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，对这种干预的操作成分知之甚少。到目前为止，几乎所有的研究都将毒品法庭与标准或强化的缓刑条件进行了比较，在这些条件下，客户接受的治疗服务明显减少，尿检监测明显减少，司法接触明显减少，对项目违规的制裁也明显减少。由于比较组与干预组在许多方面存在差异，因此不可能确定是哪个因素导致了结果的差异。特别重要的是确定司法地位听证会对毒品法庭的具体贡献，因为这是干预工作中最昂贵和最耗时的部分。我们建议在特拉华州New Castle县的轻罪毒品法庭对不同的司法地位听证会方法进行两组随机评估。在整个毒品法庭干预过程中，一种情况下的受试者将被安排参加每两周的司法地位听证会。其他情况的受试者将不被提前安排出席司法地位听证会；相反，这些被告将由一名案件管理员监督，他可能会因严重违反规则或处理其他重要事项而向法院请求进行状态听证会。干预条件的安排是为了公平地反映毒品法庭的当代实践标准。受试者将在基线、治疗期间、入院后6个月和12个月进行评估，我们还将在入院后24个月监测刑事司法数据库。初步分析将比较两组在药物使用、犯罪累犯和服务利用方面的后续情况，我们将对两种情况进行成本效益和成本效益分析。进一步的分析将讨论司法管理的奖励和制裁对治疗后状态的具体影响。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的行动。研究结果将阐明管理这一有希望的干预措施的最有效和最具成本效益的方法。

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.