Drug Testing and Community Supervision Outcomes

• Published date: 01 April 2020
• Author: Melissa A. Alexander,William D. Hicks,Tammatha A. Clodfelter,Jefferson E. Holcomb
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854819898219
• Date: 01 April 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

898219CJBxxx10.1177/0093854819898219Criminal Justice and Behaviorhicks et al. / Drug Testing
research-article2020
Drug TesTing anD CommuniTy
supervision ouTComes
WILLIAM D. HICkS

JEFFERSON E. HOLCOMB
Appalachian State University
MELISSA A. ALExANDER
United States Probation and Pretrial Service
TAMMATHA A. CLODFELTER
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department
The requirement to submit to drug testing is either a standard or special condition of adult community correctional supervi-
sion in most jurisdictions. Positive drug test results are one of the most common violations of probation that result in official
action by a supervising officer. This study examines the relationship between individual characteristics, drug test results, and
federal supervision outcomes. Results indicate that individual risk score and offense category are associated with positive
drug tests. Furthermore, testing positive for hard drugs is associated with revocation for new crimes and non-drug technical
violations, but testing positive for cannabis only is not associated with supervision revocation for either reason.
Keywords: community supervision; probation; parole; drug testing; drug use; risk assessment
Scholars and policy-makers frequently note a relationship between substance abuse and
delinquency, criminal behavior, and community supervision outcomes (Bennett et al.,
2008; Hawken et al., 2014; White & Gorman, 2000). Despite the extensive research on the
relationship between substance use and crime, the causal mechanisms of this relationships
are not exactly clear (see White & Gorman, 2000), and there are important variations in this
relationship depending on individual and community characteristics, the specific substance,
and the type of criminal behavior (Bennett et al., 2008; e.g., Britt et al., 1992; Cartier et al.,
2006; Mieczowski et al., 2000; Pedersen & Skardhamar, 2009). Nevertheless, a substantial
body of research finds a relationship between substance abuse, especially opiates, cocaine,
auThors’ noTe: The authors wish to thank Randy Hamilton for his generous assistance in obtaining data
for this study. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this article are solely
those of the authors and do not represent those of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Police Department, or the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Service. Correspondence concerning this
article should be addressed to Jefferson E. Holcomb, Department of Government and Justice Studies,
Appalachian State University, 224 Joyce Lawrence Lane, ASU Box 32107, Boone, NC 28608; e-mail: holcom-
bje@appstate.edu.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2020, Vol. 47, No. 4, April 2020, 419 –436.
DOI: 10.1177/0093854819898219
ht
ps:/
doi.
rg
Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
© 2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
419

---

420 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
and other “hard” drugs, and criminal activity and negative outcomes in community supervi-
sion in the United States and other Western countries (Bennett et al., 2008; Butken et al.,
2011; Hearnden, 2000; Horyniak et al., 2016; Pierce et al., 2015).
Individuals under correctional supervision have much higher rates of illegal drug use,
substance abuse, and substance dependency than what is found in the general population
(Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014; Wooditch et al., 2013).
Approximately 80% of the state and federal prison population admitted to using illegal
drugs at least once in their lifetime and nearly 30% reported being on drugs at the time of
their offense (Mumola & karberg, 2006; see also Spohn et al., 2014). Individuals within
state prison reported “regular” use of cocaine (30%), methamphetamine (15%), and heroin
(13%), all of which are much higher than found among the general population (Mumola &
karberg, 2006).
In response to public concerns over drug use and crime in the 1980s, many states and the
federal government began to include drug testing as a condition of pretrial release, proba-
tion, or parole. Since that time, drug testing has become a standard or special condition of
state and federal felony community supervision in every jurisdiction in the United States
(Travis & Stacey, 2010). Drug testing is most frequently used in drug treatment court envi-
ronments and for identified substance abusers (Hawken et al., 2014). As a standard condi-
tion of supervision in many jurisdictions, however, drug testing may be required for any and
all individuals under supervision in a manner designated by department policy or officer
discretion.
purpose anD researCh QuesTions
Prior research provides useful information about the factors associated with revocation
of community supervision, including illegal substance use and alcohol abuse (e.g., Gray
et al., 2001). A significant body of research finds that illegal drug use, positive drug tests,
and/or substance abuse increase risk for recidivism, supervision failure, or program termi-
nation (see, generally, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 2013; White & Gorman,
2000). However, the purpose of these studies and available data limit knowledge about the
frequency of positive drug tests, the drugs for which individuals test positive, and the rela-
tionship between test results for different drugs and types of supervision outcomes. For
example, Shannon et al. (2016) reported that more positive drug tests and testing positive
for either cannabis or cocaine decreased the likelihood of successfully completing a drug
court program. However, the official reason for termination from the program was not
reported and the authors did not examine new criminal behavior as an outcome of interest.
Gray et al. (2001) found that nearly one quarter (22%) of all reported violations among their
sample were due to positive drug tests. However, the authors did not have information on
the specific drug for which their population tested positive. Furthermore, the study did not
differentiate between violations of supervision and revocation of that supervision. In a study
of the impact of Arizona’s passage of a mandatory drug treatment law, Rodriquez and Webb
(2007) reported that a positive drug test was the most serious violation for approximately
one third of those on probation supervision. However, the study was limited to persons with
low-level offenses and did not distinguish type of drug or examine the relationship between
positive drug tests and more serious violations (e.g., new crime). Furthermore, the focus on
individuals whose supervision was revoked limits the generalizability of these findings.

---

Hicks et al. / DRUG TESTING 421
Thus, it appears that gaps exist in the existing research which impedes our understanding of
the relationship between drug testing outcomes, individual characteristics, and supervision
outcomes.
Scholars and community supervision practitioners continue to advocate for community
supervision to be guided by evidence-based policy and practices (see Andrews, 2006; Bonta
& Andrews, 2016; Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 2013; Crime and Justice Institute,
2009). A better understanding of the relationship between drug testing results and supervi-
sion outcomes could be useful in improving assessment of individuals under supervision,
targeting interventions for those individuals, and more effective responses to illegal sub-
stance use (e.g., Bahr et al., 2012; Hawken et al., 2014; Taxman et al., 2003). Utilizing data
on individuals under federal community supervision, this study examines three primary
research questions: (a) what is the distribution of specific drug test results among individu-
als under federal community supervision, (b) what relationships exist between drug testing
outcomes for specific drugs and individual and case characteristics, and (c) what, if any,
relationships exist between positive drug tests for specific drugs and different supervision
outcomes?
meThoD
sample
Our sample consists of all individuals under federal postrelease supervision or probation
supervision from a single federal district during an 11-year time period (2007–2017). The
district has approximately 1,600 active community supervision cases at any given time and,
as with most federal districts, the majority of offenses are gun or drug related. While the
federal criminal justice system includes different types of community supervision, the vast
majority of individuals (83%) are under supervised release, which is a judicially imposed
term of community supervision to follow a determinate prison sentence (Motivans, 2019).
This is consistent with our sample, of which roughly 87% of terms of supervision were for
supervised release.
DaTa
Data were obtained from the federal district’s information management system and
included characteristics about individuals under supervision and their drug tests. Data on
individual characteristics include race,1 sex, age, and initial offense category (drug, vio-
lence, weapons, sex offense, traffic, public order, and financial). Individual risk was con-
trolled by using Risk Prediction Index (RPI) scores.2 Our sample includes individuals on
postrelease supervision, as well as probation supervision. Given the unique challenges and
potentially higher risk and needs faced by those returning to the community after incarcera-
tion, analyses differentiate between terms of probation and supervised release....