Own your ow legal marijuana business | Your guide to making money in the multi-billion dollar marijuana industry |
US Government Publications on Drugs | ||||
General Accounting Office Publications |
|
Drug Enforcement and Treatment in Prisons, 1990U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin Drug Enforcement and Treatment in Prisons, 1990 July 1992 NCJ-134724 Full text with tables available from: BJS Justice Statistics Clearinghouse 1-800-732-3277 Box 6000 Rockville, MD 10850 This study examines how State and Federal correctional facilities seek to stop the entry and use of illegal drugs. Based on the 1990 Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities, the report indicates that nearly 9 in 10 institutions conduct urine surveillance among the inmate population, usually on a random basis or on suspicion of use. Marijuana and cocaine were the drugs most commonly detected--in Federal facilities about 1 in 100 of the tests for marijuana and 1 in 250 tests for cocaine were positive while in State facilities about 1 in 16 tests were positive for marijuana and 1 in 28 were positive for cocaine. I want to express my deep appreciation to the employees in the 957 State prisons, 80 Federal prisons, and the 250 community-based facilities who participated in the census. The 100-percent response rate is, I believe, important testimony to the utility and significance of national data on the operations of our Nation's correctional facilities. Steven D. Dillingham, Ph.D. Director Drug Enforcement and Treatment in Prisons, 1990 By Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph.D. BJS Statistician About 7 of every 8 prisons in the Nation tested an estimated total of 565,500 inmates for one or more illegal drugs between July 1, 1989, and June 30, 1990. In State facilities, 3.6% of the tests for cocaine, 1.3% for heroin, 2.0% for methamphetamines, and 6.3% for marijuana found evidence of drug use. In Federal prisons, 0.4% of the tests for cocaine, 0.4% for heroin, 0.1% for methamphetamines, and 1.1% for marijuana were positive. This report uses information provided to the Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities. Data were collected from 957 State prison facilities, 250 State community-based facilities, and 80 Federal prisons operating on June 29, 1990. Censuses were also conducted in 1984, 1979, and 1974, but the 1990 census was the first to gather information on drug interdiction practices, drug testing of inmates and staff, and inmate drug treatment programs. Other findings from the 1990 census include the following: *Ninety-eight percent of State community-based facilities--those in which at least half of the residents may leave the facility daily--tested residents. All Federal prisons and 83% of State prisons reported that they tested inmates for drug use. *Seventy-six percent of institutions reported testing inmates for drugs when drug use was suspected. Twenty percent tested all inmates at least once during confinement. *At State confinement facilities 1.4% of tests for cocaine, 1.0% for heroin, 2.3% for methamphetamines, and 5.8% for marijuana indicated drug use. *At State community-based facilities 8.9% of tests for cocaine confirmed the presence of the drug, as did 2.2% for heroin, 1.1% for methamphetamines, and 8.1% for marijuana. *State confinement facilities that only tested inmates suspected of drug use had higher positive rates than facilities that tested all or random groups of inmates (6% for cocaine and 14% for marijuana versus 1.5% for cocaine and 5% for marijuana). *State and Federal facilities used a variety of methods to prevent drugs from being brought into the institution, including ques-tioning, patdowns, clothing exchanges, and body cavity searches. *At admission inmates were required to exchange clothing in 88% of the Federal prisons and 59% of State prisons; inmates were patted down in 88% of Federal prisons and 78% of the State prisons. *In the facilities using the most intrusive interdiction technique, body cavity searches, positive drug test results among inmates tested were lower than in facilities using other methods of interdiction. *Questioning and search of belongings were widely used for visitors to both Federal and State facilities. *Federal confinement facilities reported that they could provide drug treatment for an estimated 7,800 inmates; State confinement facilities, for 114,000; and State community-based facilities, for 9,400. *Federal facilities were using an estimated 62% of total drug treatment capacity on June 29, 1990; State confinement facilities, 78%; and community-based facilities, 66%. Introduction The Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities, conducted periodically by the Bureau of the Census on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), included a new series of questions in 1990. (See Methodology on page 12 for further information about the census and the questionnaire.) This addendum--designed with the assistance of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Office of National Drug Control Policy--asked how facilities