PROTESTS SPUR PRISON DRUG TEST REVIEW

Corrections Commissioner Donal Campbell is evaluating the accuracy of
prison drug testing, prompted in part by a flood of prisoner
complaints about flawed results.

"There's definitely a need to determine whether or not this system is
effective because of the number of complaints I'm getting," Campbell
said.

UAB forensic science professor Fred Smith, who specializes in drug
testing, said he has found one potential problem in the system - the
screens used to test prisoners produce a small percentage of false
positives. Errors occur because the second tests don't use a different
method for confirmation, he said.

"That's why the government requires labs testing employees to jump
through another hoop before they accuse people of using drugs," Smith
said.

Alabama prisons impose a more rigid drug testing policy on prisoners
than is allowed by the federal government on employees. Prison
policies also are stricter than those followed by the Alabama
Department of Pardons and Paroles in testing parolees.

Cold medicines, prescription drugs and other substances can cause
false positives in urine tests. While other agencies allow for
possibility of errors, and re-test using a different method, DOC does
not. Also, some labs and employers require a medical review of test
results. DOC does not.

Some of the protests are coming from the Birmingham Work Release
Center, where lawyers representing Alabama's female inmates have
raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of DOC drug tests.

Damaging results:

A positive result can hurt an inmate's shot at parole, force an inmate
to lose a work-release job, cost him or her good time and possibly
result in return to a more secure prison. The prison system also makes
prisoners pay fees after a positive test.

"To me, it's unconscionable not to stop the program, identify the
problem and figure out a way to fix it," said Tamara Serwer Caldas, an
attorney with the Southern Center for Human Rights, which represents
female prisoners in a class action lawsuit against the state. Since
the Atlanta-based center has been looking into the drug-testing issue,
she has heard from former inmates who raised these issues years ago,
but were ignored.

Besides costing the state, the errors are demoralizing to prisoners,
many of whom have completed drug rehabilitation and are trying to
follow the rules, Serwer Caldas said.

"Prisoners have no recourse to refute these potentially erroneous
results," said UAB's Smith. "When a person is wrongly accused of drug
use, it destroys their confidence in the system."

Scientific study:

Smith reviewed a description of DOC's procedures as described by
Officer Willie Lee, who tests inmates at several prisons including
Donaldson and Birmingham Work Release. "A published scientific study
has shown that the test in use at Donaldson Correctional Facility
wrongly identified urine specimens as positive one out of a hundred
times," said Smith, a forensic analytical toxicologist in UAB's
graduate program in forensic science.

The study, published in the July 1995 Journal of Forensic Sciences,
found that the Microgenics CEDIA assay screening test, which is used
by DOC, had a 98.9 percent sensitivity, meaning 1.1 percent of results
are false positives.

Prison officials said they did not always use that particular screen
anymore. They also use other tests, too.

Other similar screens also create false positives, Smith said.

The parole board also uses a drug test that's known to create a small
percentage of false positives, said Ann Cargo, field services director
for the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles. She estimates the rate
is about 1 percent to 3 percent.

With that in mind, parole officers give parolees several chances
before sending them back to prison.

A parole officer confronts and counsels a parolee and possibly refers
him to more intense drug counseling after the first two positive
tests. A third dirty test is a parole violation, Cargo said.

Outside tests:

Parole also allows outside tests, but the prison system does not.

"Anytime we have an offender that's adamant they're not positive, they
can have their own test done at their own expense, and we will accept
the results of that test," Cargo said. "We will give them the benefit
of the doubt and let their results stand, knowing if they're doing it,
we'll catch them sooner or later."

Numerous Alabama inmates have requested re-tests, or outside lab tests
and been denied, said Serwer Caldas.

Campbell said his evaluation will look at drug testing throughout the
system. With Alabama's budget crisis and bulging prisons, he said he
doesn't want anyone to stay in prison longer than the law requires.

"There's not a lot of flexibility right now," he said. "I want to look
at it to see if we've been effective in what we've done, and could we
lend any more discretion to what were doing."

DOC's 1.8 percent positive test rate was one of the lowest in the
country, said DOC spokesman Brian Corbett.

Last fiscal year, the prison system performed 121,066 drug tests on
prisoners and staff. Of those, 2,141 tested positive for illegal drugs
or alcohol.

That's down from 3,769 positives last year, according to figures
provided by Corbett. He cited an "aggressive drug treatment program"
for the drop.

When a prison employee tests positive, DOC sends the sample to an
outside lab for confirmation. Alabama prisoners don't get another test.

Part of his evaluation would be whether that is appropriate, Campbell
said.

"In most states, I would think a field test is conducted, and the
results would be sent out for confirmation," he said.

That would eliminate many of the problems, said Smith.