing capabilities
and we decided to try to link everyone up with a nearby campus. Things didn't
go quite as planned; we ended up with most of the northern California board
members and Pat Kincade who flew in from Texas, at California State University,
Sacramento, with a video link to Martha-Elin Bloomquist at California State
University, Bakersfield. On audio links (but no video) were Julius Debro,
snow-bound Matt Leone, Cheryl Maxon on an audio link to Bakersfield, and
the San Diego board members, Chris Curtis, Cynthia Burke and Darlanne Hoctor.
It was expensive for WSC since we had to pay charges for using the facilities
at CSUS and Bakersfield. Moreover, only Martha-Elin and those of us at CSUS
were on video; Martha-Elin gamely smiled and talked into the camera, knowing
that eight of us, several hundred miles away, were watching her every move.
She, on the other hand, had eight different people to observe. Everyone
else, on audio links, had to use their imaginations. Despite several mix-ups
and some delays in getting everybody hooked up, the meeting proceeded smoothly
and we were able to conduct discussions about our upcoming conference, awards,
and committee assignments.We got through our agenda expeditiously and ended
our meeting early. The consensus of the board was that video-conferencing
worked well for the May meeting where a lot of the agenda consisted of discussing
preliminary plans for the next conference and taking on assignments, but
face-to-face meetings are more functional for our fall meeting where we
must work out conference details. It was a learning session for all of us.
A big thanks goes to board members Miki Vohryzek-Bolden at CSUS, and Chris
Curtis, at San Diego Data Processing Corp., for doing much of the work in
finding out about the video-conferencing process and helping to make the
arrangements.
Several important issues were discussed at our May board meeting. One big
decision the board made was to hold our 1997 WSC conference in Hawaii. The
board has been discussing this for several years and the site committee
concluded that the time was right. We are hoping to arrange some type of
terrific travel package with inexpensive airplane fares to Hawaii. Start
saving your money and plan on Hawaii in 1997. Darlanne Hoctor and Barbara
Bloom did a lot of work checking out possible sites for our next couple
of conferences.
One of the most important contributions to the 1996 meetings comes from
you. Participation is what the WSC is all about. We were founded with the
idea of providing a place (our meetings) for Western criminologists, criminal
justice policy makers, and criminal justice practitioners to get together
informally and share information and experiences. The board is working hard
to provide an informative program in a pleasant setting, where informal
discussions complement the formal program. Your participation is key to
the conference success. Plan on joining us, February 22-25, 1996.
The association between drug use and criminal activity has been shown
quite clearly in a number of studies (Ball, Rosen, Fleuck and Nurco, 1981;
Blumstein, Cohen, Roth and Visher, 1986; Chaiken and Chaiken 1982, 1984,
1990; Chaiken and Johnson, 1988; Haapanen, 1990, 1991). This association
has led to the widespread belief that controlling drug use can help to control
other criminal activity among offender populations, through preventing crime
directly related to drug use (sales, possession, and criminal activity facilitated
by intoxication or aimed at obtaining money for drugs) and through facilitating
the development of a more pro-social way of life. Conditions of probation
or parole routinely include the prohibition of drug use, and drug testing
is commonly used to determine whether these conditions are being met. Most
agencies performing community supervision of offenders routinely test at
least some of those offenders for the presence of drugs in their urine.
Drug testing has been shown to improve outcomes for adult civil addicts
under community supervision in California (Wish, Toborg, and Bellassi, 1988)
and it is assumed to have a similar effect with offenders.
Drug testing serves three primary purposes in parole. First, the threat
of detection through drug testing may deter offenders from using drugs and
thereby reduce related criminal activity. Second, it aids in the detection
of substance abuse problems, which may impair the parolee's ability to maintain
employment or develop healthy social relationships, and set the stage for
treatment intervention. Third, it provides a basis for monitoring the parolee's
ability to meet parole conditions and thereby for evaluating parole performance
and readiness for discharge from supervision. These potential benefits,
however, must be viewed in the overall context of parole casework. For parolees,
drug use is typically only one of a number of problems that might hinder
successful reintegration into society, and the importance of controlling
drug use may differ across parolees. In this context, drug testing is best
thought of primarily as one tool, among many, that parole agents use to
do casework. The importance of drug test information and the agent's response
to a dirty test will ordinarily depend on the overall adjustment of the
parolee.
Because drug testing expands the ability of a parole agent to "observe"
problem behavior among parolees, its usefulness as a tool for parole supervision
is not a major concern. Drug testing clearly improves the parole agent's
ability to detect drug use and/or to verify suspected drug use among parolees.
Still unresolved, however, are who, how often, and under what circumstances
to test for drugs to provide the most cost-effective parole services.