interdict drugs and paraphernalia among inmates, visitors, and staff and who was chosen for each method of interdiction. In addition, the addendum gathered information on drug testing policies, practices, and outcomes. The questionnaire asked facilities to estimate the number of inmates in need of drug treatment programs and the capacity of currently available programs. Methods of drug interdiction Different facilities have a variety of policies and practices related to interdiction of drugs from inmates, visitors, and staff. Facilities may physically check persons entering the facility. Inmates may be checked for drugs or other contraband when they enter a facility for the first time or reenter after an absence. The checks may be relatively nonintrusive, such as verbal questioning or pat-downs, or more intrusive, such as body cavity searches and clothing exchanges or searches of belongings. These checks may be conducted among all entering persons, random groups, or only those suspected of carrying drugs. Many prisons may use all of the approaches at different times. The figure below shows a general typology for the range of methods for each type of drug interdiction. A plus sign (+) indicates the use of a method and a minus sign (-) means no reported use. Type 1 facilities, for example, reported using all three methods to choose persons for an interdiction activity. Type 4 facilities reported performing an interdiction activity on all persons but not choosing random or suspected subjects. Interdiction All Random Suspected Type 1 + + + Type 2 + + - Type 3 + - + Type 4 + - - Type 5 - + + Type 6 - + - Type 7 - - + Type 8 - - - Interdiction activities: Most prison facilities patted down inmates and required them to exchange clothes upon admission or any reentry Prison facilities perform many activities to prevent drugs and other contraband from entering. Correctional authorities commonly question inmates, pat them down, require changing into prison-furnished clothes, and search body cavities. Eighty-eight percent of Federal facilities reported that they patted down new admissions and required them to replace their clothes (table 1). Seventy-eight percent of State confinement facilities and 71% of community-based facilities patted down newly admitted inmates. (Community-based facilities are those in which half or more of the residents are permitted to leave unaccompanied by staff for work or study. Because inmates regularly leave community-based facilities, drug-related problems in these facilities are different from those in secured facilities.) Fifty-nine percent of State confinement facilities and 26% of community- based facilities required them to substitute prison clothes. At least three-quarters of both State and Federal facilities questioned new admissions about drugs. When looking for the presence of hidden drugs, facilities were less likely to perform body cavity searches than take other interdiction measures. Sixty-one percent of Federal facilities, 45% of State confinement facilities, and 14% of State community-based facilities reported that they conducted body cavity searches among inmates at admission. Institutions could apply an interdiction activity to all inmates, to groups of inmates selected at random, or to suspected drug users or couriers. Patting down new and returning inmates and requiring them to exchange clothes generally applied to all inmates (table 2). Over 80% of Federal facilities patted down all inmates and required an exchange of clothing. Almost 78% of State confinement facilities frisked all inmates, and 57% substituted prison clothes. In 46% of Federal facilities and in 20% of State facilities, body cavity searches were conducted among all entering inmates. About 39% of State confinement facilities reported that a body cavity search would be conducted when the staff suspected inmates of carrying drugs. Most facilities searched the belongings of visitors Staff checked visitors' belongings for drugs in 93% of Federal institutions, 87% of State confinement facilities, and 76% of the community-based (table 3). Visitors were patted down for drugs in 51% of Federal prisons, 69% of State confinement institutions, and 40% of community-based facilities. All visitors were generally subjected to searches of their belongings (table 4). About 83% of Federal facilities and 57% of State facilities looked through the personal possessions of all visitors. Frisking visitors for drugs and checking body cavities occurred primarily if visitors were suspected of carrying drugs or paraphernalia. Five in ten of Federal prisons and 4 in 10 of State facilities patted down visitors on suspicion. About 28% of Federal Facilities and 18% of State facilities searched body cavities of visitors if the visitors were suspected of smuggling drugs. Staff were also subject to drug interdiction activities: When reporting to work, staff were patted down in about half of State confinement facilities and in more than a fifth of Federal confinement and State community-based facilities (table 5). In over 50% of Federal facilities and 40% of State facilities