More than 2,000 drug courts in the United States provide supervision and substance-abuse treatment to thousands of offenders. Yet the treatment continuum from assessment to aftercare is underexplored. The effectiveness of the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) as a risk assessment tool is well established. However, fewer studies have considered its use in guiding treatment strategies. In using the LSI-R, the drug court program relied on the structured interview protocol (not the risk classification scores) to identify criminogenic needs that then helped determine placement in a high- or low-needs treatment track. To evaluate the effectiveness of these treatment placement decisions, this research used the LSI-R scores to examine individual and group differences (N = 182). Significant and substantive differences at the individual and group levels were found thus providing empirical support for using the LSI-R as a link between assessment and treatment. Implications for developing standards and practice protocols for drug courts are discussed.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. L. (2003). The level of service inventory-revised: Assessment of risk/needs for offender treatment, planning and placement. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. (Original work published 1995).
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. L. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Ohio, Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Company.
3.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. L.HogeR. (1990a). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
4.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. L.WormithJ. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52, 7-27.
5.
AndrewsD. A.ZingerI.HogeR.BontaJ. L.GendreauP.CullenF. (1990b). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 8, 369-404.
AustinJ. (2006). How much risk can we take? Misuse of risk assessment in corrections. Federal Probation, 70, 52-63.
8.
BanksD.GottfredsonD. (2003). The effects of drug treatment and supervision on time to rearrest among drug treatment court participants. Journal of Drug Issues, 2, 385-412.
9.
BelenkoS. R. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review 2001 update. New York, NY: The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University.
10.
BontaA.MotiukL. (1990). Classification to halfway houses: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Criminology, 28, 497-506.
11.
BouffardJ.TaxmanF. (2004). Looking inside the “black box” of drug court treatment services using direct observations. Journal of Drug Issues, 1, 195-218.
12.
BushJ.GlickB.TaymansJ. (1997). Thinking for a change: Integrated cognitive behavior change program. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
13.
ByrneJ. (2006). Introduction to special issue on risk assessment. Federal Probation, 70, i-iii.
14.
CissnerA.RempelM. (2005). The state of drug court research: Moving beyond “do they work?”New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
15.
DeMatteoD.MarloweD. B.FestingerD. S.ArabiaP.L. (2009). Outcome trajectories in drug court: Do all participants have serious drug problems?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(4), 354-368.
16.
DeMatteoD. S.MarloweD. S.FestingerD. S. (2006). Secondary prevention services for clients who are low risk in drug court: A conceptual model. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 114-134.
17.
DowdenC.AndrewsD. A. (1999). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Crime & Delinquency, 45, 438-452.
18.
FarabeeD.PrendergastM.CartierJ.WexlerH.KnightK.AnglinD. (1999). Barriers to implementing effective correctional drug treatment programs. The Prison Journal, 79, 150-162.
19.
FloresA. W.LowenkampC. T.HolsingerA. M.LatessaE. J. (2006). Predicting outcome with the level of service inventory-revised: The importance of implementation strategy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 523-529.
20.
FriedmannP.TaxmanF.HendersonC. (2007). Evidence-based treatment practices for drug-involved adults in the criminal justice system. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32, 267-277.
21.
GendreauP.GogginC.SmithP. (2002). Is the PCL-R really the “unparalleled” measure of offender risk? A lesson in knowledge cumulation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 397-426.
22.
GirardL.WormithJ. (2004). The predictive validity of the level of service inventory: Ontario revision on general and violent recidivism among various offender groups. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 150-181.
23.
GoldkampJ.WhiteM.RobinsonJ. (2001). Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court black box. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 27-73.
24.
GottfredsonM.ExumM. (2002). The Baltimore city drug treatment court: One year results from a randomized study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 337-356.
25.
Government Accountability Office. (2005). Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes (Report to congressional communities). Washington, DC: Author.
26.
HolsingerA.LowenkampC.LatessaE. (2003). Ethnicity, gender, and the level of service inventory-revised. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 309-320.
27.
KellyC.WelshW. (2008). The predictive validity of the level of service inventory-revised for drug-involved offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 819-831.
28.
KnightK.GarnerB.SimpsonD.MoreyJ.FlynnP. (2006). An assessment for criminal thinking. Crime and Delinquency, 52, 159-177.
29.
LatessaE.CullenF. T.GendreauP. (2002). Beyond correctional quackery: Professionalism and the possibility of effective treatment. Federal Probation, 66, 43-49.
