THE ROLE OF JUDICIAL STATUS HEARINGS IN DRUG COURT

Treatment Research Institute, Inc. (Tri), Philadelphia PA

Investigators

Linked publications & trials

Abstract

Substantial evidence has accumulated to support the utility and cost-effectiveness of drug treatment courts. Yet, little is known about the operative components of this intervention. In virtually all studies to date, drug court has been compared to standard or enhanced probationary conditions in which clients received significantly less treatment services, significantly less frequent urinalysis monitoring, significantly fewer judicial contacts, and significantly lesser sanctions for program infractions. Because the comparison groups differed from the inter-vention groups on so many dimensions, it is not possible to determine which element(s) is responsible for the dif-ferences in outcomes. It is particularly important to identify the specific contributions of judicial status hearings to drug court, because these are among the most costly and time-consuming elements of the intervention. We propose to conduct a two-group, randomized evaluation of different approaches to the use of judicial status hearings in a misdemeanor drug court in New Castle County, DE. Subjects in one condition will be scheduled to attend bi-weekly judicial status hearings over the course of the entire drug court intervention. Subjects in the other condition will not be scheduled in advance to attend judicial status hearings; rather, those defendants will be monitored by a case manager who may petition the court for a status hearing in response to serious rule infractions or to deal with other important matters. The intervention condition is scheduled in such a manner as to fairly reflect contemporary standards of practice for drug courts. Subjects will be evaluated at baseline, during treatment, and at 6 and 12 months post-admission, and we will also monitor criminal justice databases for 24 months post-admission. Primary analyses will compare the two groups at follow-up on substance use, criminal recidivism, and service utilization, and we will perform cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses of the two conditions. Additional analyses will address the spe-cific effects of judicially administered rewards and sanctions on post- treatment status. To our knowledge, this will be the first randomized effort to dismantle a drug court so as to isolate its essential ingredients. The results will shed light on the most effective and cost-efficient means to administer this promising intervention.