staff were questioned. Most interdiction activities involving staff were conducted on suspicion of smuggling drugs. About 45% of Federal facilities and 23% of State facilities interrogated staff if they were suspected of drug involvement (table 6). About 19% of Federal facilities also patted down staff on suspicion, compared to 14% of State facilities. About 23% of State facilities frisked staff members at random. Maximum security facilities took more stringent drug interdiction measures than other facilities Staff in Federal maximum security prisons were more likely than those in medium or minimum security facilities to search body cavities and to require all inmates to exchange clothing (table 7). All Federal maximum security institutions required all inmates to put on new prison-issued clothes upon entry or reentry. Nearly 55% of Federal maximum security facilities, compared to 38% of minimum security prisons, conducted body cavity searches of all newly admitted or returning inmates. In maximum security prisons staff were less likely than in other Federal facilities to question all of the inmates or to pat them down. All inmates were interrogated in 64% of maximum security prisons and frisked in 73%, while all inmates were questioned in 94% of minimum security facilities and patted down in 81%. The staff in State maximum and medium security prisons were more likely than those in minimum security facilities to make all entering or returning inmates exchange clothes (over 60% of maximum or medium security prisons, compared to 47% of minimum security prisons). In nearly 1 in 5 maximum security State prisons, staff searched the body cavities of all new or returning prisoners. Staff performed body cavity searches on suspected inmates in over half of State maximum security facilities. State community-based facilities were less likely than State confinement facilities to search residents to interdict drugs. Staff in about 59% of State community-based facilities patted down all inmates. In 22% of community-based facilities, the staff required all inmates to change to facility clothing, and in 15%, searched body cavities of residents suspected of having drugs. Interpreting measures of drug testing Prevalence of drug use in prisons is difficult to estimate. Part of the difficulty occurs with record keeping and reporting. A drug test determines the presence of a specific drug at a specific level. A single urine sample can be used for a single drug test or for multiple tests for different drugs. Correctional authorities were asked to report the number of tests for each drug and the number of positive tests. However, some authorities may have reported the number of urine samples taken if their records included only those figures. Other difficulties in estimating the amount of drug use in prison include the following: *Prisons differ in the selection of whom to test. Most facilities do not choose inmates for testing using a sample with a known probability of selection: One cannot say that the selected inmates represent all inmates in the institution. * Prisons differ in what drugs they test for. Prison authorities may not suspect the use of a drug and not test for it, even though the drug is used in their facility. Other prisons may conduct repeated tests for a drug seldom used. * A single urine specimen can have more than one positive drug test from an individual using multiple drugs. Describing positive rates by type of drug will overstate the number of inmates with at least one positive test. *Prisons differ in how often they test inmates. Drug testing may be rare in some prisons and frequent in others. *Urine tests only detect the presence of most drugs 48 to 72 hours after use, except for PCP and marijuana, which may be detected up to 30 days after use. This varying span, when combined with lack of random sampling, distorts any estimation of overall drug use. * Depending on various factors, the presence of methamphetamines may not be distinguished from amphetamines; therefore, the test results for these two drugs should be considered together. *Prisons may differ in the types of tests used. Some types are more accurate than others, producing lower numbers of false positives and false negatives. Facilities may or may not perform confirmatory tests, and they were not asked to estimate the number of false positives and false negatives. For the above reasons, drug test results in this report are not a measure of the extent of the problem in the various kinds of facilities. Positive results should be interpreted only as indicating the percentage positive for the specific tests given. Testing urine for drug use Most correctional facilities tested some inmates for illegal drug use About 87% of all correctional facilities tested inmates for illegal drug use (table 8). All Federal prisons, 83% of State confinement facilities, and 98% of State community-based facilities reported testing inmates between July 1, 1989, and June 30, 1990. Authorities in facilities which reported data (85% of all facilities) indicated that they collected 598,000 urine