The Experts below are selected from a list of 13962 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
David S Festinger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
examining the efficacy of a computer facilitated hiv prevention tool in Drug Court
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 2016Co-Authors: David S Festinger, Karen L Dugosh, Ann E Kurth, David S MetzgerAbstract:Background Although they have demonstrated efficacy in reducing substance use and criminal recidivism, competing priorities and limited resources may preclude Drug Court programs from formally addressing HIV risk. This study examined the efficacy of a brief, three-session, computer-facilitated HIV prevention intervention in reducing HIV risk among adult felony Drug Court participants.
-
An experimental trial of adaptive programming in Drug Court: outcomes at 6, 12 and 18 months
Journal of experimental criminology, 2013Co-Authors: Douglas B Marlowe, David S Festinger, Karen L Dugosh, Kathleen M Benasutti, Gloria Fox, Ashley HarronAbstract:Objectives To 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.
-
outcome trajectories in Drug Court do all participants have serious Drug problems
Social Science Research Network, 2009Co-Authors: David Dematteo, Douglas B Marlowe, David S Festinger, Patricia L ArabiaAbstract:Graduation rates in Drug Courts average 50% to 70%, but it is unclear what proportion of graduates responded to the Drug Court services and what proportion might not have had serious Drug problems on entry. This study cluster analyzes urine Drug screen results during the first 14 weeks of treatment on 284 participants from three misdemeanor Drug Courts. A four-cluster solution (R2 > .75) produced distinct subgroups characterized by (a) consistently Drug-negative urine specimens (34% of the sample), (b) consistently Drug-positive specimens (21%), (c) consistently missed urine specimens (26%), and (d) urine specimens that began as Drug positive but became progressively Drug negative over time (19%). These data suggest that approximately one third of the participants might not have had serious Drug problems on entry. Approximately one fifth appeared to respond to Drug Court services, and nearly one half continued to exhibit problems after 14 weeks. Implications for adaptive programming in Drug Courts are discussed.
-
outcome trajectories in Drug Court do all participants have serious Drug problems
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2009Co-Authors: David Dematteo, Douglas B Marlowe, David S Festinger, Patricia L ArabiaAbstract:Graduation rates in Drug Courts average 50% to 70%, but it is unclear what proportion of graduates responded to the Drug Court services and what proportion might not have had serious Drug problems on entry. This study cluster analyzes urine Drug screen results during the first 14 weeks of treatment on 284 participants from three misdemeanor Drug Courts. A four-cluster solution (R2 > .75) produced distinct subgroups characterized by (a) consistently Drug-negative urine specimens (34% of the sample), (b) consistently Drug-positive specimens (21%), (c) consistently missed urine specimens (26%), and (d) urine specimens that began as Drug positive but became progressively Drug negative over time (19%). These data suggest that approximately one third of the participants might not have had serious Drug problems on entry. Approximately one fifth appeared to respond to Drug Court services, and nearly one half continued to exhibit problems after 14 weeks. Implications for adaptive programming in Drug Courts are dis...
-
an effectiveness trial of contingency management in a felony preadjudication Drug Court
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2008Co-Authors: Douglas B Marlowe, David S Festinger, Patricia L Arabia, Karen L Dugosh, Kimberly C KirbyAbstract:This study evaluated a contingency management (CM) program in a Drug Court. Gift certificates for compliance were delivered at 4- to 6-week intervals (total value = $390.00). Participants in one condition earned gift certificates that escalated by $5.00 increments. Participants in a second condition began earning higher magnitude gift certificates, and the density of reinforcement was gradually decreased. No main effects of CM were detected, which appears to be attributable to a ceiling effect from the intensive contingencies already delivered in the Drug Court and the low density of reinforcement. Preplanned interaction analyses suggested that participants with more serious criminal backgrounds might have performed better in the CM conditions. This suggests that CM programs may be best suited for more incorrigible Drug offenders.
Douglas B Marlowe - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
An experimental trial of adaptive programming in Drug Court: outcomes at 6, 12 and 18 months
Journal of experimental criminology, 2013Co-Authors: Douglas B Marlowe, David S Festinger, Karen L Dugosh, Kathleen M Benasutti, Gloria Fox, Ashley HarronAbstract:Objectives To 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.
