Reducing Substance Use in Prison: The California Department of Corrections Drug Reduction Strategy Project

• Published date: 01 June 2004
• Date: 01 June 2004
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0032885504265485
• Subject Matter: Journal Article

10.1177/0032885504265485
THE PRISON JOURN
Prenderg
AL / June 2004
ast et al. / CDC DRUG REDUCTION STRATEGY
REDUCING SUBSTANCE USE IN PRISON:
THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS DRUG REDUCTION
STRATEGY PROJECT
MICHAEL L. PRENDERGAST
MICHAEL CAMPOS
DAVID FARABEE
University of California, Los Angeles
WILLIAM K. EVANS
JULIAN MARTINEZ
California Department of Corrections
Inmate welfare, staff security, public health concerns, and the need for recovery-
friendly prison environments have been cited as supporting efforts to control in-
prison substance use. This article reports on the California Department of Correc-
tions (CDC) Drug Reduction Strategy Project, which involved systematic random
urine testing and drug interdiction measures. The two-phase evaluation took place at
four CDC institutions, with three serving as test sites and one serving as a standard-
procedures comparison site. The results of Phase I, random urine testing of 150
inmates per week from the eligible inmate general population, supported the effec-
tiveness of systematic random urine testing in reducing in-prison substance use, as
measured by the number of inmates refusing to test or testing positive for illicit sub-
stances. The results of Phase II, which involved continued random urine testing at the
three test sites in addition to K-9 drug detection teams at one institution and drug
detection equipment at another institution, led to further reductions in substance use,
but few drug finds resulted from the additional interdiction measures.
Keywords: prison substance use; drug interdiction; drug testing
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 created the
Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) Incen-
tive Project, providing funds for prison bed expansion and stipulating that up
to 10% of VOI/TIS funds could be used for inmate drug testing. In January
THE PRISON JOURNAL, Vol. 84 No. 2, June 2004 265-280
DOI: 10.1177/0032885504265485
© 2004 Sage Publications
265

---

266
THE PRISON JOURNAL / June 2004
1999, the Clinton administration proposed a zero-tolerance policy for drugs
in prison in response to the high rates of substance use in state and federal
prisons, the link between drugs and crime, and the extensive criminal records
of many drug offenders (Office of the Press Secretary, 1999). Furthermore,
experts have advocated drug-control measures in prisons to help foster absti-
nence and facilitate substance use behavior change (e.g., Belenko, Peugh,
Califano, Usdansky, & Foster, 1998). Beginning in the 1990s, many state
departments of corrections augmented existing drug-control measures with
increased, systematic urinalysis drug testing.
Inmates’welfare, staff members’security, public health concerns, and the
need for recovery-friendly prison environments have been cited as support-
ing efforts to control in-prison substance use. The Epidemiological Catch-
ment Area Study found the rate of violent behavior for those with alcohol or
drug use disorders to be over 12 times that of the general public (Regier et al.,
1990). Prison staff members indicate that substance trade strengthens prison-
based gangs, leads to inmate-on-inmate violence, and increases inmate–on–
staff member attacks. Also, drug-using inmates face increased HIV and hep-
atitis C infection risk. Incarcerated intravenous drug users often inject with
shared equipment (Dolan, Wodak, Hall, Gaughwin, & Rae, 1996; Shewan,
Gemmell, & Davies, 1994), and infected, formerly incarcerated intravenous
drug users may transmit HIV and hepatitis C to the general population
through postrelease behavior, even if they know that they are HIV positive
(O’Mahony & Barry, 1992).
In light of these risks, several state departments of corrections have used
random urine testing to reduce the use of drugs in prison. Pennsylvania’s
drug reduction strategy (drug-detecting K-9 teams, drug detection equip-
ment, and random urinalysis and hair testing), put into place from 1995 to
1998, led to a 41% reduction in drug finds from cell searches, a 57% decrease
in assaults on staff members, a 70% decrease in inmate-on-inmate assaults, a
drop in weapons seized during searches from 220 to 76, and a reduction in
estimates of overall inmate drug use from 10.6% to 2.3%, as measured using
hair testing (Feucht & Keyser, 1999). In Wisconsin, random urinalysis test-
ing, coupled with progressive sanctioning for positive tests, reduced an ini-
tial 26.9% positive drug urinalysis rate to a rate of 5% (Vigdal & Stadler,
1989).
Beginning in 1999, the California Department of Corrections (CDC) con-
ducted a pilot program at four CDC institutions that included random urinal-
This study was funded by the California Department of Corrections (Contract No. C99.216).
The conclusions and interpretations in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the views of this department.