specimens from 468,500 inmates. When these figures are projected to all facilities, including those which did not respond to these questions, an estimated 565,500 inmates provided 721,800 specimens from July 1, 1989, through June 30, 1990. (See "Estimation procedure" in Methodology.) State minimum and medium security and community-based facilities were more likely than maximum security institutions to test inmates. About 85% of the lower security facilities and 98% of community-based facilities tested inmates, compared to 76% of the maximum security prisons. Most State facilities testing inmates for drugs performed the tests when the staff suspected particular inmates of drug use; 76% of the institutions reported checking inmates based on suspicion of use. Forty-two percent tested both suspected inmates and random groups, and an additional 14% tested all inmates (type 1). Relatively few facilities (20%) tested all inmates at least once during confinement (types 1-4). Most large State confinement facilities tested for drugs About 92% of State prisons with a population of 2,500 or more tested inmates, compared to around 83% of facilities with fewer than 1,000 inmates and 77% of facilities with a population between 1,000 and 2,499 (table 9). Over half of the largest facilities tested inmates on suspicion only. Over half of facilities with a population between 250 and 2,499 tested all inmates or random groups of inmates in addition to inmates suspected of drug use. About 70% of community-based facilities tested either all inmates or random groups and inmates suspected of using drugs. Almost all work release facilities tested for drugs About 92% of facilities that provided special work release or prerelease programs tested inmates for drugs (table 10). Ninety-three percent of facilities that separately handled offenders reincarcerated for violating some condition of their supervised release also checked inmates for drugs. Over 90% of facilities that performed "other" functions, such as presentence, psychiatric, or geriatric services also tested their residents. Nearly 60% of facilities for youthful offenders tested inmates. For all inmates tested, State prisons reported higher positive rates than Federal prisons Nationwide, 3.1% of the tests for cocaine in the 12 months before June 30, 1990, were positive, as were 1.2% of the tests for heroin, 1.5% for methamphetamines, and 5.6% for marijuana. State facilities reported higher positive rates for drug tests than Federal facilities (table 11). In State institutions, 3.6% of tests for cocaine were positive, compared to 0.4% in Federal prisons. State facilities found 2.0% of the tests showing recent methamphetamine use and 6.3% showing marijuana use; Federal prisons found 0.1% and 1.1%, respectively. I Same percentage of State and Federal facilities reported positive drug tests When facilities rather than individual drug tests are considered, Federal and State facilities were about equally likely to have found drug use in their institutions. Around 6 in 10 of both Federal and State facilities which tested for cocaine had at least one positive test. In over 2 in 10 facilities testing for methamphetamines, the use of the drug was discovered. Marijuana was detected in about 8 in 10 facilities testing. Community-based facilities found higher rates of drug use than confinement facilities Tests had positive outcomes for 8.9% of the cocaine tests and 8.1% of the marijuana tests administered by community-based facilities, compared to 1.4% of the cocaine tests and 5.8% of marijuana tests in confinement facilities (table 12). Methamphetamines, however, were found more often in confinement facilities (2.3% tested positive) than in community-based facilities (1.1% positive). Among State confinement facilities, positive test results were highest in those testing on suspicion only. How inmates were selected for testing affected the rate of positive results. Those State confinement facilities testing only when drug use was suspected recorded higher rates of positive results than other facilities that tested randomly or comprehensively. When facilities tested only on suspicion of drug use, 6% of cocaine tests and 14% of marijuana tests were positive, compared to 1.5% or less for cocaine and 5% or less for marijuana when facilities tested everyone or at random. The results for State community-based facilities were opposite those of confinement facilities. Testing on suspicion only produced a lower percentage of positive results than testing everyone or a random selection. In community-based facilities which tested on suspicion only, 4.8% were positive for cocaine and 6.4% for marijuana; in community-based facilities using other selection methods, around 9% of tests for cocaine and 8% for marijuana were positive. The percentages of positive tests were higher in large facilities Large prisons, whether Federal or State, had higher rates of positive drug tests. In Federal facilities with 1,000 or more inmates, 1.4% of the marijuana tests, 0.6% of the cocaine, and 0.6% of the heroin tests were positive (table 13). In Federal