Public Safety Committee on Jan. 29th, 2015

[Rebecca Jesseman, Director, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members. Thank you for inviting me to be a witness this morning to discuss Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act.

My name is Rebecca Jesseman, and I am a director at the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, CCSA. I am pleased to represent the organization on behalf of our interim chief executive officer, Rita Notarandrea, who was unable to be here today. She asked me to pass along her sincere regrets.

For those of you who are not familiar with CCSA, the organization was created over a quarter of a century ago as Canada's only national agency with a unique legislated mandate to reduce the harms of alcohol and other drugs, and improve services for those with substance use disorders.

For over 25 years CCSA has been providing evidence-based substance abuse research, policy advice, and practical tools to improve front-line services to Canadians. Our position at the crossroads of governments, public and private partners allows us to achieve the greatest collective impact through collective action. We do so under the guise of the “National Framework for Action to Reduce the Harms Associated with Alcohol and Other Drugs”, Canada's addiction strategy. This framework was developed in 2005 by a wide range of committed organizations and individuals from across Canada. It lists 13 priority areas for action, one of which is on responding to the unique needs of offenders.

As we have heard, the majority of offenders entering Canada's federal prisons have a history of substance use disorders. Public Safety Canada's website states, "Three out of four inmates come into Canada's federal correctional institutions with substance abuse problems. For approximately half of federal offenders, there is a direct link between their substance use and criminal behaviour."

Substance abuse is a known risk factor for reoffending. If substance use problems are not adequately treated within the institutional setting, this can impact an offender's chances for successful reintegration.

There is no question that keeping drugs out of the hands of offenders inside institutions is a worthy goal. Interdiction plays an important role in preventing access to contraband in prisons and we applaud the use of evidence-based technologies and intelligence gathering. However, honourable members are aware how difficult it is to keep alcohol and drugs outside of prison walls. A 2010 survey by Corrections Canada found that 34% of men and 25% of women in federal prisons admitted using drugs in the past six months of their incarceration.

Knowing that one-quarter to one-third of federal offenders are using drugs and alcohol within institutions points to a need for greater treatment services not only within the prison walls, but also in the community upon their release. This should be part of the offender's correctional plan.

Providing evidence-informed treatment that responds to the unique needs of offenders within institutions and in the community is the most effective way to reduce substance use problems among Canada's offender population. It is also an effective way to improve community safety by preventing recidivism.

A 2006 systematic review by the Campbell Collaboration found that substance abuse treatment can reduce recidivism by up to 20%. A study conducted by CSC found that for every dollar spent on institutional substance abuse programs, $2.69 was saved relating to reductions in length of stay and readmissions. We therefore know that treatment is an effective and cost-effective way to reduce recidivism and improve community safety.

However, CSC's expected results for 2014-15 state that only 48% to 52% of inmates with an identified need for substance abuse programming will complete this programming prior to their full eligibility date.

Releasing offenders into the community with conditions to abstain from alcohol and drug use without providing them with the tools and the community connections to avoid such use increases the likelihood of breaches of parole.

Mr. Chair, proposed Bill C-12 would increase the severity of consequences for offenders if their drug use is detected through urinalysis after being granted parole. Although we know that substance use increases the risk of recidivism, increasing the penalties associated with use is not the most effective way to address the issue. Addiction is a chronic relapsing brain condition that must be treated as a health issue and not a poor life choice.

CSC has been recognized internationally for the quality and evidence base of its substance abuse programming. In fact, CCSA is now working with CSC and provincial corrections partners to identify and implement best practices in addressing substance use among offenders, focusing on providing support during the transition from the institution to the community.

This transitional time is a difficult period of adjustment where offenders are exposed to risks such as stress, and people or situations associated with their previous substance use and other antisocial, high-risk behaviour.

Parole provides offenders with an opportunity to re-enter the community with supervision that can help them to identify and address risk factors, including those associated with substance use.

Introducing conditions that make parole more difficult to obtain or easier to revoke risks taking away that opportunity to safely reintegrate as a law-abiding and productive citizen. If offenders are consistently denied parole and only released at warrant expiry, they do not have the benefit of supervision and supported access to community resources that can help to address their needs.