-
outcome trajectories in Drug Court do all participants have serious Drug problems
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2009Co-Authors: David Dematteo, Douglas B Marlowe, David S Festinger, Patricia L ArabiaAbstract:Graduation rates in Drug Courts average 50% to 70%, but it is unclear what proportion of graduates responded to the Drug Court services and what proportion might not have had serious Drug problems on entry. This study cluster analyzes urine Drug screen results during the first 14 weeks of treatment on 284 participants from three misdemeanor Drug Courts. A four-cluster solution (R2 > .75) produced distinct subgroups characterized by (a) consistently Drug-negative urine specimens (34% of the sample), (b) consistently Drug-positive specimens (21%), (c) consistently missed urine specimens (26%), and (d) urine specimens that began as Drug positive but became progressively Drug negative over time (19%). These data suggest that approximately one third of the participants might not have had serious Drug problems on entry. Approximately one fifth appeared to respond to Drug Court services, and nearly one half continued to exhibit problems after 14 weeks. Implications for adaptive programming in Drug Courts are dis...
-
outcome trajectories in Drug Court do all participants have serious Drug problems
Social Science Research Network, 2009Co-Authors: David Dematteo, Douglas B Marlowe, David S Festinger, Patricia L ArabiaAbstract:Graduation rates in Drug Courts average 50% to 70%, but it is unclear what proportion of graduates responded to the Drug Court services and what proportion might not have had serious Drug problems on entry. This study cluster analyzes urine Drug screen results during the first 14 weeks of treatment on 284 participants from three misdemeanor Drug Courts. A four-cluster solution (R2 > .75) produced distinct subgroups characterized by (a) consistently Drug-negative urine specimens (34% of the sample), (b) consistently Drug-positive specimens (21%), (c) consistently missed urine specimens (26%), and (d) urine specimens that began as Drug positive but became progressively Drug negative over time (19%). These data suggest that approximately one third of the participants might not have had serious Drug problems on entry. Approximately one fifth appeared to respond to Drug Court services, and nearly one half continued to exhibit problems after 14 weeks. Implications for adaptive programming in Drug Courts are discussed.
-
an effectiveness trial of contingency management in a felony preadjudication Drug Court
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2008Co-Authors: Douglas B Marlowe, David S Festinger, Patricia L Arabia, Karen L Dugosh, Kimberly C KirbyAbstract:This study evaluated a contingency management (CM) program in a Drug Court. Gift certificates for compliance were delivered at 4- to 6-week intervals (total value = $390.00). Participants in one condition earned gift certificates that escalated by $5.00 increments. Participants in a second condition began earning higher magnitude gift certificates, and the density of reinforcement was gradually decreased. No main effects of CM were detected, which appears to be attributable to a ceiling effect from the intensive contingencies already delivered in the Drug Court and the low density of reinforcement. Preplanned interaction analyses suggested that participants with more serious criminal backgrounds might have performed better in the CM conditions. This suggests that CM programs may be best suited for more incorrigible Drug offenders.
-
adaptive interventions in Drug Court a pilot experiment
Criminal Justice Review, 2008Co-Authors: Douglas B Marlowe, David S Festinger, Patricia L Arabia, Karen L Dugosh, Kathleen M Benasutti, Jason R Croft, James R MckayAbstract:This pilot study (N = 30) experimentally examined the effects of an adaptive intervention in an adult misdemeanor Drug Court. The adaptive algorithm adjusted the frequency of judicial status hearings and clinical case-management sessions according to pre-specified criteria in response to participants' ongoing performance in the program. Results revealed the adaptive algorithm was acceptable to both clients and staff, feasible to implement with greater than 85% fidelity, and showed promise for eliciting clinically meaningful improvements in Drug abstinence and graduation rates. Estimated effect sizes ranged from 0.40 to 0.60 across various dependent measures. Compared to Drug Court as-usual, participants in the adaptive condition were more likely to receive responses from the Drug Court team for inadequate performance in the program and received those responses after a substantially shorter period of time. This suggests the adaptive algorithm may have more readily focused the Drug Court team's attention on poorly-performing individuals, thus allowing the team to "nip problems in the bud" before they developed too fully. These preliminary data justify additional research evaluating the effects of the adaptive algorithm in a fully powered experimental trial.
