Abstract
Objectives
To test whether an adaptive program improves outcomes in drug court by adjusting the schedule of court hearings and clinical case-management sessions pursuant to a priori performance criteria.
Methods
Consenting participants in a misdemeanor drug court were randomly assigned to the adaptive program (n = 62) or to a baseline-matching condition (n = 63) in which they attended court hearings based on the results of a criminal risk assessment. Outcome measures were re-arrest rates at 18 months post-entry to the drug court, and urine drug test results and structured interview results at 6 and 12 months post-entry.
Results
Although previously published analyses revealed significantly fewer positive drug tests for participants in the adaptive condition during the first 18 weeks of drug court, current analyses indicate the effects converged during the ensuing year. Between-group differences in new arrest rates, urine drug test results and self-reported psychosocial problems were small and non-statistically significant at 6, 12, and 18 months post-entry. A non-significant trend (p = .10) suggests there may have been a small residual impact (Cramer’s v = .15) on new misdemeanor arrests after 18 months.
Conclusions
Adaptive programming shows promise for enhancing short-term outcomes in drug courts; however, additional efforts are needed to extend the effects beyond the first 4 to 6 months of enrollment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alterman, A. I., McDermott, P. A., Cook, T. G., Metzger, D., Rutherford, M. J., Cacciola, J. S., & Brown, L. S. (1998). New scales to assess change in the Addiction Severity Index for the opioid, cocaine, and alcohol dependent. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 12, 233–246.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis.
Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Bhati, A. S., Roman, J. K., & Chalfin, A. (2008). To treat or not to treat: Evidence on the prospects of expanding treatment to drug-involved offenders. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Carey, S. M., Mackin, J. R., & Finigan, M. W. (2012). What works? The 10 key components of Drug Court: research-based best practices. Drug Court Review, 8(1), 6–42.
Collins, L. M., Murphy, S. A., & Bierman, K. A. (2004). A conceptual framework for adaptive preventive interventions. Prevention Science, 5, 185–196.
Downey, P. M., & Roman, J. K. (2010). A Bayesian meta-analysis of drug court cost-effectiveness. Washington DC: The Urban Institute.
Farole, D. J., Puffett, N., Rempel, M., & Byrne, F. (2004). Can innovation be institutionalized? Problem-solving in mainstream courts. New York: Center for Court Innovation.
Festinger, D. S., Marlowe, D. B., Lee, P. A., Kirby, K. C., Bovasso, G., & McLellan, A. T. (2002). Status hearings in drug court: when more is less and less is more. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 68, 151–157.
Goodman, J. D., McKay, J. R., & DePhilippis, D. (2013). Progress monitoring in mental health and addiction treatment: a means of improving care. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 44, 231–246.
Harmon, S. C., Lambert, M. J., Smart, D. M., Hawkins, E., Nielsen, S. L., Slade, K., & Lutz, W. (2007). Enhancing outcome for potential treatment failures: therapist-client feedback and clinical support tools. Psychotherapy Research, 17, 379–392.
Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., Hawkins, E. J., Vermeersch, D. A., Nielsen, S. L., & Smart, D. W. (2003). Is it time for clinicians to routinely track patient outcomes? A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 288–301.
Latimer, J., Morton-Bourgon, K., & Chretien, J. (2006). A meta-analytic examination of drug treatment courts: Do they reduce recidivism? Canada: Dept. of Justice, Research & Statistics Division.
Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2005). Are drug courts effective? A meta-analytic review. Journal of Community Corrections, Fall, 5–28.
Marlowe, D. B. (2011). Applying incentives and sanctions. In D. B. Marlowe & W. G. Meyer (Eds.), The drug court judicial benchbook (pp. 139–157). Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute. Available at http://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/14146_NDCI_Benchbook_v6.pdf.
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.
Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Dugosh, K. L., Benasutti, K. M., Fox, G., & Croft, J. R. (2012). Adaptive programming improves outcomes in drug court: an experimental trial. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 514–532.
Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Dugosh, K. L., Caron, A., 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.
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 and Alcohol Dependence, 88S, 4–13.
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 and Delinquency, 52, 52–76.
Marlowe, D. B., & Wong, C. J. (2008). Contingency management in adult criminal drug courts. In S. T. Higgins, K. Silverman, & S. H. Heil (Eds.), Contingency management in substance abuse treatment (pp. 334–354). New York: Guilford.
McDermott, P., Alterman, A., Brown, L., Zaballero, A., Snider, E., & McKay, J. (1996). Construct refinement and confirmation for the Addiction Severity Index. Psychological Assessment, 8(2), 182–189.
McKay, J. R. (2009). Treating substance use disorders with adaptive continuing care. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
McKay, J. R., Lynch, K. G., Shepard, D. S., Morgenstern, J., Forman, R., & Pettinati, H. M. (2005). Do patient characteristics and initial progress in treatment moderate the effectiveness of telephone-based continuing care for substance use disorders? Addiction, 100(2), 216–226.
McKay, J. R., Van Horn, D. H., Oslin, D. W., Lynch, K. G., Ivey, M., Ward, K., & Coviello, D. M. (2010). A randomized trial of extended telephone-based continuing care for alcohol dependence: within-treatment substance use outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(6), 912–923.
McLellan, A. T., Cacciola, J., Kushner, H., Peters, R., Smith, I., & Pettinati, H. (1992). The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index: cautions, additions and normative data. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 9, 461–480.
McLellan, A. T., Luborsky, L., Cacciola, J., Griffith, J., Evans, F., Barr, H., & O’Brien, C. (1985). New data from the Addiction Severity Index: reliability and validity in three centers. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 173(7), 412.
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 and Mental Disease, 168, 26–33.
McLellan, A. T., McKay, J. R., Forman, R., Cacciola, J., & Kemp, J. (2005). Reconsidering the evaluation of addiction treatment: from retrospective follow-up to concurrent recovery monitoring. Addiction, 100, 447–458.
Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: a meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 60–71.
Murphy, S. A., Lynch, K. G., McKay, J. R., Oslin, D., & TenHave, T. (2007). Developing adaptive treatment strategies in substance abuse research. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 88(2), S24–S30.
National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept. of Justice.
Rempel, M., Green, M., & Kralstein, D. (2012). The impact of adult drug courts on crime and incarceration: findings from a multi-site quasi-experimental design. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8, 165–192. doi:10.1007/s11292-012-9143-2.
Scott, C. K., & Dennis, M. L. (2012). The first 90 days following release from jail: findings from the Recovery Management Checkups for Women Offenders (RMCWO) experiment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 125, 110–118.
Shaffer, D. K. (2010). Looking inside the black box of drug courts: a meta-analytic review. Justice Quarterly, 28, 493–521.
Wilson, D. B., Mitchell, O., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459–487.
Wormith, J. S., & Goldstone, C. S. (1984). The clinical and statistical prediction of recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 11, 3–34.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by grant #R01-DA-013096 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NIDA. The authors gratefully acknowledge the continuing collaboration of the New Castle County Court of Common Pleas, Delaware State Attorney General’s Office, Delaware Office of the Public Defender, Delaware Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Delaware State Division of Substance Abuse & Mental Health, Treatment Access Center, and Brandywine Counseling, Inc.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marlowe, D.B., Festinger, D.S., Dugosh, K.L. et al. An experimental trial of adaptive programming in drug court: outcomes at 6, 12 and 18 months. J Exp Criminol 10, 129–149 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-013-9196-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-013-9196-x