U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Does Parolee Drug Testing Influence Employment and Education Outcomes?: Evidence From a Randomized Experiment with Noncompliance

NCJ Number
221981
Journal
Journal of Quantitative Criminology Volume: 24 Issue: 1 Dated: March 2008 Pages: 93-123
Author(s)
Beau Kilmer
Date Published
March 2008
Length
31 pages
Annotation
Using data from a random sample of 1,958 young parolees, this study estimated the effect of parolee drug testing on employee and education outcomes.
Abstract
The study found that drug testing improved the short-term employment and education outcome for parolees. Parolees randomly assigned to the drug-testing conditions were 6-8 percentage points less likely to be unemployed and not in school for the month following release to parole. Although random assignment to drug testing decreased the probability that Hispanic parolees were unemployed and not in school by 10-13 percentage points, the aggregate effect for Black parolees was approximately zero and statistically insignificant. The findings of this study are contrary to most experimental evaluations of parolee drug testing. This discrepancy is likely attributable to a combination of differences, including different outcomes, different locations, different levels of testing, different age groups, and different periods of observation. Data for the study were obtained from the California Youth Authority experiment that randomly assigned 1,958 parolees to different levels of drug testing. Previously unanalyzed education and employment data were drawn from administrative parole records. The question of interest from the 30-day case review was whether during this parole period the parolees attended school and/or held a job. For the current analysis, the various drug testing categories were collapsed into two groups: assigned to any testing and assigned to no testing. 3 figures, 6 tables, 57 references, appended group distribution by characteristics and descriptions of independent variables