David S. Festinger, Ph.D.

1
Matching Judicial Supervision to Client Risk
Status in Drug Courts

• David S. Festinger, Ph.D.
• Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D.

Treatment Research Institute at the University
of Pennsylvania
2
National Institute on Drug Abuse grants
R01-DA-13096 and R01-DA-14566
Acknowledgments

• Center for Substance Abuse Treatment

3
Pre-Plea Drug Courts
Divert non-violent drug offenders to treatment
in lieu of prosecution and incarceration
JAIL
TREATMENT
4
Key Components

• Judicial status hearings
• Graduated sanctions rewards
• Urinalyses
• Drug abuse treatment
• Case management
• Nolle prosse
• Expunged record

(NADCP, 1997)
5

• 60 complete gt 12 months of treatment
• 50 graduate
• Reduced recidivism and drug use
• 20 to 30 percentage-points during treatment
• 10 to 20 percentage-points after treatment

Effectiveness
(Belenko, 1998, 1999, 2001)
6
Key Components

• Judicial status hearings
• Graduated sanctions rewards
• Urinalyses
• Drug abuse treatment
• Case management
• Nolle prosse
• Expunged record

(NADCP, 1997)
7
Research Site
1st Study New Castle Co. (misdemeanor)
8
Research Design

• Randomly assigned
• Bi-weekly hearings (more than usual)
• As-needed hearings (less than usual)
• Equivalent drug treatment, case management,
  urine drug screens, and sanctions rewards

• Assessments included
• Baseline .. ASI APD diagnostic interview
• Weekly . Random UAs
• Monthly (x 3) .. RTS, PDQ
• 6 12 months ... ASI UA
• 24 months ... State criminal justice records

9
Counseling Attendance 14 Weeks
Mean sessions attended
p n.s.
n 82
n 99
10
Drug-Free Urines by Week
Time Effect p lt .001 Grp. x Time p n.s.
11
Program Completion Status
p n.s.
12
ASI Self-Reported Problems
Baseline to 12 Months
Time p lt .01 Grp. X Time p lt .05




13
12-Month Urinalyses
p n.s.
14
Client Interaction Effects

• Age
• Race
• Gender
• Years of education
• Employment status
• Marital status
• Drug severity
• Legal severity
• Prior drug treatment
• APD diagnosis

15
Client Interaction Effects

• Age
• Race
• Gender
• Years of education
• Employment status
• Marital status
• Drug severity
• Legal severity
• Prior drug treatment
• APD diagnosis

16
Interaction Effect Antisocial Personality
Disorder
Clean Urines 14 wks
p lt .05
n30
n69
n30
n52
As-needed
Bi-weekly
17
Interaction Effect Prior Drug Treatment
Clean Urines 14 wks
p lt .05
n25
n74
n25
n56
As-needed
Bi-weekly
18
Replication Sites
1st Study New Castle Co. (misdemeanor)
19
Replication of Interaction Prior Drug Treatment

Clean Urines 14 wks
p .05
n6
n26
n6
n19
As needed
Bi-weekly
20
Matching Study
APD or Prior Tx
No APD and no Prior Tx
High Dose (Bi-Weekly)
Low Dose (As-Needed)
Matched
Usual Dose (monthly)
Unmatched
21
Integrity of Assignment
M 6.4
Mean Hearings Scheduled
M 2.3
M 0.9
p lt .0001
22
Drug-Free Urines 14 Weeks

p .05
Matched As-Needed
Matched Bi-Weekly
Unmatched
n 56
n 14
n 33
23
Attendance 14 Weeks

p lt .05
Matched As-Needed
Matched Bi-Weekly
Unmatched
n 56
n 14
n 33
24
Implications

• The judge is an active ingredient of Drug Courts
• Court hearings should be targeted to clients who
  are likely to benefit most from them
• Findings are consistent with the criminal justice
  concept of the Risk Principle
• Raise questions about recent statewide policy
  initiatives such as Californias Proposition 36

25
References

• Festinger DS, Marlowe DB, Lee PA, et al. (2002).
  Status hearings in drug court When more is less
  and less is more. Drug Alcohol Dependence, 68,
  151-157.
• Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Lee PA (2003). The
  role of judicial status hearings in drug court.
  Offender Substance Abuse Report, 3, 33-46.
• Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Lee PA, et al. (2003).
  Are judicial status hearings a key component of
  drug court? During-treatment data from a
  randomized trial. Criminal Justice Behavior,
  30, 141-162.
• Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Lee PA (2004). The
  judge is a key component of drug court. National
  Drug Court Institute Review, 4, 1-34.
• .