{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012311901504787962, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.421052631578948, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Drug Tests and the Prediction of Pretrial Misconduct: Findings and Policy Issues

Growing concern about the impact of drug abuse and the proliferation of drug-related caseloads in urban courts has fueled interest in urine screening and monitoring programs to detect drug use among pretrial defendants. Research on the predictive utility of urine tests in New York City and elsewhere suggests that this information does not improve the ability to classify high-risk offenders, nor does urine monitoring appear to reduce pretrial misconduct under supervised release programs. Coupled with technical and process concerns surrounding drug tests, the evidence thus far suggests caution in the adoption of pretrial drug-testing programs.