It is also worth noting that stigma and discrimination are important barriers to addressing alcohol and drug use disorders. Although the evidence clearly indicates that these disorders are health conditions, they have long been treated as failures of an individual's character. Taking a punitive approach to substance use reiterates that stigma. It encourages individuals to be secretive about their substance use, therefore preventing opportunities for intervention and increasing higher-risk patterns of use.

In this regard CCSA is also proudly working with partners in the recovery community to promote a recovery-oriented approach to alcohol and drug use in Canada, and to remove the stigma of substance use disorders, because we know that treatment works and that recovery from addiction is real, attainable, and sustainable. In fact, just this week we hosted over 50 partners from across Canada during the first national recovery summit, held here in Ottawa over the past two days and attended by the Minister of Health. All participants agreed on common goals, including a stigma-free and recovery-based approach to addressing substance use disorders.

The best way to promote drug-free prisons is by making sure that offenders have access to proper treatment inside institutions and in the community. This involves an evidence-based continuum of services and supports that address the complex health and social needs associated with alcohol and other drug-related disorders, and it involves breaking down the silos of institutional versus community-based programs and supports.

We applaud the government's interest in ensuring safer institutions and communities. We are proud to contribute to this dialogue and look forward to assisting in any way possible with an evidence-based approach to addressing substance use in prisons and promoting successful transition from the institution to the community.

Thank you. I'd be pleased to take any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Ms. Jesseman.

Mr. Berner, do we have you live on video conference, sir?

[David Berner, Executive Director, Drug Prevention Network of Canada]

Yes. Good morning. It's nice to see you again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Good. We're just checking in. We'll go to our next witness and then you will be up after that, sir, so just stand by. Thank you for joining us.

We will now go to Mr. Sapers. You have opening remarks, sir. Thank you for distributing your remarks.

[Howard Sapers, Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, for inviting me back.

I'm joined today, Mr. Chair, by the executive director and general counsel of the Office of the Correctional Investigator, Dr. Ivan Zinger.

Given the panel format and the limited time we have, I'm going to be very brief in my opening remarks. I will provide some information and context about urinalysis testing in federal corrections, and I'll make some general observations about the Correctional Service of Canada's zero-tolerance approach to drugs in prison.

Let me say at the start that the scope of Bill C-12, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, is actually not quite as ambitious as its short title, the drug-free prisons act, would otherwise imply. If enacted, the proposed legislation could lead to the cancellation of parole granted to an offender if, prior to the release, the offender tests positive for illicit drug use or fails to provide a urine sample, and the Parole Board of Canada considers that the criteria for granting release are, as a consequence, no longer met.

The bill would also amend the CCRA to clarify the parole board practice of setting release conditions involving an offender's use of drugs or alcohol.

The window of opportunity targeted by this bill is very narrow. As far as I'm aware, there's no published information on the number of offenders whose parole grant was denied subsequent to a positive urinalysis test before release. As members might be aware, the parole board already takes into consideration positive urinalysis results or refusal to provide a sample when making parole eligibility decisions. The board also frequently imposes a “do not consume” or “abstain from drugs and alcohol” prohibition on those on parole or statutory release and temporary absences. Bill C-12 would simply put these practices into legislation.

As with most legislation, there are intentional and unintentional impacts. It's important to be clear about the purpose, limits, and results of drug testing in federal corrections. A urine sample may be requested on three grounds. One is as part of a random drug-testing program. I know you heard a lot about that from the commissioner. This targets up to 10% of the population each month. Another is on the basis of reasonable grounds to suspect drug use. The third is for community contact and regular monitoring, usually to enforce the conditions that I spoke of just a minute ago.

Last year the Correctional Service of Canada requested nearly 14,000 urinalysis samples from federal inmates, representing 63% of the incarcerated population. Approximately 81% of those requests were based on random selection; 10% were based on reasonable grounds—the suspicion of drug use; and 9% were requests based on community contact, usually to enforce a condition.

In terms of results, 6% of randomly generated samples tested positive. Another 7% refused to provide a sample. By far the most common drug type found in both random and reasonable grounds urinalysis testing is tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. This drug accounts for 80% of all random and 83% of all reasonable grounds positive results. Depending on the type of request, the next most common drug found in positive results is opioids, followed by amphetamines, methadone, benzodiazepines, and cocaine.

