THE ROLE OF JUDICIAL STATUS HEARINGS IN DRUG COURT

已经积累了大量证据来支持药物治疗法庭的效用和成本效益。然而，人们对这种干预的有效组成部分知之甚少。在到目前为止的几乎所有研究中，毒品法庭都被与标准或强化的试用期条件进行比较，在这些条件下，客户接受的治疗服务显著减少，尿液分析监测频率显著降低，司法接触显著减少，对项目违规的处罚显著减轻。由于对照组与干预组在许多维度上存在差异，因此不可能确定哪个因素(S)对结果的差异负责。特别重要的是确定司法地位听证对毒品法庭的具体贡献，因为这是干预行动中最昂贵和最耗时的因素之一。我们建议对路易斯安那州纽卡斯尔县一家轻罪毒品法庭使用司法地位听证的不同方法进行两组随机评估。在整个毒品法庭干预过程中，有一种情况的受试者将被安排参加每两周一次的司法地位听证会。另一种情况下的受试者将不会被提前安排出席司法地位听证会；相反，这些被告将由案件管理人监督，该案件管理人可以向法院申请地位听证会，以回应严重违反规则的行为或处理其他重要事项。干预条件的安排方式公平地反映了当代毒品法院的实践标准。受试者将在基线、治疗期间以及入院后6个月和12个月接受评估，我们还将在入院后24个月内监测刑事司法数据库。初步分析将比较两组人在药物使用、犯罪累犯和服务利用方面的随访情况，并对两种情况进行成本效益和成本效益分析。其他分析将涉及司法奖励和制裁对治疗后状况的具体影响。据我们所知，这将是第一次随机拆除毒品法庭，以分离其基本成分。结果将阐明实施这一有希望的干预措施的最有效和最具成本效益的手段。

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.