Matching Judicial Supervision to Clients' Risk Status in Drug Court

• NCJ Number: 215838
• Journal: Crime & Delinquency Volume: 52 Issue: 1 Dated: January 2006 Pages: 52-76
• Author(s): Douglas B. Marlowe; David S. Festinger; Patricia A. Lee; Karen L. Dugosh; Kathleen M. Benasutti
• Editor(s): Elizabeth Piper Deschenes
• Date Published: January 2006
• Length: 25 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Outcomes are presented from a program of experimental research evaluating the risk principle in drug courts.

Abstract

The results of this program of research provide strong confirmation of the risk principle in the drug court context. In four experimental studies, participants who were high risk performed substantially better in drug court when they were scheduled to attend frequent biweekly judicial status hearings. In contrast, participants who were high risk had a relatively poor prognosis when assigned to the standard dosage of roughly monthly status hearings. However, outcomes were generally equivalent for participants who were low risk regardless of how often they were required to appear before the judge in court. The results of the four experimental studies in five adult drug courts revealed that drug court clients who were high risk performed significantly better when assigned to frequent biweekly judicial status hearings, whereas clients who were low risk performed equally regardless of the schedule of hearings. Drug courts are special criminal courts 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. Judicial status hearings are a defining component of the drug court model that differentiates drug courts from other interventions for drug offenders. This study prospectively matched drug court participants who were high risk to biweekly judicial status hearings and matched participants who were low risk to as-needed hearings, and to compare their outcomes to those of participants attending the standard schedule of status hearings. In essence, it evaluated the incremental utility of matching clients to “service tracks” based on an assessment of their risk status. This article reports during treatment outcomes over the course of the first 14 weeks of the drug court program. Figures, table, and references