---

Prendergast et al. / CDC DRUG REDUCTION STRATEGY
267
ysis drug testing and systematic drug interdiction practices. This article pro-
vides a description of the CDC’s Drug Reduction Strategy (DRS) Project and
an evaluation of its effectiveness, as measured by the rates of drug-positive
inmate urinalysis tests and substance interdiction.
DRS PROJECT EVALUATION DESIGN
The four sites, selected for similar institutional demographics and geo-
graphic diversity, were Ironwood State Prison (ISP), California State Prison,
Solano (SOL), Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP), and Mule Creek State
Prison (MCSP). Three sites were designated as interventions sites (ISP, SOL,
and PVSP), and one site was designated a comparison site (MCSP). For the
duration of the program, all inmates not in administrative segregation, hospi-
talized, or in substance abuse treatment programs at the three intervention
sites were eligible for random selection for drug testing each week. The pilot
program was divided into two phases. During Phase I, weekly random urine
testing augmented existing urine testing procedures (e.g., for cause, after
family member visits, etc.) and was expected to have a systematic impact on
inmates’ substance use. Phase II involved the systematic use of drug-detecting
K-9 teams and drug-detecting equipment, representing a novel use of new
and preexisting department resources. At all of the sites, standard drug inter-
diction efforts (e.g., the monitoring of phone calls, the use of cameras in vis-
iting areas, the tracking of inmate trust accounts, for-cause urine testing)
continued. Point prevalence estimates of substance use derived from a ran-
dom sample of 20% of the eligible inmate population at each of the four par-
ticipating institutions were gathered at baseline, at the completion of Phase I,
and at the completion of Phase II.
DRS PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
The DRS Project was implemented in two phases beginning in September
1999 and culminating in January 2001. Table 1 lists the significant events in
the DRS Project described in the text below.
PHASE I
Weekly urinalysis testing commenced in October 1999 at ISP, PVSP, and
SOL and continued through March 2000. MCSP used its standard drug inter-
diction procedures.1 At ISP, SOL, and PVSP, approximately 150 inmates
were selected weekly from the eligible inmate population and required to

---

valence y 2001)
Pleasant
=
Phase II
uar
an
andom sample
andom sample
andom sample
andom sample
Point Pre (J
PVSP
20% r
20% r
20% r
20% r
Solano;
by Institution
ison,
ug
Pr
000)
y to
A testing, eek, and
A testing, eek, and
eek
UA testing,
State
Phase II (Ma
rd procedures
nia
andom testing)
or
December 2
ug-detecting
Random U 150 per w ion-scanning dr detection equipment Random U 150 per w dr K-9 teams Random 150 per w Standa (no r
Calif
=
or Phase I and Phase II,
SOL
ons f
lysis;
venti
vention
valence il 2000)
urina
=
Inter
Phase I
andom sample
andom sample
andom sample
andom sample
ol Inter
(Apr
UA
Point Pre
20% r
20% r
20% r
20% r
ison;
Pr
State
A testing, eek
A testing, eek
A testing, eek
ood ison.
ditional Drug Contr
Phase I
andom testing)
Ironw Pr
(October 1999 to March 2000)
=
Random U 150 per w
Random U 150 per w
Random U 150 per w Standard procedures (no r
ISP State
luding Ad
ategy; Creek
Str
oint
Mule
=
valence
oject Design Inc
Pre
andom sample
andom sample
andom sample
andom sample
Reduction MCSP
Baseline P
(September 1999)
20% r
20% r
20% r
20% r
rug
D ison;
DRS Pr
= Pr
DRS State
TE: y
TABLE 1:
Institution
ISP
SOL
PVSP
MCSP
NO Valle
268

---

Prendergast et al. / CDC DRUG REDUCTION STRATEGY
269
provide urine samples. The urinalysis battery included assays for alcohol,
amphetamines, methamphetamines, benzoylecgonine (a metabolite of co-
caine), morphine, phencyclidine, barbiturates, and metabolites of THC (the
psychoactive ingredient in marijuana). Sanctions were enforced for the pro-
vision of a drug-positive urine sample and could...