Adaptive Programming Improves Outcomes in Drug Court

Abstract

Prior studies in drug courts have 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.

Keywords

addiction substance abuse adaptive treatment criminal justice offenders

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis.

Aos

Miller

Drake

(2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Bennett

Holloway

Farrington

(2008). The statistical association between drug misuse and crime: A meta-analysis. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 13, 107-118.

Bhati

A. S.

Roman

J. K.

Chalfin

(2008).To treat or not to treat: Evidence on the prospects of expanding treatment to drug-involved offenders. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Chandler

R. K.

Fletcher

B. W.

Volkow

N. D.

(2009). Treating drug abuse and addiction in the criminal justice system: Improving public health and safety. Journal of the American Medical Association, 301, 183-190.

Collins

L. M.

Murphy

S. A.

Bierman

K. A.

(2004). A conceptual framework for adaptive preventive interventions. Prevention Science, 5, 185-196.

DeMatteo

D. S.

Marlowe

D. B.

Festinger

D. S.

(2006). Secondary prevention services for clients who are low risk in drug court: A conceptual model. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 114-134.

Downey

P. M.

Roman

J. K.

(2010).A Bayesian meta-analysis of drug court cost-effectiveness. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

10.

Farole

D. J.

Puffett

Rempel

Byrne

(2004).Can innovation be institutionalized? Problem-solving in mainstream courts. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

11.

Fazel

Bains

Doll

(2006). Substance abuse and dependence in prisoners: A systematic review. Addiction, 101, 181-191.

12.

Festinger

D. S.

DeMatteo

D. S.

Marlowe

D. B.

Lee

P. A.

(2005). Expungement of arrest records in drug court: Do clients know what they’re missing? Drug Court Review, 5, 1-21.

13.

Festinger

D. S.

Marlowe

D. B.

Lee

P. A.

Kirby

K. C.

Bovasso

McLellan

A. T.

(2002). Status hearings in drug court: When more is less and less is more. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 68, 151-157.

14.

Hiller

M. L.

Knight

Saum

C. A.

Simpson

D. D.

(2006). Social functioning, treatment dropout, and recidivism of probationers mandated to a modified therapeutic community. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 738-759.

15.

Karberg

J. C.

James

D. J.

(2005).Substance dependence, abuse, and treatment of jail inmates, 2002 (NCJ 209588). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

16.

Latimer

Morton-Bourgon

Chretien

(2006).A meta-analytic examination of drug treatment courts: Do they reduce recidivism? Ottawa: Canada Department of Justice, Research & Statistics Division.

17.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Holsinger

A. M.

Latessa

E. J.

(2005, Fall). Are drug courts effective? A meta-analytic review. Journal of Community Corrections, 15, 5-28.

18.

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components [NCJ 165478]. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept. of Justice.

19.

Marlowe

D. B.

(2002). Effective strategies for intervening with drug abusing offenders. Villanova Law Review, 47, 989-1025.

20.

Marlowe

D. B.

(2008). Application of sanctions. In Hardin

Kushner

J. N.

(Eds.), Quality improvement for drug courts: Evidence-based practices (Monograph Series No. 9; pp. 107-114). Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.

21.

Marlowe

D. B.

Festinger

D. S.

Arabia

P. L.

Dugosh

K. L.

Benasutti

K. M.

Croft

J. R.

(2009). Adaptive interventions may optimize outcomes in drug courts: A pilot study. Current Psychiatry Reports, 11, 370-376.

22.

Marlowe

D. B.

Festinger

D. S.

Arabia

P. L.

Dugosh

K. L.

Benasutti

K. M.

Croft

J. R.

McKay

J. R.

(2008). Adaptive interventions in drug court: A pilot experiment. Criminal Justice Review, 33, 343-360.

23.

Marlowe

D. B.

Festinger

D. S.

Dugosh

K. L.

Caron

Podkopacz

M. R.

Clements

N. T.

(2011). Targeting dispositions for drug-involved offenders: A field trial of the Risk and Needs Triage (RANT™). Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 253-260.

24.

Marlowe

D. B.

Festinger

D. S.

Dugosh

K. L.

Lee

P. A.

(2005). Are judicial status hearings a “key component” of drug court? Six and twelve month outcomes. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 79, 145-155.

25.

Marlowe

D. B.

Festinger

D. S.

Dugosh

K. L.

Lee

P. A.

Benasutti

K. M.

(2007). Adapting judicial supervision to the risk level of drug offenders: Discharge and six-month outcomes from a prospective matching study. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 88, S4-S13.

26.

Marlowe

D. B.

Festinger

D. S.

Foltz

Lee

P. A.

Patapis

N. S.

(2005). Perceived deterrence and outcomes in drug court. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23, 183-198.

27.

Marlowe

D. B.

Festinger

D. S.

Lee

P. A.

(2004a). The judge is a key component of drug court. Drug Court Review, 4(2), 1-34.

28.

Marlowe

D. B.

Festinger

D. S.

Lee

P. A.

(2004b). The role of judicial status hearings in drug court. In Knight

Farabee

(Eds.), Treating addicted offenders: A continuum of effective practices (pp. 1-10). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

29.

Marlowe

D. B.

Festinger

D. S.

Lee

P. A.

Dugosh

K. L.

Benasutti

K. M.

(2006). Matching judicial supervision to clients’ risk status in drug court. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 52-76.

30.

Marlowe

D. B.

Festinger

D. S.

Lee

P. A.

Schepise

M. M.

Hazzard

J. E. R.

Merrill

J. C.

. . . McLellan

A. T.

(2003b). Are judicial status hearings a key component of drug court? During-treatment data from a randomized trial. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 141-162.

31.

Marlowe

D. B.

Patapis

N. S.

DeMatteo

D. S.

(2003a). Amenability to treatment of drug offenders. Federal Probation, 67, 40-46.

32.

Marlowe

D. B.

Wong

C. J.

(2008). Contingency management in adult criminal drug courts. In Higgins

S. T.

Silverman

Heil

S. H.

(Eds.), Contingency management in substance abuse treatment (pp. 334-354). New York, NY: Guilford.

33.

McKay

J. R.

(2009). Treating substance use disorders with adaptive continuing care. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

34.

Murphy

S. A.

Lynch

K. G.

McKay

J. R.

Oslin

TenHave

(2007). Developing adaptive treatment strategies in substance abuse research. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 88, S24-S30.

35.

National Center on Addiction & Substance Abuse. (2010). Behind bars II: Substance abuse and America’s prison population. New York, NY: Author.

36.

Shaffer

D. K.

(2010). Looking inside the black box of drug courts: A meta-analytic review. Justice Quarterly, 28, 493-521.

37.

Taxman

F. S.

Marlowe

D. B.

(Eds.). (2006). Risk, needs, responsivity: In action or inaction? [Special issue]. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1).

38.

University of California, Los Angeles. (2007). Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: Final report. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Integrated Substance Abuse Programs.

39.

Wilson

D. B.

Mitchell

MacKenzie

D. L.

(2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459-487.

40.

Wormith

J. S.

Goldstone

C. S.

(1984). The clinical and statistical prediction of recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 11, 3-34.

41.

Zhang

(2003). Drug and alcohol use and related matters among arrestees. Bethesda, MD: National Opinion Research Center & National Institute of Justice, Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/nij/adam/ADAM2003.pdf

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

11.38 MB