The number of drug tests and the number of drug seizures in federal penitentiaries has been increasing. Over the past five years alcohol was involved in nearly 53% of all contraband seizures. THC accounted for 34.5% of all drug seizures. Opiates accounted for almost 8%, although it's unclear whether this number included prescription drugs such as methadone.

In other words, alcohol is the most used and most seized contraband intoxicant behind bars. I'll come back to that in a minute.

Behind these numbers is a series of policy considerations relevant to the study of Bill C-12.

First of all, urinalysis testing targets drugs. It does not detect alcohol or deter alcohol use. This is a very important distinction, given the links between alcohol use, addiction, and criminality. Just over half of federal offenders reported being under the influence of alcohol and/or other intoxicants when they committed the offence that led to their incarceration. Four out of five offenders arrive at a federal institution with a past history of substance abuse and dependancy. The use of alcohol and drugs is a criminal risk factor for a significant proportion of the offender population; however, urinalysis testing is ineffectual in monitoring or reducing the risk linked to alcohol use and dependency.

Second, the high proportion of positive tests for THC reflects a reality that this drug can be detected in the urine up to five weeks for chronic users. Other drugs, such as cocaine or opiates, for example, are undetectable in a matter of hours or days. As published CSC research suggests, the high proportion of positive results for THC may be an indication that it is the offender's drug of choice, or the results may be an artifact of the various times drugs are detectable in urine.

Whatever the case, Bill C-12 contemplates cancelling a parole grant on the basis of a positive drug test regardless of when the drug was ingested. Without condoning drug use, we should be clear-sighted about the consequences of proposed legal measures. This is not about making federal prisons drug-free or treating substance abuse. It is about punishing illicit drug use in prison.

Third, the number of urinalysis samples requested of incarcerated offenders has more than doubled in the last five years. Over that same period, the number of urinalysis samples requested in the community has actually decreased by nearly 13%. Five years ago, close to 75% of all drug testing samples were requested from offenders being supervised in the community. Today it's close to a fifty-fifty ratio of institutional versus community testing. Based on the number of samples requested, the urinalysis testing regime is becoming increasingly skewed towards institutional corrections. Questions linked to frequency and efficacy of drug testing raise legitimate issues of public safety benefit and value for money.

Fourth, while there has been a significant increase in institutional testing in recent years, the rate of positive urinalysis results has remained remarkably stable. Indeed, when positive results attributed to legally prescribed drugs are removed, the annual rate of positive random urinalysis results in a federal prison is running at a constant rate of about 7.5%. Despite stepped-up interdiction, surveillance, and suppression efforts, the jury is still out on whether drug use in federal prisons is up or down. Drug misuse is a problem, but the extent, cause, and best means to address it are far from clear-cut.

On comparison, a higher proportion of positive urinalysis results and refusals are identified through the use of reasonable grounds versus random testing. This suggests that reasonable grounds testing is an accurate and effective method of monitoring illicit drug use behind bars. Correctional staff are already using their appropriate authority and discretion.

My point in providing this context is to suggest that Bill C-12 is largely unnecessary. The parole board already has the power and authority to cancel or revoke parole based on illicit drug use. Furthermore, this bill will not move us any closer to the stated goal of drug-free prisons.

A better and more cost-effective way to prevent crime is to put more of our limited resources into addiction treatment and prevention programs. Zero-tolerance or punitive-based approaches to drug use and abuse and addiction simply do not work in prison. Interdiction and suppression measures alone will not eliminate the demand or supply of contraband drugs and alcohol in a correctional context. CSC's anti-drug strategy needs to include a more comprehensive range of treatment, prevention, cessation, counselling, harm reduction, and support measures aligned to the needs of offenders whose criminal risk is linked to addiction.

Thank you again, Chair, and committee members. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much for your information and testimony today, Mr. Sapers.

Mr. Berner, you are alive and well and on, sir. You have the floor for up to 10 minutes.

