1 / 19

Craig Jones PhD candidate, School of Psychology, UNSW Principal Advisor, NSW Treasury

The effect of intensive judicial supervision on drug court outcomes: Long-term follow-up from a randomised controlled trial. Applied Research in Crime & Justice Conference 27 February 2013. Craig Jones PhD candidate, School of Psychology, UNSW Principal Advisor, NSW Treasury. Background.

caitir
Download Presentation

Craig Jones PhD candidate, School of Psychology, UNSW Principal Advisor, NSW Treasury

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The effect of intensive judicial supervision on drug court outcomes: Long-term follow-up from a randomised controlled trial Applied Research in Crime & Justice Conference 27 February 2013 Craig Jones PhD candidate, School of Psychology, UNSW Principal Advisor, NSW Treasury

  2. Background • Drug Courts are alternatives to prison for offenders with substance abuse disorders • Vary across jurisdictions but share certain characteristics: • Treatment integrated with court process • Regular supervised urine testing • Judicial supervision • Rewards & sanctions

  3. Background • Accumulating evidence for their effectiveness • 8 systematic reviews, all show effects in favour of Drug Courts (most recent, n=92 eligible studies) • Overall effect size 10-12 percentage points • RCT found NSW Drug Court reduces re-offending (Lind et al., 2002) • Second generation of drug court research has focused on identifying how drug courts work

  4. Background • Importance of the judge is one area that has been scrutinised • Evidence suggests that more intensive judicial supervision improves outcomes • Participants randomly allocated to bi-weekly or supervision as-needed (6-weekly) • No overall effect but interaction with risk: effective for participants with ASPD or treatment history (Festinger, Marlowe et al., 2002) • Important for two reasons: • Suggests that the judge is critical • May provide a mechanism to increase cost-effectiveness

  5. Current research • Interim findings from a randomised trial in the NSW Drug Court revealed: • Reduced odds of substance use & sanctioning • No change in likelihood of program completion (Jones, in press) • Current study gives long-term update of the trial • Research questions: • Are the reductions in substance use frequency sustained? • Are intensively supervised participants more likely to complete the program? • Do intensively supervised participants spend less time in prison? • Are intensively supervised participants less likely to re-offend?

  6. Method • Design: non-blinded randomised controlled trial • All participants commencing between March 2010 and March 2011 (n=160) allocated to intensive judicial supervision (IJS) or supervision as usual (SAU) condition • IJS: twice weekly supervision on phase 1 • SAU: once weekly supervision on phase 1

  7. Method Sample attrition

  8. Method • Outcome measures • Substance use: weekly count of positive/disclosed use of drug, failed to attend or failed to provide • Completion: whether participant received a custodial sentence upon final sentencing (0=no, 1=yes) • Number of days spent in custody while on the program (mean days) • Recidivism: free time to first new offence of any kind (excl. breaches)

  9. Method • Followed from start of program to: • End January 2013 for substance use / completion rates • End March 2012 for recidivism outcomes • Minimum 22 months for substance use / completion • Minimum 12 months for recidivism

  10. Results Covariate balance

  11. Results Phase 1 status hearings scheduled

  12. Results IRR for ‘positive’ test T=6,930; N=136

  13. Results Completion p = .074 (1DF)

  14. Results Completion p = .186 (2DF)

  15. Results Proportion not terminated to prison after x days IJS SAU

  16. Results Days in custody while on program GRADUATE NON-CUST CUSTODY GRADUATE NON-CUST CUSTODY SAU IJS

  17. Results Time to first new offence p = .734

  18. Summary • Intensive judicial supervision improves outcomes while on the program • Sustained reductions in substance use • Tendency toward higher ‘completion’ rates (p=0.07) • Reduces time in custody while on the program • But so far no evidence that intensive supervision produces reductions in recidivism • Consistent with research upon which this study was based (Marlowe et al. 2005)

  19. Where to from here? • Further investigation of post-program recidivism • Drug courts should supervise as closely as resources allow, certainly for high risk participants • NSW Drug Court has retained twice weekly supervision • Other interventions may be needed to produce sustained improvements • Aftercare? • Adaptive interventions? • Contingency management? • We also need more information about individual and situational factors that might explain outcomes

More Related