This article reports during-treatment outcomes from a randomized, controlled evaluation of different schedules of judicial status hearings in a misdemeanor drug court. Contrary to expectations, more frequent status hearings with the drug court judge were not associated with more favorable outcomes for participants during the first 14 weeks of drug court in terms of counseling attendance, urinalysis-confirmed abstinence, self-reported substance use, or illegal activity. More frequent hearings were, however, associated with greater detection of infractions by the drug court judge and more remedial interventions with participants. Future research will address 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up outcomes for these individuals and will examine the generalizability of the findings across several adult drug courts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Belenko, S. (1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review, 1, 1-42.
2.
Belenko, S. (1999). Research on drug courts: A critical review: 1999 update. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2(2), 1-58.
3.
Belenko, S. (2000, December). Diversion programs: Providing treatment-based alternatives to incarceration for drug-involved criminal offenders. Connection, pp. 1-2, 8.
4.
Belenko, S. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review: 2001 update. New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
5.
Cacciola, J. S., Koppenhaver, J. M., McKay, J. R., & Alterman, A. I. (1999). Test-retest reliability of the lifetime items on the Addiction Severity Index. Psychological Assessment, 11, 86-93.
6.
Cavanagh, S., & Harrell, A. (1997). Preliminary results from the evaluation of the D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program for felony defendants. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
7.
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2000). Linking substance abuse treatment and domestic violence services: A guide for treatment providers (Treatment Improvement Protocol Series No. 25). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
8.
Cooper, C. S. (1997). 1997 drug court survey report: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project, American University.
9.
Diggle, P. J., Liang, K. Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1994). Analysis of longitudinal data. New York: Oxford University Press.
10.
Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. (1999a). Juvenile and family drug courts: An overview. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
11.
Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. (1999b). Looking at a decade of drug courts (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
12.
Drug Courts Program Office. (1998). Drug court monitoring, evaluation, and management information systems. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
13.
Graebsch, C. (2000). Legal issues of randomized experiments on sanctioning. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 271-282.
14.
Harrell, A., Cavanagh, S., & Roman, J. (1998). Final report: Findings from the evaluation of the D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
15.
Harrell, A., & Smith, B. (1997). Evaluation of the District of Columbia Superior Court Drug Intervention Program: Focus group interviews. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
16.
Hoffman, M. B. (2000). The drug court scandal. North Carolina Law Review, 78, 1437-1534.
17.
Lee, P. A., Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Cacciola, J. S., McNellis, J., Schepise, M. M., Merrill, J. C., Harrell, A. V., & McLellan, A. T. (2001). Did “Breaking the Cycle” (BTC) clients receive appropriate services? [Abstract]. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 63(Supp. 1), S89. Presentation at the 63rd Annual Scientific Meeting, College on Problems of Drug Dependence, Scottsdale, AZ.
18.
Marlowe, D. B. (2001). Coercive treatment of substance abusing criminal offenders. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1, 65-73.
19.
Marlowe, D. B., & Festinger, D. S. (2000, December). Research on drug courts: Do the N’s justify the means? Connection, pp. 4-5.
20.
Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Merrill, J. C., Lee, P. A., McNellis, J., Schepise, M., & McLellan, A. T. (2001, June). A randomized, controlled evaluation of the schedule of judicial status hearings in a drug court [Abstract]. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 63(Supp. 1), 98. Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Scientific Meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, Scottsdale, AZ.
21.
Marlowe, D. B., & Kirby, K. C. (1999). Effective use of sanctions in drug courts: Lessons from behavioral research. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2(1), 1-31.
22.
Marlowe, D. B., Merrill, J. C., Harrell, A. V., & McLellan, A. T. (2000, November). The role of judicial status hearings in drug court. In S. Turner & J. Flanzer (Chairs), Research on drug courts sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Symposium conducted at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, CA.
23.
McDermott, P. A., Alterman, A. I., Brown, L., Zaballero, A., Snider, E. C., & McKay, J. R. (1996). Construct refinement and confirmation for the Addiction Severity Index. Psychological Assessment, 8, 182-189.
24.
McLellan, A. T., Alterman, A. I., Woody, G. E., & Metzger, D. (1992).A quantitative measure of substance abuse treatments: The treatment services review. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 180, 100-109.
25.
McLellan, A. T., Kushner, H., Metzger, D., Peters, R., Smith, I., Grissom, G., Pettinati, H., & Argeriou, M. (1992). The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 9, 199-213.
26.
McLellan, A. T., Luborsky, L., Cacciola, J. C., Griffith, J., Evans, F., Barr, H. L., & O’Brien, C. P. (1985). New data from the Addiction Severity Index: Reliability and validity in three centers. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 173, 412-423.
27.
McLellan, A. T., Luborsky, L., O’Brien, C. P., & Woody, G. E. (1980). An improved diagnostic instrument for substance abuse clients: The Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Nervous& Mental Disease, 168, 26-33.
28.
National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
29.
National Drug Court Institute. (1999). Reentry drug courts [Monograph Series No. 3]. Alexandria, VA: Author.
30.
Peters, R. H., & Murrin, M. R. (2000). Effectiveness of treatment-based drug courts in reducing criminal recidivism. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 27, 72-96.
31.
Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 17, pp. 281-335). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
SAS Institute. (1996). SAS/STAT® software: Changes and enhancements through Release 6.11. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
33.
Shaw, M., & Robinson, K. (1999). Reports on recent drug court research. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2, 107-119.
34.
Steadman, H. J., Davidson, S., & Brown, C. (2001). Mental health courts: Their promise and unanswered questions. Psychiatric Services, 52, 457-458.
35.
Taxman, F. S. (1999a). Graduated sanctions: Stepping into accountable systems and offenders. The Prison Journal, 79, 182-204.
36.
Taxman, F. S. (1999b, Spring). Proactive supervision: Supervision as crime prevention. Journal of Offender Monitoring, p. 25-26.
37.
Turner, S., Greenwood, P., Fain, T., & Deschenes, E. (1999). Perceptions of drug court: How offenders view ease of program completion, strengths and weaknesses, and the impact on their lives. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2, 61-85.
38.
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, P.L. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§13701-14223).
