Adaptive Programming Improves Outcomes in Drug Court

Abstract

Prior studies in Drug Courts reported improved outcomes when participants were matched to schedules of judicial status hearings based on their criminological risk level. The current experiment determined whether incremental efficacy could be gained by periodically adjusting the schedule of status hearings and clinical case-management sessions in response to participants’ ensuing performance in the program. The adjustments were made pursuant to a priori criteria specified in an adaptive algorithm. Results confirmed that participants in the full adaptive condition (n = 62) were more than twice as likely as those assigned to baseline-matching only (n = 63) to be drug-abstinent during the first 18 weeks of the program; however, graduation rates and the average time to case resolution were not significantly different. The positive effects of the adaptive program appear to have stemmed from holding noncompliant participants more accountable for meeting their attendance obligations in the program. Directions for future research and practice implications are discussed.

What Do Clients Achieve in Drug/DUI Court? Examining Intended and Unintended Outcomes

“…In other words, internal program adjustments such as frequency of court hearings and treatment and level of sanctions (e.g., Goldkamp, White, and Robinson 2001a;Marlowe et al 2012;Rempel and Destefano 2001;Shaffer 2011) can help improve program efficiency, but court supervision/discipline alone is likely not sufficient for clients' successful recovery and abstinence. As mentioned above, this presents a particular problem when a client finishes the program and the compulsory structure is gone.…”

“…For instance, the National Drug Court Institute has published special issues on the best practices (2012) and quality improvement of drug courts (2008) to help guide practitioners. These practical suggestions as well as research heavily focused on internal program adjustments such as assessment and screening, frequency of court hearings and treatment, and leverage via sanctions (e.g., Goldkamp, White, and Robinson 2001a;Marlowe et al 2012;Rempel and Destefano 2001;Shaffer 2011).…”

A Theoretical Model of Drug/DUI Courts: An Application of Structural Ritualization Theory

“…In the new century, along with efforts by the National Drug Court Institute (e.g., 2008;, 2012), a number of studies spearheaded the examination of effective features and best practices of drug programs, including but not limited to overall operation of the program (Carey, Mackin, & Finigan, 2012;Zweig, Lindquist, Downey, Roman, & Rossman, 2012), treatment services (DeMatteo et al, 2006;Peters, Hass, & Hunt, 2001;Rempel & Destefano, 2001), judicial hearing and attributes (Jones & Kemp, 2011;Marlowe, Festinger, Dugosh, Benasutti, Fox, & Croft, 2012), use of sanctions and rewards (Arabia, Fox, Jill, Caughie, & Marlowe, 2008;Burdon, Roll, Prendergast, & Rawson, 2001;Marlowe, 2007;Maxwell, 2000), screening practice (Knight, Flynn, & Simpson, 2008;Miller & Shutt, 2001), client motivation effect (Cosden, Basch, Campos, Greenwell, Barazani, & Walker, 2006), and use of technological tools (Flango & Cheesman, 2009).…”

Using Behavioral Triage in Court-Supervised Treatment of DUI Offenders

“…Studies have reported improved outcomes when drug court participants were matched to levels of court supervision and case-management sessions based on the results of a risk and need assessment (Dugosh, Festinger, Clements, & Marlowe, 2014;Festinger et al, 2002;Marlowe, Festinger, Lee, Dugosh, & Benasutti, 2006;Marlowe, Festinger, Dugosh, Lee, & Benasutti, 2007). Studies have also reported improved outcomes when behavioral triage and risk and need assessment were combined together in an approach called ''adaptive programming'' (Marlowe et al, 2012). In adaptive programming, participants are initially assigned to services based on the results of a risk and need assessment, and the services are subsequently increased or decreased based on their behavior in treatment.…”

“…In fact, swift entry into treatment has been reliably associated with significantly better outcomes among offenders, including reduced recidivism and related criminal justice costs (Carey, Mackin & Finigan, 2012). To date, studies have reported favorable outcomes utilizing behavioral triage (Alm, 2013) as well as utilizing alternative methods involving risk and need assessment alone (Dugosh et al, 2014;Festinger et al, 2002;Marlowe et al, 2006) or in combination with behavioral triage (Marlowe et al, 2012). Future studies should compare these alternative approaches in a controlled manner to determine the relative benefits and burdens associated with different servicematching strategies.…”