OBJECTIVES: 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 ν = .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.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: 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 ν = .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.
Entities:
Keywords:
adaptive programming; adaptive treatment; addiction; antisocial personality disorder; crime; criminal justice; drug abuse; drug court; offenders
Authors: James R McKay; Deborah H A Van Horn; David W Oslin; Kevin G Lynch; Megan Ivey; Kathleen Ward; Michelle L Drapkin; Julie R Becher; Donna M Coviello Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2010-12
Authors: Douglas B Marlowe; David S Festinger; Patricia L Arabia; Karen L Dugosh; Kathleen M Benasutti; Jason R Croft; James R McKay Journal: Crim Justice Rev Date: 2008
Authors: James R McKay; Kevin G Lynch; Donald S Shepard; Jon Morgenstern; Robert F Forman; Helen M Pettinati Journal: Addiction Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Douglas B Marlowe; David S Festinger; Karen L Dugosh; Kathleen M Benasutti; Gloria Fox; Jason R Croft Journal: Crim Justice Behav Date: 2012-04-01