This study addresses the relative effectiveness of different levels of routine
drug testing (defined in terms of frequencies of tests) for reducing criminal
behavior among parolees and for helping them to successfully reintegrate
into society. The main policy issue involves the efficient use of parole
resources. Drug testing takes time and money, both of which tend to be in
short supply in agencies providing community supervision. Even if an agency
could afford to test everyone under supervision often enough to detect any
and all drug use, this may not be the best use of resources. For some, most,
or even all parolees, some resources might better be spent on other services,
such as assistance with more positive adjustment activities: placements,
school, vocational training, counseling, and so on. In 1991, when this study
was designed, the California Youth Authority (CYA) had about 6,000 offenders
on active parole supervision. These parolees were tested approximately once
per month, on average, at a cost of about eight dollars per test. This seemingly
minimal level of drug testing cost the CYA over $500,000 per year.
What is needed is better information on the pay-off associated with the
extent and frequency of drug testing (who and how often to test). If, as
suggested above, a drug testing program for parolees serves primarily as
a deterrent and as a tool for identifying and addressing broader adjustment
problems, it stands to reason that the detection of each and every incident
of drug use may not be necessary, especially if doing so requires an inordinate
commitment of time and resources to drug testing. It may be that as long
as agencies can detect the drug use patterns that indicate these adjustment
problems, they can afford to "miss" certain drug use incidents.
If a pattern of drug use is developing, even a less-than-comprehensive drug
testing regimen should still detect it eventually.
The primary research question addressed by this study concerns the relationship
between frequency of drug testing and parole outcome: Does more frequent
testing result in a different parole outcome than less frequent testing?
To date there is no direct empirical basis for hypothesizing any differences
in outcome among the testing levels (Wish and Gropper, 1990). While a high
frequency of testing might be expected to result in greater numbers of parole
failures due to drug use (through better detection), this effect will be
counterbalanced by any deterrent effects that might be related to higher
frequencies of drug testing. The objective of the study will be to determine
the relative benefits associated with different levels of testing, with
the aim of determining the lowest practical level of routine unscheduled
drug tests for offenders on parole supervision.
A secondary research question involves the impact of drug testing frequency
on parole supervision itself. Do different levels of mandatory drug testing
result in differences in how parole agents supervise parolees? Do they come
to rely on drug testing in some cases in lieu of other methods of determining
how well a parolee is doing? Does the inability to test when they feel they
should result in additional workload (e.g., to identify a possible drug-use
pattern)? At issue here are the factors other than the potential effects
on parolee outcomes that would bear on the value of limiting or imposing
various levels of drug testing on parole agents.
The sample was to include all young offenders committed directly to the
California Youth Authority from juvenile or adult courts and who were released
to parole over the course of one year. Other cases were to be excluded only
if their possible parole exposure was very limited or if their parole circumstances
made unscheduled drug tests impractical or unfeasible. All cases meeting
the following basic criteria were eligible for the study:
The major activities to date have focused on implementing and monitoring
the study: training of parole staff, implementation of procedures, data
collection/monitoring, and parole agent interviews. As discussed above,
the study sample included 1,963 cases. Case assignments were distributed
as expected in terms of exclusions and proportions falling into each of
the five testing groups. The five groups are also very similar to one another,
as shown in Table 1, pointing to the success of the random assignment procedure.
Overall, the sample selection phase of the study was very successful.
Table 2 shows the results of a two-year analysis of drug tests by testing
group (April 1993 through March 1995), taking into account periods in which
the parolees were not available for testing (e.g., AWOL or in custody).
Both the aggregate figures (all tests divided by the total number of available
months for each group) and the group means for the individual average tests
per month indicate that the groups are not being tested at the assigned
levels, although there are significant differences among the groups. Ongoing
monitoring of the drug testing program has found that most parole agents
are making a concerted effort to test at the assigned levels. The failure
to achieve the assigned levels of testing has been the result of a number
of factors, including parole agent reductions and absences (leaving temporarily
unsupervised caseloads), peculiar circumstances that prevent routine testing
(such as placement in short-term residential programs), and errors. The
California Youth Authority's parole administration made a concerted effort
to encourage compliance and enforce the testing standards, and some improvements
were made over time. These problems are being studied carefully in order
to determine their possible implications for implementing a program of drug
testing at pre-assigned levels for unselected parolees. Parole agent interviews
will attempt to determine the reasons for their not being able (or, in some
cases, willing) to test at assigned levels. These interviews will focus
on workload issues, practical considerations and philosophical issues, such
as the perceived inappropriateness of continued testing of parolees at high
levels despite their positive adjustment to parole.
Results of preliminary analysis of the proportion failing parole (removed
from parole for an arrest or other parole violation) as of 8/16/95 are shown
in Table 3. The overall results, combined with the data on actual drug-testing
levels from Table 2, are displayed graphically in Figure 2. These results
include all cases, regardless of the amount of follow-up time they have,
and do not include information on activities of parole successes after they
were discharged from CYA jurisdiction. The figures indicate that roughly
similar proportions of each group had failed as of August 16, 1995. Further,
the types of violations (law violations and technical violations of parole)
were also similar across groups. Small differences observable in these tables
are not statistically significant. If these and other preliminary results
can be substantiated by the remaining statistical analyses, taking additional
data into account, they would suggest that parolees tested only upon arrest
do as well on parole as parolees who are tested eight times as much (Figure
2). Such results would also have profound implications for the value of
drug testing (and similar monitoring tools) in community supervision settings.
