Matching Judicial Supervision to Clients’ Risk Status in Drug Court

Abstract

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 ...

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

“…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.…”

Assessing the long-term impact of drug court participation on recidivism with generalized estimating equations

“…Binary outcomes utilizing GEE were used for measuring pass/fail urinalysis and treatment scale results (Marlowe, et al, 2003), as well as self-reported illicit drug use or alcohol intoxication (Marlowe, et al, 2006). It has also been used for dichotomized Addiction Severity Index (ASI) composite outcome measures in studies of drug-involved offenders (Chan, et al, 2005).…”

The National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices survey: Multilevel survey methods and procedures

“…In contrast, research on programs and services for offenders is dominated by individual studies that present a collage of findings and only small glimmers of insight into the characteristics of effective programs. Examples include residential drug treatment programs (Hiller, Knight, Broome, & Simpson, 1998;Inciardi, 1999;Knight, Simpson, & Hiller, 1999;Martin, Butzin, Saum, & Inciardi, 1999;Pearson & Lipton, 1999;Simpson, Wexler, & Inciardi, 1999;Wexler & Melnick, 1999), drug courts (Belenko, 2002;Marlowe, DeMatteo, & Festinger, 2003;Marlowe, Festinger, Lee, Dugosh, & Benasutti, 2006;Taxman & Bouffard, 2002Wenzel, Longshore, Turner, & Ridgley, 2001), and community supervision (Taxman, 2002;Taxman & Thanner, 2006;Thanner & Taxman, 2003;Sherman et al, 1997). The collage is incomplete, and our knowledge of effective offender treatment, particularly in system-related issues, lags far behind the general treatment field (Farabee, Prendergast, & Anglin, 1998).…”