Patricia A Lee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Matching Judicial Supervision to Clients’ Risk Status in Drug Court
Crime and delinquency, 2006Co-Authors: Douglas B Marlowe, David S Festinger, Karen L Dugosh, Patricia A Lee, Kathleen M BenasuttiAbstract:This article reports outcomes from a program of experimental research evaluating the risk principle in Drug Courts. Prior studies revealed that participants who were high risk and had (a) antisocial personality disorder or (b) a prior history of Drug abuse treatment performed better in Drug Court when scheduled to attend biweekly judicial status hearings in Court. In contrast, participants who were low risk performed equivalently regardless of the Court hearings schedule. This study prospectively matches Drug Court clients to the optimal schedule of Court hearings based on an assessment of their risk status and compares outcomes to clients randomly assigned to the standard hearings schedule. Results confirmed that participants who were high risk and matched to biweekly hearings had better during-treatment outcomes than participants assigned to status hearings as usual. These findings provide confirmation of the risk principle in Drug Courts and yield practical information for enhancing the efficacy and cost-efficiency of Drug Courts.
-
are judicial status hearings a key component of Drug Court six and twelve months outcomes
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 2005Co-Authors: Douglas B Marlowe, David S Festinger, Karen L Dugosh, Patricia A LeeAbstract:Abstract Substantial evidence indicates that Drug Courts can be superior to traditional probation programs for enhancing treatment retention and reducing substance use and crime among Drug offenders. Few studies have isolated the effects of the hypothesized “key components” of Drug Courts to determine their contributions to outcomes. This article presents outcomes at 6 and 12 months post-admission for misdemeanor Drug Court clients who were randomly assigned to different dosages of judicial status hearings. Although earlier work [Festinger, D.S., Marlowe, D.B., Lee, P.A., Kirby, K.C., Bovasso, G., McLellan, A.T., 2002. Status hearings in Drug Court: when more is less and less is more. Drug Alcohol Depend. 68, 151–157] revealed superior during-treatment effects for high-risk participants who were assigned to more frequent bi-weekly hearings, those effects did not extend post-treatment. The results did reveal significant pre-to-post improvements for participants, as a whole, in self-reported Drug use, alcohol use, and criminal recidivism; however, lacking a no-Drug Court control condition, it is not possible to discern the magnitude of the effect of the Drug Court program. Approximately, half of the participants resumed Drug or alcohol use within 12 months of admission to Drug Court, and approximately 10–15% resumed illegal activities. These findings lend credence to the potential effectiveness of Drug Courts; however, continuing-care strategies are required to extend the effects of Drug Courts beyond the initial active phases of the program.
-
are judicial status hearings a key component of Drug Court during treatment data from a randomized trial
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2003Co-Authors: Douglas B Marlowe, David S Festinger, Patricia A Lee, Maria M Schepise, Julie E R Hazzard, Jeffrey C Merrill, Francis D Mulvaney, Thomas A MclellanAbstract:This article reports during-treatment outcomes from a randomized, controlled evaluation of different schedules of judicial status hearings in a misdemeanor Drug Court. Contrary to expectations, mor...
-
status hearings in Drug Court when more is less and less is more
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 2002Co-Authors: David S Festinger, Douglas B Marlowe, Patricia A Lee, Kimberly C Kirby, Gregory B Bovasso, Thomas A MclellanAbstract:We examined the effects of increasing the number of times misdemeanor Drug Court clients appeared before a judge for judicial status hearings. Our previous findings showed no main effect of increased hearings during the first 14 weeks of the program. The present study examined participants' discharge status in the program, and also explored potential interactions between client characteristics and the frequency of judicial status hearings on outcomes. Results revealed no main effects for hearing frequency on graduation status. Drug offenders who satisfied DSM-IV criteria for antisocial personality disorder (APD) achieved more weeks of urinalysis-confirmed Drug abstinence when assigned to more frequent judicial status hearings, whereas subjects without APD achieved more abstinence and were more likely to graduate successfully from the program when assigned to less frequent hearings. Additionally, clients with a history of substance abuse treatment achieved more weeks of abstinence when assigned to more frequent hearings. These findings lend useful guidance to Drug Courts. Status hearings are expensive and time consuming and should be targeted to clients who would benefit most from them.