[David Berner]

It's good to see you and thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

The Drug Prevention Network of Canada is basically in support of this bill, but we agree with Rebecca and Mr. Sapers that it doesn't really begin to address the important issues. There are two constituents at least involved in this bill, parole officers and people coming out of prison; for lack of better words, we call them felons or criminals. Neither of these groups of people are well served in particular by this bill because the bill is okay. It's basically saying that if you break the rules, we're going to yank you back into stir. That's fine because we're asking people to just behave themselves. But we're not giving them the tools to do that, and it is possible to give them those tools.

Parole officer, unfortunately, used to be a very admirable profession. People ran from schools of social work to become parole officers because it meant engagement with people who were struggling. Today, the life of a parole officer is a guy stuck behind a desk. He barely knows who his clients are and he's filling out papers. There's not much a bill like this can do about that, but it's worth looking at what the parole service thinks it's doing.

But let's talk about the other constituents, the drug addicts. I agree completely with Rebecca with whom I just spent the last two days locked up in a hotel in Ottawa and 50 other people who are involved in recovery work. Don't write your own jokes, please. Just relax.

This really does nothing to further the cause of people getting a grip on their addictions. Fortunately there is a piece of good news. I want to ask all of you, when you have a moment, to google the Nanaimo Correctional Centre where the former warden, Don Moody, did something very courageous and unusual some years ago. He created a drug-free unit. The federal government in 1970 gave me a fair bit of money to do exactly that at Matsqui Institution, and after three months I gave them the money back and said, “This can't be done. You can't create a drug-free unit in a maximum security prison because the environment is so negative.” But he proved me wrong and he created a phenomenally successful program. He's retired but the program still continues at the Nanaimo Correctional Centre, which is a provincial institution. They have very tough, wonderful, dedicated people, meaning these prison staff and 50 inmates who are being clean and sober in this unit. The tragedy is that the moment they come out they're like lemmings falling into the sea, because we then haven't provided the halfway houses and other kinds of resources where these folks can go while they make the transition back into normal civilized life.

Again, we don't have a problem; the Drug Prevention Network of Canada doesn't have a huge problem with the bill. We feel the bill is probably savvy, and politically it looks good. It's a good move politically, but it can't really with these few words address a complicated issue. What we need to begin looking at is how we provide treatment resources right in the prisons.

Understand this, ladies and gentlemen: there are more drugs per square inch in our federal prisons than there are on the streets. Prisons are a hotbed of drug and alcohol use. Corrections officers are involved. Everybody is involved. The temptation to make money, the temptation for special favours, is just too large in such a tight, limited environment.

What are you going to do? You're going to put people there, leave them there for a couple of years, and they learn nothing. They come out and they're going to continue to cost us a fortune. At minimum half of those inmates could be released early, not on their own but released to some kind of program where they learn something.

Again, I'm going to make this very simple. The bill is okay, but it can't really begin to address the real issues and yet it's possible to do that. I don't have to echo, I don't have to repeat the wonderful enumeration that Rebecca gave you because she spelled it all out.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Berner, thank you very kindly for your very frank and honest conversation.

We will now go to our rounds of questioning. We will start off with our first round, which is seven minutes.

Mr. Falk, you have the floor, sir.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I want to thank all of the witnesses for coming here this morning and for your interventions. It's been very informative.

Ms. Jesseman, I'd like to start with you. Would you agree with Mr. Berner's comments as much as he agrees with yours?

[Rebecca Jesseman]

For the most part we definitely share a common interest in ensuring that people who require services and supports in order to successfully address the complex needs associated with substance abuse have access to those services and supports in the institutions, during the transition period into the community, and continuing on in the community.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I just want to get clarification on one of the comments and statistics you gave. You said that 48% to 52% of individuals requiring substance abuse programs in a correctional institute receive it. Yesterday, Commissioner Head informed us that 95% of individuals requiring that kind of treatment program were receiving it. Can you comment on the difference in statistics?

[Rebecca Jesseman]

Certainly. I read the transcript from yesterday and my understanding, based on my reading of the transcript, and I know that I probably can't take away from the written transcript what emerged in the dialogue, was that the 95% referred to receipt of any correctional programming, not necessarily substance abuse related. Again, I would absolutely put that back to Mr. Head and to Correctional Service Canada to verify, because that's only my understanding based on the transcript.

Where I got the numbers I'm referring to was from Correctional Service Canada's 2014-15 report on plans and priorities.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Very good.

