Sign the Resolution for a Federal
Commission on Drug Policy Sign the Resolution for a Federal
Commission on Drug Policy
Contents | Feedback | Search | DRCNet Home Page | Join DRCNet
DRCNet Library | Schaffer Library | Government Publications
U.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