This article reports outcomes from a program of experimental research evaluating the risk principle in drug courts. Prior studies revealed that participants who were high risk and had (a) antisocial personality disorder or (b) a prior history of drug abuse treatment performed better in drug court when scheduled to attend biweekly judicial status hearings in court. In contrast, participants who were low risk performed equivalently regardless of the court hearings schedule. This study prospectively matches drug court clients to the optimal schedule of court hearings based on an assessment of their risk status and compares outcomes to clients randomly assigned to the standard hearings schedule. Results confirmed that participants who were high risk and matched to biweekly hearings had better during-treatment outcomes than participants assigned to status hearings as usual. These findings provide confirmation of the risk principle in drug courts and yield practical information for enhancing the efficacy and cost-efficiency of drug courts.
Alterman, A. I., McDermott, P. A., Cook, T. G., Metzger, D., Rutherford, M. J., Cacciola, J. S., et al. (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.
2.
Anderson, J. F. (2001). What to do about “much ado” about drug courts?International Journal of Drug Policy, 12, 469-475.
3.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
4.
Baron, R. M., & Kenney, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
5.
Cacciola, J. S., Koppenhaver, J. M., McKay, J. R., & Alterman, A. I. (1999). Test-retest reliability of the life time items on the Addiction Severity Index. Psychological Assessment, 11, 86-93.
6.
California Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, Cal. Penal Code §§ 1210 et seq. (Deering 2003).
7.
Cooper, C. S. (1997). 1997 Drug Court Survey Report: Executive summary. Drug Court Clearing-house and Technical Assistance Project, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Available at http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/justice/exec1.htm
8.
Diggle, P. J., Liang, K. Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1994). Analysis of longitudinal data. New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
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.
10.
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (1994). Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV-Personality Disorders (version 2.0). New York: New York State Psychiatric Institute.
11.
Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective interventions with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works!Criminology, 34, 575-596.
13.
Goldkamp, J. (2001). Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court black box. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 27-72.
14.
Goldkamp, J. S. (2000). The drug court response: Issues and implications for justice change. Albany Law Review, 63, 923-961.
15.
Goldkamp, J. S., White, M. D., & Robinson, J. B. (2002). An honest chance: Perspectives on drug courts. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 6, 369-372.
16.
Harrell, A., & Roman, J. (2001). Reducing drug use and crime among offenders: The impact of graduated sanctions. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 207-232.
17.
Harrell, A., & Smith, B. (1997). Evaluation of the District of Columbia Superior Court Drug Intervention Program: Focus group interviews. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
18.
Hoffman, M. B. (2002). The rehabilitative ideal and the drug court reality. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 14, 172-178.
19.
Hollin, C. R. (1999). Treatment programs for offenders: Meta-analysis, “what works,” and beyond. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 361-372.
20.
Hora, P. F., Schma, W. G., & Rosenthal, J. T. A. (1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionalizing the criminal justice system’s response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review, 74, 439-538.
21.
Presentation at the 63rd Annual Scientific Meeting, College on Problems of Drug Dependence, Scottsdale, AZ.
22.
Longshore, D., Turner, S., Wenzel, S., Morral, A., Harrell, A., McBride, D., et al. (2001). Drug courts: A conceptual framework. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 7-25.
23.
Marlowe, D. B. (2002). Effective strategies for intervening with drug abusing offenders. Villanova Law Review, 47, 989-1025.
24.
Marlowe, D. B. (2004, September 29). Drug court efficacy vs. effectiveness. Posted on Join Together Online (JTO), at www.jointogether.org
25.
Marlowe, D. B., DeMatteo, D. S., & Festinger, D. S. (2003). A sober assessment of drug courts. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 16, 153-157.
26.
Marlowe, D. B., Elwork, A., Festinger, D. S., & McLellan, A. T. (2003). Drug policy by popular referendum: This, too, shall pass. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 25, 213-221.
27.
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 months outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 79, 145-155.
28.
Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Foltz, C., Lee, P. A., & Patapis, N. S. (2005). Perceived deterrence and outcomes in drug court. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 183-198.
29.
Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., & Lee, P. A. (2003). The role of judicial status hearings in drug court. Offender Substance Abuse Report, 3, 33-46.
30.
Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., & Lee, P. A. (2004). The judge is a key component of drug court. Drug Court Review, 4, 1-34.
31.
Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Lee, P. A., Schepise, M. M., Hazzard, J. E. R., Merrill, J. C., et al. (2003). Are judicial status hearings a key component of drug court? During-treatment data from a randomized trial. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 141-162.
32.
Marlowe, D. B., & Kirby, K. C. (1999). Effective use of sanctions in drug courts: Lessons from behavioral research. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2, 1-31.
33.
Marlowe, D. B., Patapis, N. S., & DeMatteo, D. S. (2003). Amenability to treatment of drug offenders. Federal Probation, 67, 40-46.
34.
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.
35.
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 and Mental Disease, 180, 100-109.
36.
McLellan, A. T., Arndt, I. O., Metzger, D. S., Woody, G. E., & O’Brien, C. P. (1993). The effects of psychosocial services in substance abuse treatment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 269, 1953-1959.
37.
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.
38.
McLellan, A. T., Luborsky, L., Cacciola, J. C., Griffith, J., Evans, F., Barr, H. L., et al. (1985). New data from the Addiction Severity Index: Reliability and validity in three centers. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 173, 412-423.
39.
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.
40.
Meyer, W. G., & Ritter, A. W. (2002). Drug courts work. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 14, 179-185.
41.
National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
42.
Peters, R. H., Haas, A. L., & Murrin, M. R. (1999). Predictors of retention and arrest in drug court. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2, 33-60.
43.
Satel, S. L. (1998). Observational study of courtroom dynamics in selected drug courts. National Drug Court Institute Review, 1, 43-72.
44.
Satel, S. L. (1999). Drug treatment: The case for coercion. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
45.
Saum, C. A., Scarpitti, F. R., Butzin, C. A., Perez, V. W., Jennings, D., & Gray, A. R. (2002). Drug court participants’ satisfaction with treatment and the court experience. Drug Court Review, 4, 39-81.
46.
Schottenfeld, R. S. (1989). Involuntary treatment of substance abuse disorders—Impediments to success. Psychiatry, 52, 164-176.
47.
Taxman, F. S. (1999). Graduated sanctions: Stepping into accountable systems and offenders. The Prison Journal, 79, 182-204.
48.
Thanner, M. H., & Taxman, F. S. (2003). Responsivity: The value of providing intensive services to high-risk offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 24, 137-147.