When I read the bill, I think the bill does two things. I think the bill gives parole officers another tool in the tool belt when dealing with inmates that are requesting parole, and also individuals who have received parole, in monitoring those individuals or granting parole or in some cases revoking parole. That's one of the things it does.

The other thing I believe it does is it creates an incentive for inmates to remain drug-free. Would you agree with that?

[David Berner]

No—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Berner, the question was directed to Ms. Jesseman.

[Rebecca Jesseman]

I'll take a first cut at it, and perhaps turn it over to David afterwards.

I think what we need to be mindful of is that—and I come from a criminology background so you'll forgive me for getting a little bit academic—when we talk about what modifies behaviour in corrections, we're looking at deterrence when we talk about the imposition of additional punitive measures. Some of the things we need to understand about deterrence is that it's only effective under fairly specific circumstances. I think what we need to be mindful of in this case is....

Adding tools for deterrence isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think it's been expressed here clearly today that it's important to provide parole officers with the tools they need to do their work, but some of those tools also need to ensure that they have supports and services in the community that they can provide their clients access to in order to help them avoid, basically, having a dirty urine screen, so to avoid re-entry into the use of substances.

What we're really doing, if we're not providing people with the services and supports that they need in the community is that we're not fully recognizing addiction as a disease, as a health issue. We wouldn't expect somebody with diabetes to get better on their own without medical intervention, so how can we expect somebody with the disease of addiction to be released into the community with no supports and to simply get better on their own?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you.

Mr. Berner, I'll turn that question to you as well. You don't think the carrot of being with one's family or friends would be enough of an incentive to keep someone in sobriety from the time of his parole hearing to the time of his release.

[David Berner]

No, absolutely not.

Unfortunately, it's a recurring disease and often relapsing, and so on. The old saying is dope fiends shoot dope, and drunks drink. It's a very hard habit to free oneself of.

The problem, Mr. Falk, with this bill is that the very language of it shows a lack of understanding of how addictions work. The language is about drug-sniffing dogs and urinalysis tests. As soon as you're in that territory, you've lost the war, because the horse is already out of the barn. You have to be talking about people, what their expectations are, what their needs are, who they think they are, the crazy traumatic lives they've led, and so on, and the skills that they haven't yet developed, or the skills that they've abandoned. It's amazing how many people with addiction problems have great, great sets of skills, but they're so caught up with their substance use that they just abandon the ability to play the saxophone or run a company. The language of it itself has to change.

I mean, I agree with Howard Sapers. Parole officers already have a lot of these tools, and it's fine to give them another one. I don't think it's a bad thing to enact this bill, but don't expect it to do very much, because it really doesn't come to grips with the reality in front of us. The reality in front of us, Mr. Falk, is that I would estimate as high as 80% of inmates in correctional institutions across Canada are largely not a huge danger to the community. There are people who are a huge danger and they have to be locked up, and good for us for doing that, but most of them are just goofy people who have made really bad choices and they are driven by an addiction. What are we going to do about that?

I've been involved in this business off and on for 50 years, and consistently for 50 years we haven't done anything about it. We don't train correctional officers in the prisons very much and we don't train classification officers in the prisons very much to actually engage inmates in real discussions about who they are and where they have to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Berner.

Time is up now, Mr. Falk.

Madam Doré Lefebvre, you have the floor.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for attending today's meeting. What an interesting discussion.

I would like to come back to Ms. Jesseman and part of her presentation.

My colleague, Mr. Falk, just mentioned the Correctional Service of Canada's 2014-15 statistics, and I'd like to come back to them. They indicate that only 48% to 52% of inmates who need to take a substance abuse program before their parole eligibility date actually manage to take the program.

Why is the program not more accessible? What are you seeing on the ground? I'm wondering why, if we are seeing that this is one of the biggest problems in our institutions, access to certain programs to encourage the rehabilitation of our inmates is so blatantly insufficient.

[Rebecca Jesseman]

I can speak a little bit more to the statistic, but I should also preface my comments by recognizing the previous testimony from Mr. Grabowsky in terms of his own experience with program availability inside the prisons. My expertise in this area is more at the community level. However, the document that I took that statistic from, the 48% to 52% estimate, is the percentage of offenders with an identified need for substance abuse programming who complete prior to full parole eligibility date. That is prior to parole eligibility.