facilities holding fewer than 500 inmates, the percentages were 0.5% for marijuana, 0.2% for cocaine, and none for heroin. Among State prisons, the largest facilities with 2,500 or more inmates had the highest percentages of positive tests for amphetamines, cocaine, and heroin. The facilities holding 1,000 to 2,499 inmates had the highest rates for marijuana and methamphetamines. Among Federal prisons, the maximum security facilities had higher rates for positive drug tests than minimum security facilities. In maximum security prisons, 2.5% of the tests for marijuana, .7% of the tests for cocaine, and 1.4% of the tests for heroin were positive. In minimum security, 0.3% for marijuana, 0.3% for cocaine, and none for heroin were positive. State medium security facilities generally had higher positive rates than maximum or minimum security prisons. For each drug in medium security facilities, the percentage positive was as follows: 6.8% for marijuana, 4.2% for methamphetamines, 1.7% for cocaine, and 1.4% for heroin. In maximum and minimum facilities, the equivalent findings were 5.0% or less for marijuana, 0.6% or less for methamphetamines, 1.4% or less for cocaine, and 0.8% or less for heroin. Positive results from drug tests varied among facilities performing different functions Facilities which confined inmates returned to custody for parole violations had relatively high percentages of positive drug tests (table 14). More than 9% of tests for marijuana were positive, as were 6.2% of tests for methamphetamines, 3.5% for cocaine, and 2.9% for heroin. Facilities holding inmates who participated in work release programs or who were preparing for discharge also had relatively high positive test rates: 7% for cocaine, 6.9% for marijuana, and 1.8% for heroin. Drug/ alcohol treatment in facilities was associated with relatively high positive results on tests for cocaine and marijuana use--3% for cocaine and 7.6% for marijuana. Facilities handling youthful offenders generally had relatively low positive test results: 2.1% for marijuana and 1.5% for cocaine. Positive drug tests were linked to interdiction activities The State confinement facilities that questioned and frisked inmates but did not exchange clothes or search body cavities had higher rates of positive drug tests than facilities doing all these measures (table 15). The tests in the facilities using less stringent measures were 5.2% positive for cocaine, 13.5% for marijuana, and 16.2% for methamphetamines. Tests in facilities performing all types of specific drug interdiction activities were 1.2% positive for cocaine, 4.6% for marijuana, and 0.6% for methamphetamines. Facilities which performed all types of interdiction activities had higher positive drug test rates than facilities which did body cavity searches and/or clothing exchanges. The facilities doing all types of interdiction may have adopted more measures as a reaction to relatively high test rates. The reported rates were from results over the 12 months before the census, while the interdiction measures were those in place on June 29, 1990. Facilities that did not question, frisk, or search visitors had the following positive test results: 8.3% for marijuana and 7.4% for cocaine. Facilities that inspected visitors' belongings and searched body cavities when indicated, but did not both question and pat down visitors, had the following positive test percentages: 2.9% for heroin, 2.6% for cocaine, and 12% for methamphetamines. Facilities that reported not making special efforts to interdict the supply of drugs from the staff had 2.6% positive tests for cocaine, 2.2% for heroin, and 6.6% for methamphetamines. Facilities that questioned staff, patted them down, and took other actions such as drug testing, when needed had 1.0% positive tests for cocaine and 0.9% for heroin and methamphetamines. Drug testing of staff was highest in Federal facilities While 83% of Federal facilities reported they tested their staff for drugs, 42% of State confinement facilities and 32% of community-based facilities checked their employees (table 16). About 55% of Federal confinement facilities tested all staff, as did 30% of State confinement facilities and 19% of community-based facilities. Seventy-six percent of Federal facilities and about 23% of State facilities tested employees, the primary staff category tested. A higher percentage of Federal than State facility staff were tested for drugs. Fifteen percent of Federal facility staff were tested compared to 4% of those working in State confinement facilities and 10% in community- based facilities. A positive test was grounds for dismissal in over a third of facilities that tested staff for drugs In over a third of facilities, policies required that staff testing positive for drugs be dismissed. In over a seventh, affected staff were suspended (table 17). Sixty percent of State confinement facilities and 44% of community-based facilities referred positive drug detection cases to internal affairs. Fifty-nine percent of Federal facilities referred the case to a departmentally operated program -- generally