Are judicial status hearings a “key component” of drug court?

Marlowe, Douglas B.; Festinger, David S.; Dugosh, Karen L.; Lee, Patricia A.

doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.01.019

Cited by 66 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In summary, building on a program of prior experimental research (Festinger et al, 2002;Marlowe et al, 2003cMarlowe et al, ,d,2004Marlowe et al, ,2005Marlowe et al, ,2006, the results of this study provide further evidence for the utility and potential cost-effectiveness of prospectively matching drug offenders to different dosages of judicial supervision based upon an assessment of their risk status or clinical needs. More research is required to determine whether additional benefits can be achieved by continually readjusting the intensity of judicial supervision or treatment services in response to clients' progress or lack thereof in the program.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…Specifically, misdemeanor participants with a drug treatment history provided more drug-negative urine samples during the first 14 weeks of drug court when they were assigned to bi-weekly status hearings as opposed to as-needed hearings (Marlowe et al, 2003d). Similarly, felony participants with APD reported engaging in significantly more alcohol intoxication when they were assigned to as-needed hearings as compared to bi-weekly hearings (Marlowe et al, 2004).…”

Section: Current Program Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adapting judicial supervision to the risk level of drug offenders: Discharge and 6-month outcomes from a prospective matching study

Marlowe

Festinger

Dugosh

et al. 2007

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports recent findings from a program of experimental research examining the effects of adapting judicial supervision to the risk level of drug-abusing offenders. Prior studies revealed that high-risk participants with (1) antisocial personality disorder or (2) a history of drug abuse treatment performed significantly better in drug court when they were scheduled to attend frequent, bi-weekly judicial status hearings in court. Low-risk participants performed equivalently regardless of the schedule of court hearings. The current study prospectively matched misdemeanor drug court clients to the optimal schedule of court hearings based upon an assessment of their risk status, and compared outcomes to those of clients randomly assigned to the standard schedule of court hearings. Results confirmed that high-risk participants graduated at a higher rate, provided more drug-negative urine specimens at 6 months post-admission, and reported significantly less drug use and alcohol intoxication at 6 months post-admission when they were matched to bi-weekly hearings as compared to the usual schedule of hearings. These findings yield practical information for enhancing the efficacy and cost-efficiency of drug court services. Directions for future research on adaptive programming for drug offenders are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 57%

Section: Current Program Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adapting judicial supervision to the risk level of drug offenders: Discharge and 6-month outcomes from a prospective matching study

Marlowe

Festinger

Dugosh

et al. 2007

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These conditions reflect the extremes of contemporary drug court practice. The highest dosage of status hearings generally used by drug courts is biweekly, whereas the smallest dosage is on an as-needed basis, whenever there is a problem or need identified by the judge or by treatment personnel (NADCP, 1997).Results revealed that for the sample as a whole, the schedule of judicial status hearings had no impact on counseling attendance, urine results, or self-reported substance use or criminal activity during participants'enrollment in drug court (Marlowe, Festinger, Lee, & Schepise, et al, 2003), in graduation rates from the program (Festinger et al, 2002), or in urine results or self-reported substance use, criminal activity, or psychosocial functioning at 12 months postadmission to the drug court (Marlowe, Festinger, Dugosh, & Lee, 2005).It is important to note, however, we conducted a circumscribed set of planned interaction analyses to determine whether certain subgroups of participants may have performed relatively better or worse in the two study conditions. Based on our review of the literature concerning the greatest risk factors for failure of offenders in diversion programs (e.g., Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996;Marlowe, Patapis, & DeMatteo, 2003;Peters, Haas, & Murrin, 1999), we hypothesized that judicial status hearings would have the greatest impacts for participants who were higher risk and were relatively younger, had an earlier age of onset of crime, had more severe drug problems, had antisocial personality disorder (APD), or had previously failed in a drug treatment program.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Conversely, termination rates were nearly doubled for participants with drug treatment histories assigned to as-needed hearings. Similarly, in the felony programs, participants with APD reported engaging in significantly more days of substance intoxication on average when they were assigned to biweekly status hearings as opposed to as-needed hearings (M = .50 vs. 4.83 days, p = .03; Marlowe, Festinger, & Lee, 2004).Because of the serious legal repercussions that might be imposed by the court on clients who are terminated from drug court or continue to abuse substances in the community, the researchers were required to report these interim findings to the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) monitoring the studies and to the drug court program staffs to determine whether it was practical or ethical to continue with the design. This was especially necessary because the asneeded participants were receiving less judicial supervision than they ordinarily would have in standard practice.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Matching Judicial Supervision to Clients’ Risk Status in Drug Court

Marlowe

Festinger

Lee

et al. 2006

Crime & Delinquency

Self Cite

160

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports outcomes from a program of experimental research evaluating the risk principle in drug courts. Prior studies revealed that participants who were high risk and had (a) antisocial personality disorder or (b) a prior history of drug abuse treatment performed better in drug court when scheduled to attend biweekly judicial status hearings in court. In contrast, participants who were low risk performed equivalently regardless of the court hearings schedule. This study prospectively matches drug court clients to the optimal schedule of court hearings based on an assessment of their risk status and compares outcomes to clients randomly assigned to the standard hearings schedule. Results confirmed that participants who were high risk and matched to biweekly hearings had better during-treatment outcomes than participants assigned to status hearings as usual. These findings provide confirmation of the risk principle in drug courts and yield practical information for enhancing the efficacy and cost-efficiency of drug courts.Keywords drug court; risk assessment; drug abuse; antisocial personality disorder Drug courts are special criminal court dockets that provide a judicially supervised regimen of drug abuse treatment and case management services to offenders who are nonviolent and abuse drugs in lieu of criminal prosecution or incarceration. According to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP, 1997), the "key components" of a drug court include (a) ongoing status hearings before the judge in court, (b) mandatory completion of drug abuse treatment, (c) random urine drug screens, and (d) progressive negative sanctions for program infractions and positive rewards for achievements. In preplea or diversion drug courts, participants who satisfactorily complete the program may have their criminal charges dropped and may be eligible for record expungement after remaining arrest free for an additional waiting period and meeting other obligations such as paying a filing fee. In postadjudication drug courts, graduates may avoid incarceration, consolidate their probationary requirements, or receive a sentence of time served in the program. DOUGLAS B. MARLOWE, J.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Section on Law and Ethics Research at the Treatment Research Institute (TRI) and an adjunct associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. His research focuses on examining the role of coercion in drug abuse treatment, the effects of drug courts and other diversion programs for drug-abusing offenders, and behavioral treatments for drug abusers and offenders. DAVID S. FESTINGER, Ph.D., is a senior scientist in the Section on Law and Ethics Research at the TRI. His research focuses on evaluating the clinical effects and ethical impacts of coercive interventions for drug-abusing criminal offenders. PATRICIA A. LEE, M.S. is the research coordinator for the Section on Law and Ethics Research at the TRI. She is primarily responsible for managing all aspects of ...

show abstract

“…TRI has conducted numerous training programs for clinicians at all levels and has consulted on the re-design and improvement of city and state programs in many locales. An important part of the work has involved the justice system where TRI researchers have applied the "gold standard" of randomized clinical trials to test the efficacy of rehabilitative procedures in, for example, drug courts (Marlowe et al, 2005). The impact of TRI can be measured by the number of programs that are now using evidence-based treatment methods and by the improved results that have benefited their patients.…”

Section: Treatment Research Institutementioning

confidence: 99%