30.
LatessaE.LowenkampC. (2005). What are criminogenic needs and why are they important?For the Record, Ohio Judicial Conference, 15-16.
31.
ListwanS.CullenF.LatessaE. (2006). How to prevent prisoner re-entry programs from failing: Insights from evidence-based corrections. Federal Probation, 70, 19-25.
32.
ListwanS.ShafferD.LatessaE. (2002). Drug court movement: Recommendations for improvement. Corrections Today Magazine, 64, 52-54.
33.
LittleG. L.RobinsonK. D. (1988). Moral reconation therapy: A systematic step-by-step treatment system for treatment resistant clients. Psychological Reports, 62, 135-151.
34.
LutzeF.van WormerJ. (2007). The nexus between drug and alcohol treatment program integrity and drug court effectiveness. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18, 226-245.
35.
ManchakS.SkeemJ.DouglasK.SiranosianM. (2009). Does gender moderate the predictive utility of the level of service inventory-revised (LSI-R) for serious violent offenders?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 425-442.
36.
MarloweD. (2003). Integrating substance abuse treatment and criminal justice supervision. Science and Practice Perspectives, 2, 4-14.
37.
MarloweD.DeMatteoD.FestingerD. (2003). A sober assessment of drug courts. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 16, 1-5.
38.
MarloweD.FestingerD.LeeP.DugoshK.BenasuttiK. (2006). Matching judicial supervision to clients’ risk status in drug court. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 52-76.
39.
MarloweD.FestingerD.LeeP.SchepiseM. M.HazzardJ. E. R.MerrillJ. C.MulvaneyF. D.McLellanA. T. (2003). Are judicial status hearings a key component of drug court? During-treatment data from a randomized trial. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 30, 141-162.
40.
MarloweD.HeckC.HuddlestonC. W.CaseboltR. (2006). National research agenda for drug courts: Plotting the course for second-generation scientific inquiry. National Drug Court Institute Review, 5, 1-32.
41.
MarloweD.KirbyK. (1999). Effective use of sanctions in drug courts: Lessons from behavioral research. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2, 1-32.
42.
MatthewsB.HubbardD.LatessaE. (2001). Making the next step: Using evaluability assessment to improve correctional programming. The Prison Journal, 81, 454-472.
43.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). (2009). Principles of drug addiction treatment: A research-based guide. Washington, DC: Author. NIH Publication No. 09-4180.
44.
O’KeefeM. L.KlebeK.HromasS. (1998). Validation of the level of service inventory for community based offenders in Colorado: Phase II. Denver, CO: Department of Corrections.
45.
RomanJ.TownsendW.BhatiA. S. (2003). Recidivism rates for drug court graduates: Nationally based estimates, final report. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
46.
SamenowS. (2004). Inside the criminal mind. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.
47.
SimpsonD. (2004). A conceptual framework for drug treatment process and outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 27, 99-121.
48.
SmithP.CullenF.LatessaE. (2009). Can 14,737 women be wrong? A meta-analysis of the LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders. Criminology and Public Policy, 8, 183-208.
49.
TaxmanF. (2006). Assessment with a flair: Offender accountability in supervision plans. Federal Probation, 70, 2-7.
50.
TaxmanF.BouffardJ. (2005). Explaining drug treatment completion in drug courts. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 42, 23-50.
51.
TaxmanF. S.CropseyK. L.YoungD. W.WexlerH. (2007). Screening, assessment, and referral practices in adult correctional settings: A national perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1216-1234.
52.
TaxmanF.ThannerM.WeisburdD. (2006). Risk, need, and responsivity (RNR): It all depends. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 28-51.
53.
Texas Christian University. (2008). TCU drug screen II. Fort Worth, TX: Author.
54.
TrunzoD.HendersonL. (2009). Referrals to substance abuse treatment from the criminal justice system: Findings from the treatment episode data set. Paper presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences conference, Boston, MA.
Van VoorhisP. (1997). Correctional classification and the responsivity principle. Forum on Corrections Research, 9, 46-50.
57.
VieiraT.SkillingT.Peterson-BadaliM. (2009). Matching court-ordered services with treatment needs: Predicting treatment success with young offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 385-401.
58.
VoseB.CullenF.SmithP. (2008). The empirical status of the level of service inventory. Federal Probation, 72, 22-29.
59.
WilsonD.MitchellO.MacKenzieD. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459-487.