Then the additional statistic that I will raise now that I have the opportunity is that CSC also identifies further that 74% to 79% is the percentage of offenders with an identified need for substance abuse programming who complete prior to warrant expiry date.

I'm hoping that the distinction there is clear. Your parole eligibility date is when you're able to apply for parole and then your warrant expiry date is when CSC no longer has jurisdiction, essentially.

I think that in terms of barriers to service, again I would defer to the comments earlier by Mr. Grabowsky. Resources are always a tremendous challenge in the community as well as in the correctional system. We know that we are certainly facing increased challenges in program delivery associated with limited program space and some of the infrastructure challenges there.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Sapers, do you have any comments on these statistics or on the impact this might have?

[Howard Sapers]

Without repeating what's already been said, I would say the Correctional Service of Canada certainly has some capacity issues in regard to substance abuse programming. Those issues include physical space as well as human resources capacity—vacancies in regard to the people who deliver the programs and provide the interventions, and persistent recruiting problems, for example, recruiting psychologists.

Also, the Correctional Service of Canada is undergoing a transformation in how it delivers correctional programming. I think the commissioner mentioned yesterday in his remarks a move away from nationally validated individually targeted programs to an integrated delivery model. It's very hard right now to even get a good understanding of who gets into programs, how quickly they get into programs, which programs they're participating in, and how they graduate.

We've seen a decrease in the actual dollars being spent on substance abuse programming this year over last year.

There are going to be some later evaluations to see whether or not this new model even has the same effectiveness as the old model.

There are a lot of unknowns right now about correctional programming in Canada.

It's even difficult to compare one region of the country with another. The Atlantic and Pacific regions are already using the new integrated model. The other regions, Quebec, Ontario, and the Prairies, aren't using that model. We know there are differential outcomes for different subgroups of offenders—men, women, aboriginal offenders, etc. So there are a lot of questions.

We do know that the performance is not expected to be more than 40% to 50% participation before parole eligibility. That's very important, because the second biggest reason for postponement or a decision to waive a parole hearing is incomplete programming, not being able to complete your correctional plan.

The first reason offenders waive their opportunity for parole is because they know they're going to get a negative decision, and that's usually related to that second thing, that they haven't been able to get into their correctional plan.

To not lose the train of some of the previous questions, when we're talking about incentives and disincentives, keep in mind that seven out of 10 offenders are leaving federal penitentiaries now at statutory release date. It is not a conditional decision by the national Parole Board. Seven out of ten don't get out until SR. For aboriginal offenders, it's eight out of ten.

If there is going to be an incentive, that incentive will apply to only those 20% or 30% of offenders who are getting the benefit of a conditional release decision, and for those offenders, often that decision comes far after their earliest eligibility date. We're talking about a very small number of offenders who may—may—receive some incentive. But we don't even know the number, because we don't know the number right now who, either through reasonable grounds or random testing, are being found in breach of that condition between the time a positive decision is made and the time they actually leave the institution. It's very hard to come to an evidence-based answer to the question about whether this is an incentive that could work and what population it could work on.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

During your presentation, you mentioned that the urinalyses were administered less frequently when the offenders were under supervision in the community than when they were incarcerated. Is that related to what you just said? Is the strategy that has been adopted a good one?

[Howard Sapers]

It really depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If you want to maintain a focus on reducing drug use in prisons, then you would expect to see some integration and coordination of interdiction surveillance, treatment succession, and testing, and you'd want to keep that at a fairly high tempo.

If you want to rigorously enforce conditions imposed by the parole board on abstinence, for example, then you would expect to see a fairly high tempo of tests in the community.

In either case, the statistics can lead you down a rabbit hole. The real questions are how that drug use is related to the success or failure of offenders once they are released into the community, and what the behaviour of individual parole officers is in reporting relapses, for example, or breaches of the condition back to the board, and what the parole board's behaviour is in terms of considering whether or not that should lead to revocation or suspension of the conditional release.

The number regarding the frequency of random testing in either setting is only one very small piece of the equation. You need a lot of other information to really understand how that's assisting or not assisting the reintegration or rehabilitation efforts.