Pubdate: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 Source: Auburn Plainsman, The (AL Edu) Copyright: 2004 The Auburn Plainsman Contact: http://www.theplainsman.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1880 Author: Megan A. Tyree, Staff Writer Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/prison.htm (Incarceration) PRISONS REEVALUATING ONE-STRIKE DRUG TEST POLICY Alabama's Department of Corrections is evaluating the state's prison drug-testing system. The system has undergone few alterations since its inception. Brian Corbett, a spokesman for the Department of Corrections, says the evaluation is part of the Department's house-keeping duties, a spring cleaning of its policies and standards. "It's just like with any other business," Corbett said, "sometimes you have to evaluate what you're doing in your business to make sure things are operating efficiently." However, the DOC has received numerous complaints about the accuracy of the testing system. UAB justice sciences professor Fred Smith finds fault with the system's method of confirmation. "In Alabama prisons, they're doing a screening test but not a confirmation test," Smith said. "The screening test eliminates the negatives, but doesn't confirm the positives." When employees take a drug test at their place of occupation, a confirmation test is required to ensure the accuracy of the initial screening test, Smith said. Other organizations allow for a margin of error, even re-testing. That's not so in Alabama's prisons. Inmates who test positive do not get the benefit of a confirmation of a positive result that could cost them parole or work-release opportunities. In an earlier interview with Carla Crowder of the Birmingham News, Smith said that inmates who feel they have been victimized by the testing system do not have the option of appealing. "Prisoners have no recourse to refute these potentially erroneous results," Smith said. "When a person is accused of drug use, it destroys their confidence in the system." Prisoners rely on representative lawyers from organizations that specify in defending prisoner rights, such as the Birmingham Work Release Center and the Southern Center for Human Rights. Both have represented female inmates from Alabama with concerns about the reliability of DOC drug tests. The possibility of a false positive drug test is unrefuted. At least one out of every one hundred screening tests is wrong, according to Smith. "It is possible to come up with a false positive on a drug test," the DOC's Corbett said. "That's the reason for the evaluation. We want to ensure that doesn't happen." Corbett challenges prisoner complaints about inaccuracy. "They're just accusations," Corbett said. "But we don't want to displace those accusations without evaluating them, which is what we're doing." In 2003, of the 121,066 drug tests performed on prisoners and staff members, 2,141 tested positive for illegal drugs or alcohol. That's a drop in positive tests from the previous year's 3,769, Corbett said. "One point five percent is a very low rate in terms of positive drug tests," Corbett said. He attributes the rate's decrease to an "aggressive drug treatment program." UAB's Smith said the best way to improve the system is to do both screening and confirmation testing. "That's not very expensive," he said. "It's under $10 a sample, which is cheaper than housing someone in prison for just one day." - --- MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager