Swift and Certain, Proportionate and Consistent: Key Values of Urine Drug Test Consequences for Probationers

Abstract

Traditionally, urine drug testing (UDT) in the correctional population (both prison and community corrections) has been infrequent, is scheduled, and has a high possibility of delayed results. Of practical relevance is that scheduled testing is ineffective for identifying drug misuse. Of ethical relevance is that consequences of positive scheduled tests can be unpredictable-in the form of overly severe punishment or a lack of treatment options-and that the scheduled testing paradigm is a poor way to change behaviors. More innovative programs now use a UDT paradigm with more frequent, random testing providing rapid results and certain, swift consequences and addiction treatment when warranted or requested. Studies have shown these new programs-the foundation of which is frequent, random UDTs-to significantly reduce drug use, criminal recidivism, and incarceration.

An Empirical Approach to a Standard Practice: Drug Testing

“…While once relatively rare, drug and alcohol testing has become a staple of the United States correctional system (Travis & Stacey, 2010) and is often viewed as an essential component to swift and certain interventions (Cadwallader, 2017). Drug testing is found in almost every element of the criminal justice system (Kilmer, 2008), including pretrial and bond cases, post-conviction probation and parole supervision, drug courts, and incarceration (Doherty, 2015).…”

Who gets screened and who tests positive? Drug screening among justice-involved youth in a midwestern urban county

“…Despite these ongoing practical and ethical challenges to administering DS, some justice systems have piloted systems to standardize DS administration. For example, Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program relies on standardized DS coupled with "swift and certain" sanctions (Cadwallader, 2017). This program mandates a certain number of random DS be administered to all individuals who are part of this program and there are a set range of consequences depending on the result of that screening (Cadwallader, 2017).…”

“…For example, Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program relies on standardized DS coupled with "swift and certain" sanctions (Cadwallader, 2017). This program mandates a certain number of random DS be administered to all individuals who are part of this program and there are a set range of consequences depending on the result of that screening (Cadwallader, 2017). This eliminates the probation officer's need to utilize their own discretion about who should be administered DS and further creates standardized responses to positive DS results.…”