DRUG TESTING FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS ON PAROLE: AN EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION*

• Author: RUDY HAAPANEN,LEE BRITTON
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2002.tb00087.x
• Date: 01 March 2002
• Published date: 01 March 2002

DRUG TESTING FOR YOUTHFUL

OFFENDERS ON PAROLE: AN

EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION*

RUDY HAAPANEN

LEE BRITTON

California

Youth Authority

Research Summary:

The present experimental study examined parole outcomes and arrests

for

1,958

California Youth Authority parolees, randomly assigned

to

levels

of

routine drug testing ranging from

“no

testing” to two tests per

month. Results showed

no

improved outcomes from more frequent

drug testing. Early positive drug tests, however, indicated increased

risk

of

recidivism.

Policy Implications:

Although limited

in

its scope, this study provided experimental evi-

dence that little crime-reduction benefit

of

routine drug testing above a

minimum level exists for regular parolees. However, drug testing may

serve as a relatively straightforward risk assessment procedure

for

future criminal behavior.

KEYWORDS: Corrections, Delinquency, Drugs, Juvenile Justice System,

Parole

Drug use has been closely associated with crime by a substantial body

of

research (Ball et al., 1981; Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982, 1984; Haapanen

1990, 1991; Wilson et al.,

2001;

Wish and Johnson, 1986). It has been

argued to contribute directly and indirectly to other forms of crime-both

property crime and violent crime (Goldstein, 1989; Wish and Johnson,

1986)-and to hinder the establishment of prosocial relationships and

lifestyles (Walters, 1992; Sampson and Laub, 1993). Continued drug use in

young offender populations is believed to contribute to a kind of down-

ward spiral by impeding the development

of

necessary skills, by undermin-

ing stable employment, and by encouraging the development

of

criminal

*

Preparation

of

this manuscript was supported by Grant 91-IJ-CX-KO23 from the

National Institute

of

Justice,

US.

Department

of

Justice. Findings, conclusions,

opinions, and recommendations presented in this report are those

of

the authors and

not necessarily those

of

the

US.

Department

of

Justice or the California Youth

Authority. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rudy

Haapanen, California Youth Authority, Research Division, 4241 Williamsbourgh Drive,

Sacramento, CA 95823 (e-mail: rhaapanen@cya.ca.gov.)

VOLUME

1

NUMBER

2

2002

PP

217-244

218

HAAPANEN AND BRITTON

associations. Controlling drug use, then, would seem to be critical for hav-

ing young offenders make even the first steps toward a more prosocial way

of

life. It has therefore been an important focus of rehabilitation and con-

trol efforts in the criminal justice system at all levels (Cullen et al., 1996;

Loeber and Farrington, 1998; Wish et al., 1988).

Drug testing is a popular component

of

most efforts to control drug use

among offenders on community supervision. Drug testing provides a con-

crete measure

of

drug use activity and, thereby, a reliable means of identi-

fying drug users and ongoing patterns of use (Cullen et al., 1996; Toborg et

al., 1989 Torres, 1996a, 1996b; Wish and Gropper, 1990). This information

can be used to establish treatment and supervision plans (Vito et al., 1993).

In addition, drug testing is commonly considered a deterrent to future

drug use and associated criminal activity (Toborg et al., 1989; Wish and

Gropper, 1990). Thus, drug testing is believed to help deter drug use by

parolees and

to

help detect it when it occurs in order to set the stage for

sanctions or treatment. To the extent that drug use is believed to contrib-

ute to future criminal behavior, drug testing would appear to be a valuable

tool for helping reduce crime among offenders returned to the community.

For agencies working with serious young offenders, drug testing is one

component

of

a global effort to rehabilitate offenders and guide their

behavior once released back to the community. Drug testing is one of

several tools, including electronic monitoring, home detention, and day

reporting centers, used in an effort to keep track of offenders, encourage

them to maintain stable patterns of employment or school, or discourage

criminal associations and risky behavior. These tools supplement standard

methods of supervision (such as face-to-face and phone contacts, collateral

contacts, direct observation, etc.), and they are intended to contribute to

the adoption of a more prosocial lifestyle and a reduction in criminal

behavior.

The value of drug testing as part of routine supervision of offenders in

the community, however, has not been demonstrated. Successes in reduc-

ing crime among addicted populations through a combination of substance

abuse treatment and aftercare services have been reported (McGlothlin et

al., 1977). However, studies

of

drug testing as part

of

intensive supervision

programs for regular offenders (Turner, 1992; Turner and Petersilia, 1992)

or as a component of pretrial release (Britt

et

al., 1992; Goldkamp and

Jones, 1992) have not been positive.

To

date, no studies have suggested

that drug testing among regular offender populations helps to reduce crim-

inal behavior.

The continued popularity

of

drug testing in probation and parole,

despite a lack

of

evidence that

it

improves the behavior

of

offenders, may

be based in part on its serving a number of more bureaucratic functions

for public agencies (Boyken and Haapanen, 1996; Simon, 1993). First, a