Thomas A Mclellan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
are judicial status hearings a key component of Drug Court during treatment data from a randomized trial
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2003Co-Authors: Douglas B Marlowe, David S Festinger, Patricia A Lee, Maria M Schepise, Julie E R Hazzard, Jeffrey C Merrill, Francis D Mulvaney, Thomas A MclellanAbstract:This article reports during-treatment outcomes from a randomized, controlled evaluation of different schedules of judicial status hearings in a misdemeanor Drug Court. Contrary to expectations, mor...
-
status hearings in Drug Court when more is less and less is more
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 2002Co-Authors: David S Festinger, Douglas B Marlowe, Patricia A Lee, Kimberly C Kirby, Gregory B Bovasso, Thomas A MclellanAbstract:We examined the effects of increasing the number of times misdemeanor Drug Court clients appeared before a judge for judicial status hearings. Our previous findings showed no main effect of increased hearings during the first 14 weeks of the program. The present study examined participants' discharge status in the program, and also explored potential interactions between client characteristics and the frequency of judicial status hearings on outcomes. Results revealed no main effects for hearing frequency on graduation status. Drug offenders who satisfied DSM-IV criteria for antisocial personality disorder (APD) achieved more weeks of urinalysis-confirmed Drug abstinence when assigned to more frequent judicial status hearings, whereas subjects without APD achieved more abstinence and were more likely to graduate successfully from the program when assigned to less frequent hearings. Additionally, clients with a history of substance abuse treatment achieved more weeks of abstinence when assigned to more frequent hearings. These findings lend useful guidance to Drug Courts. Status hearings are expensive and time consuming and should be targeted to clients who would benefit most from them.
Jason E Chapman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
predicting nonresponse to juvenile Drug Court interventions
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2010Co-Authors: Colleen A Hallidayboykins, Scott W Henggeler, Phillippe B Cunningham, Jeff Randall, Jason E Chapman, Cindy M Schaeffer, Steven B ShapiroAbstract:Using data from a recent randomized clinical trial involving juvenile Drug Court (JDC), youth marijuana use trajectories and the predictors of treatment nonresponse were examined. Participants were 118 juvenile offenders meeting diagnostic criteria for substance use disorders assigned to JDC and their families. Urine Drug screen results were gathered from weekly Court visits for 6 months, and youth reported their marijuana use over 12 months. Semiparametric mixture modeling jointly estimated and classified trajectories of both marijuana use indices. Youth were classified into responder versus nonresponder trajectory groups based on both outcomes. Regression analyses examined pretreatment individual, family, and extrafamilial predictors of nonresponse. Results indicated that youth whose caregivers reported illegal Drug use pretreatment were almost 10 times as likely to be classified into the nonresponder trajectory group. No other variable significantly distinguished Drug use trajectory groups. Findings have implications for the design of interventions to improve JDC outcomes.
-
juvenile Drug Court enhancing outcomes by integrating evidence based treatments
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2006Co-Authors: Scott W Henggeler, Colleen A Hallidayboykins, Phillippe B Cunningham, Jeff Randall, Steven B Shapiro, Jason E ChapmanAbstract:Evaluated the effectiveness of juvenile Drug Court for 161 juvenile offenders meeting diagnostic criteria for substance abuse or dependence and determined whether the integration of evidence-based practices enhanced the outcomes of juvenile Drug Court. Over a 1-year period, a four-condition randomized design evaluated outcomes for family Court with usual community services, Drug Court with usual community services, Drug Court with multisystemic therapy, and Drug Court with multisystemic therapy enhanced with contingency management for adolescent substance use, criminal behavior, symptomatology, and days in out-of-home placement. In general, findings supported the view that Drug Court was more effective than family Court services in decreasing rates of adolescent substance use and criminal behavior. Possibly due to the greatly increased surveillance of youths in Drug Court, however, these relative reductions in antisocial behavior did not translate to corresponding decreases in rearrest or incarceration. In addition, findings supported the view that the use of evidence-based treatments within the Drug Court context improved youth substance-related outcomes. Clinical and policy implications of these findings are discussed.
