» Articles » PMID: 17071020

Adapting Judicial Supervision to the Risk Level of Drug Offenders: Discharge and 6-month Outcomes from a Prospective Matching Study

Overview
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Psychiatry
Date 2006 Oct 31
PMID 17071020
Citations 20
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This article reports recent findings from a program of experimental research examining the effects of adapting judicial supervision to the risk level of drug-abusing offenders. Prior studies revealed that high-risk participants with (1) antisocial personality disorder or (2) a history of drug abuse treatment performed significantly better in drug court when they were scheduled to attend frequent, bi-weekly judicial status hearings in court. Low-risk participants performed equivalently regardless of the schedule of court hearings. The current study prospectively matched misdemeanor drug court clients to the optimal schedule of court hearings based upon an assessment of their risk status, and compared outcomes to those of clients randomly assigned to the standard schedule of court hearings. Results confirmed that high-risk participants graduated at a higher rate, provided more drug-negative urine specimens at 6 months post-admission, and reported significantly less drug use and alcohol intoxication at 6 months post-admission when they were matched to bi-weekly hearings as compared to the usual schedule of hearings. These findings yield practical information for enhancing the efficacy and cost-efficiency of drug court services. Directions for future research on adaptive programming for drug offenders are discussed.

Citing Articles

Psychological interventions for antisocial personality disorder.

Gibbon S, Khalifa N, Cheung N, Vollm B, McCarthy L Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020; 9:CD007668.

PMID: 32880104 PMC: 8094166. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007668.pub3.


Examining the use of visual performance feedback in drug treatment court.

Festinger D, Dugosh K, Della Porta J Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2018; 26(1):85-93.

PMID: 29389171 PMC: 5843990. DOI: 10.1037/pha0000166.


Personalized Dose Finding Using Outcome Weighted Learning.

Chen G, Zeng D, Kosorok M J Am Stat Assoc. 2017; 111(516):1509-1521.

PMID: 28255189 PMC: 5327863. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2016.1148611.


Adaptive Interventions and SMART Designs: Application to child behavior research in a community setting.

Kidwell K, Hyde L Am J Eval. 2017; 37(3):344-363.

PMID: 28239254 PMC: 5321198. DOI: 10.1177/1098214015617013.


Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders.

Perry A, Neilson M, Martyn-St James M, Glanville J, Woodhouse R, Godfrey C Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; (6):CD010862.

PMID: 26035084 PMC: 11060505. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010862.pub2.


References
1.
Collins L, Murphy S, Bierman K . A conceptual framework for adaptive preventive interventions. Prev Sci. 2004; 5(3):185-96. PMC: 3544191. DOI: 10.1023/b:prev.0000037641.26017.00. View

2.
Marlowe D, Festinger D, Lee P, Dugosh K, Benasutti K . Matching Judicial Supervision to Clients' Risk Status in Drug Court. Crime Delinq. 2008; 52(1):52-76. PMC: 2174271. DOI: 10.1177/0011128705281746. View

3.
McLellan A, Luborsky L, Woody G, OBrien C . An improved diagnostic evaluation instrument for substance abuse patients. The Addiction Severity Index. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1980; 168(1):26-33. DOI: 10.1097/00005053-198001000-00006. View

4.
McLellan A, Kushner H, Metzger D, Peters R, Smith I, Grissom G . The Fifth Edition of the Addiction Severity Index. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1992; 9(3):199-213. DOI: 10.1016/0740-5472(92)90062-s. View

5.
McLellan A, Luborsky L, Cacciola J, Griffith J, Evans F, Barr H . New data from the Addiction Severity Index. Reliability and validity in three centers. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1985; 173(7):412-23. DOI: 10.1097/00005053-198507000-00005. View