These results would also serve as a basis for better understanding community
supervision of serious offenders in general. Interviews with parole agent
will focus on possible reasons for the weak relationship between drug testing
levels and outcomes on parole. It may be, for example, that parole agents
are able to adjust to different amounts of drug test information by using
alternative means of getting information on drug abuse and other patterns
of unwanted behavior. It may also be that drug use is not particularly important
in determining parole outcomes for these, very serious, offenders.
This study focuses on drug testing as a part of parole supervision, and
will provide information on the relationship between the amount of drug
testing and the successful completion of parole for a large and varied sample
of young, serious offenders. These results will be useful for helping paroling
agencies decide what proportion of their (typically scarce) resources to
devote to this activity. It may also provide these agencies with information
on the kinds of offenders for whom drug testing seems to have the greatest
impact, thereby helping these agencies target their drug-testing resources
most efficiently.
Beyond these straightforward policy issues regarding drug testing per se,
the study will also provide information on the potential organizational
effects of policies regarding the amount of drug testing. Through interviews
with parole agents, the study will identify ways in which drug testing interacts
with agent's styles of supervision, particularly with respect to balancing
the dual nature of the parole agent's role, as cop and social worker. In
addition to a general organizational policy regarding the value and purpose
of drug testing, each agent has his/her own attitudes and beliefs on these
matters. These attitudes affect how and when drug tests are performed and
how the results are used. Policies regarding drug testing levels may therefore
differ in their application for different agencies and for different personnel
within agencies. An understanding of these social factors should be useful
to any agency considering the implementation or modification of policies
regarding the amount (or targeting) of drug testing.
Ball, J., Rosen, L., Fleuck, J., and Nurco, D. (1981) The Criminality
of Heroin Addicts When Addicted and When Off Opiates. In J. Inciardi (Ed.),
The Drugs-Crime Connection. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J., and Visher, C. (1986) Criminal Careers
and "Career Criminals." Volume 1. Washington DC: National Academy
Press.
Chaiken, J. and Chaiken, M. (1982) Varieties of Criminal Behavior. Santa
Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Chaiken, J. and Chaiken, M. (1984) Offender Types and Public Policy. Crime
and Delinquency. 30 (2), 195-224.
Chaiken, J. and Chaiken, M. (1990) Drugs and Predatory Crime. In J. Wilson
and M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and Justice, Volume 13: Drugs and Crime. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Chaiken, M. and Johnson, B. (1988) Characteristics of Different Types of
Drug-Involved Offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Goodman, L. (1970) The Multivariate Analysis of Qualitative Data: Interactions
Among Multiple Classifications. Journal of the American Statistical Association,
65, 226-265.
Goodman, L. (1971) The Analysis of Multi-Dimensional Contingency Tables:
Stepwise Procedures and Direct Estimation Methods for Building Models for
Multiple Classifications. Technometrics, 13, 33-61.
Haapanen, R. (1990) Selective Incapacitation and the Serious Offender: A
Longitudinal Study of Criminal Career Patterns. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Haapanen, R. (1991) Patterns of Violent Crime: A Longitudinal Investigation.
Sacramento: California Youth Authority.
Linster, R., Lattimore, P., and Visher, C. (1995) Predicting Rearrest for
Violent Serious Youthful Offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
32, 54-83.
Maltz, M. (1984) Recidivism. New York: Academic Press.
Wish, E. and Gropper, B. (1990) Drug Testing in the Criminal Justice System:
Methods, Research and Applications. In J. Wilson and M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime
and Justice, Volume 13: Drugs and Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Wish, E. Toborg, M. and Bellassi, J. (1988) Identifying Drug Users and Monitoring
them During Conditional Release. National Institute of Justice Briefing
Paper. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute
of Justice.
The 1996 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences will
be held March 12-16, 1996 at the Riviera Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada. The
theme is The Future of Crime and Justice. Persons interested in participating
should contact a program committee member or Lee Ross, Program Chair, University
of Wisconsin, School of Social Welfare/Box 786, 1133 Enderis Hall, Milwaukee,
WI 53201, phone: 414-229-6134, fax: 414-229-5311: e-mail:Lross@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu.
Abstracts and information are due to coordinators by October 15, 1995 and
participants will be notified of the acceptance/rejection of abstracts by
November 15, 1995.
The 1996 Western Society of Criminology Annual Meeting is scheduled for
February 22-25, 1996 at the Red Lion Hotel in Rohnert Park (Sonoma), California.
The theme of the conference is Reassessing Crime, Realizing Justice: Collaborating
for a New Agenda. Please contact Pat Jackson, Department of Criminal Justice
Administration, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California 94928,
707-664-2126 to submit panel or paper ideas.