an employee assistance counselor who could refer the employee for outside treatment. Federal facilities were more likely than State facilities to keep their staff and continue to check them for drugs or to reassign them. Twenty- four percent of Federal facilities continued monitoring staff with drug tests, compared to 10% of State confinement facilities and 12%of community- based facilities. Inmate/resident drug treatment programs and capacities Facilities provided estimates of the number of inmates/residents who could be treated in each of their drug treatment and intervention programs and estimates of the enrollment in each program. Facilities also estimated their total capacity for drug treatment and their total enrollment. These totals were generally lower than the sum of all the separately listed programs and interventions, possibly for the following reasons: *some programs listed were not considered true drug "treatment" programs; *an individual program might have several of the components listed on the addendum--for example, counseling, education, and urine surveillance--and hence be counted several times in the specific listings; *inmates could be participating in more than one program; *facilities could have some treatment slots which could be allocated to more than one program and therefore were counted more than once. Drug treatment/intervention on June 29, 1990 Among the 1,287 State and Federal facilities, 1,024 reported their own estimates of total capacity and enrollment in programs they considered to be for drug treatment. Facility capacities and enrollments for drug treatment were-- Among those Federal facilities that reported, administrators indicated that on a single day the facilities could treat about 6,100 inmates and had an enrollment of about 3,800. For reporting State facilities, both confinement and community-based, the estimated capacity was 90,900 and enrollment was 69,900. Prisons could treat an estimated 131,900 inmates for drug addiction If the reported capacity is projected to all prisons, Federal confinement facilities could treat an estimated 7,800 inmates; State confinement facilities, 114,000; and State community-based facilities, 9,400. (See "Estimation procedure" in Methodology.) (Treatment capacity and enrollment were estimated from the 77.7% of Federal inmates in reporting facilities, 72.9% of State inmates in reporting confinement facilities, and 83.3% of State inmates in reporting community- based facilities.) Federal confinement facilities had the capacity to treat for drug abuse 14% of the inmate population; State confinement facilities, 18%; and community- based facilities, 55%. Prisons were treating approximately 100,200 inmates If the reported enrollment figures are projected to cover all facilities, the Federal prison system was treating an estimated 4,800 inmates; the State prisons, an estimated 88,700; and community-based facilities, an estimated 6,200. (See "Estimation procedure" in Methodology.) (Treatment capacity and enrollment were estimated from the 77.7% of Federal inmates in reporting facilities, 72.9% of State inmates in reporting confinement facilities, and 83.3% of State inmates in reporting community- based facilities.) Enrollment in drug treatment was below capacity) Federal inmates were using 62% of the drug treatment capacity on June 29, 1990. State prisoners were using 66% of the capacity in community-based facilities and 78% in confinement facilities. Many factors play a role in these utilization figures. Inmates may refuse to participate or may have already completed the program. Inmates may not qualify--too new to the institution, not near enough to the end of their sentence, rule breakers, under administrative segregation, or in the wrong custody level. Facilities also may keep some slots open to gain flexibility to deal with unexpected situations. Prisons offered a variety of programs Prisons may offer many types of drug intervention or treatment: detoxification, counseling, education and/or awareness programs, urine surveillance, and treatment in special residential units within the facility. Federal facilities reported they could test 33% of inmates for drugs; State confinement facilities, 10%; and community-based facilities, 57% (table 18). Counseling was available for 14% of inmates in Federal facilities, 12% in State confinement facilities, and 48% in community-based facilities. Residential treatment program capacity was from 1% to 2% of inmate population for all types of institutions. Of all Federal inmates, 9% were enrolled in some form of drug treatment on June 29, 1990. Among State prisoners, 14% in confinement facilities and 37% in community-based facilities were enrolled. The two most common types of programs for both Federal and State correctional facilities were education and counseling. Drug education programs enrolled 13% of Federal prisoners, 7% of State confinement inmates, and 25% of residents in community-based facilities. Six percent of those in Federal facilities were being counseled, as were 9% of State confinement facility inmates and 32% of