Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be back before you and members of your committee.
I certainly appreciate the committee's ongoing interest in this topic. Drugs, addiction, and contraband are certainly issues we deal with every day in our office.
In my last appearance before this committee I indicated that the problem of intoxicants in prisons is difficult to measure and monitor. Simply put, we know that there are drugs in prison; we simply don't know the full extent of illicit use. One measure of that is the rate of positive urinalysis through random screenings. This is a good gauge of whether prison drug use is up, down, or maintaining some stability. The rate of positive urinalysis has in fact remained relatively constant from year to year. There has been a published 5% decrease in the positive urinalysis rate. This is primarily due to the elimination of certain prescription drugs through the screening and reporting protocol. A steady rate of positive urinalysis would suggest that interdiction efforts have perhaps reached a bit of a plateau. In fact, we may even be looking at diminishing returns in terms of continued investment in just interdiction.
Other methods of detection have also been proven a little bit problematic. For example, the Correctional Service of Canada relies on what are commonly referred to as ion scanners, which have indicated some limitations regarding many substances. For example, they're not very good at detecting marijuana but they are very good at detecting cocaine, so there are some gaps in the use of ion scanners. Plus, we've seen some recent questions around the increased reliance on drug detector dogs. While the presence of dogs may have some benefit, there's really been very little published research on the utility of drug detector dogs. In the one study that was done very recently in New South Wales, Australia, I think about 75% of indications by drug detector dogs resulted in no drug seizure. Another way of saying that is about one-quarter of detections actually resulted in the presence of a drug.
I know that tobacco remains the number one illegal contraband commodity inside a federal penitentiary. To give committee members some sense of what a problem illegal contraband tobacco can be, a small pouch of loose tobacco, about 50 grams, which sells on the street for $18 or $20, will sell for anywhere between $300 and $500 inside a penitentiary. There is an incentive to those who want to make money on a prison underground drug economy to have people bring in contraband tobacco.
We do know, and we've heard in testimony as recently as this morning, that just over half of federal offenders report having been under the influence of one kind of intoxicant or another when they committed the offence that led to their incarceration. Four out of five offenders have a past history of substance abuse, and a very high percentage of the offender population that abuses drugs is concurrently struggling with one form of mental illness or another. In fact, up to 30% of offenders are now identified as requiring some kind of mental health follow-up. We have a tremendous relationship, a co-morbidity, between those with a history of mental health issues and those with a history of substance abuse issues. This history makes it difficult and challenging to both the programs for this population and the elimination of their craving for illegal intoxicants.
In the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010, there were nine suicides in CSC facilities. Seven of the nine victims had ongoing substance abuse problems, five had committed drug-related crimes, seven had an identified mental disorder, and two others were considered to have mental health problems but did not have a formal diagnosis. All nine were prescribed anti-depressants.
This suggests that more could and should be done to deliver substance abuse programs inside federal penitentiaries. Unfortunately, we've seen, for example, a $2 million decrease in money spent on substance abuse programs between 2008 and 2011.
I noted at my last appearance that CSC's own research has indicated the need for additional evaluation to support the effectiveness of its anti-drug measures, including the use of drug dogs and ion scanners, as I mentioned. The importance of empirically based evidence supporting research cannot be underestimated.
A comprehensive drug strategy includes a balance of measures: prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and interdiction. In addition, I think we require additional emphasis on programming. We know that well-designed programs delivered by competent staff to motivated inmates can and will reduce recidivism.
We are keeping our eyes on the pilot project, the integrated correctional program or plan model, or ICPM, which was briefly described to you this morning and in other appearances. I should note that this is still a pilot. It has not been evaluated, and the program delivery, style, and content has not been validated. The outcomes you heard about this morning refer to the delivery of core correctional programs as they are currently formulated, not the piloted ICPM programs.
With that, I'll anticipate your questions. Thank you again for the invitation to join you once more.