those in community-based facilities. Methodology The 1990 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities was the fourth enumeration of State institutions and the first of Federal institutions sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and conducted by the Bureau of the Census. Earlier censuses were completed in 1974, 1979, and 1984. Census universe The facility universe was developed from the Census of State Adult Correctional Facilities conducted in 1984. This list was revised using the 1990 American Correctional Association Directory and information obtained from State correctional administrators and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The census included: prisons; prison farms; reception, diagnostic and classification centers; road camps; forestry and conservation camps; youthful offender facilities (except in California); vocational training facilities; correctional drug and alcohol treatment facilities; and State- operated local detention facilities in Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Facilities were included in the census if they: *were staffed with State or Federal employees *housed primarily State or Federal prisoners *were physically, functionally, and administratively separate from other facilities *were operational on the reference date, June 29, 1990. The census also included, for the first time, 67 private facilities that were under exclusive contract by State governments to house prisoners. Specifically excluded were-- *privately operated facilities that were not exclusively for State or Federal inmates *military facilities *Immigration and Naturalization Service facilities *facilities operated and administered by local governments, including those housing State prisoners *facilities operated by the U.S. Marshals Service *hospital wings and wards reserved for State prisoners. Questionnaire administration Questionnaires were mailed to facility respondents at the end of June 1990. Second and third request forms and telephone followups went out in the fall, resulting in a final response rate of 100%. Definitions of community-based and confinement facilities Correctional facilities were classified as community-based if 50% or more of the residents were regularly permitted to leave the facility unaccompanied for work or study. These facilities included halfway houses, restitution centers, and pre-release, work release, and study release centers. Correctional facilities in which less than 50% of the inmates regularly left the facility unaccompanied were classified as confinement institutions. Drug addendum An addendum on drug control activities in State and Federal facilities was included for the first time in the 1990 census. Facilities were asked to provide information on the following: *activities they used with inmates, visitors, and staff to keep out illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia *inmate drug testing practices, including the criteria for testing inmates, the number of inmates tested in total and by specific drug, and the number positive *staff drug testing, including groups and basis for testing, number tested, and procedures when tests were positive *capacity and enrollment in various types of drug treatment and intervention programs. Estimation procedures When all prisons in the census did not provide data on particular variables, estimated figures were used where indicated. Total figures were estimated by multiplying the known or reported numbers by the ratio of the total relevant population to the reported population. All figures were estimated independently and total estimates were therefore larger than the sum of all subgroup estimates. The total population figure used in the projections varied, depending upon which figure was most appropriate. The two available population figures are the average daily population and the prison count on the reference day for the census, June 29, 1990. For drug testing, table 8, the basis for estimation was the average daily population, and for drug treatment capacity and enrollment, the basis was the 1-day count. Because the census was a complete enumeration, the results were not subject to sampling error. Public use data tapes for each Census of Adult Correctional Facilities in the series, conducted in 1974, 1979, 1984, and 1990, are available from the National Criminal Justice Archive, P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. 1- 800-999-0960. Caroline Wolf Harlow wrote this report under the supervision of Allen J. Beck. Corrections statistics are prepared under the general direction of Lawrence A. Greenfeld. Tom Hester edited this report, and James Stephan, Danielle Morton, and Dorothea Proctor provided statistical review. Marilyn Marbrook administered production, assisted by Betty Sherman and Jayne Pugh. July 1992, NCJ-134724 The Bureau of Justice Statistics is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. ************************************************ . |
Contents | Feedback | Search | DRCNet Home Page | Join DRCNet
DRCNet Library | Schaffer Library | Government Publications