title: Outcome Trajectories in Drug Court: Do All Participants Have Drug Problems?
abstract: 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 upon entry. This study cluster-analyzed urine drug screen results during the first 14 weeks of treatment on 284 participants from three misdemeanor drug courts. A four-cluster solution (R(2) > .75) produced distinct subgroups characterized by (1) consistently drug-negative urine specimens (34% of the sample), (2) consistently drug-positive specimens (21%), (3) consistently missed urine specimens (26%), and (4) 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 upon 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.
authors.affiliation: Drexel University.
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Dematteo
authors.forename: Douglas B
authors.initials: DB
authors.lastname: Marlowe
authors.forename: David S
authors.initials: DS
authors.lastname: Festinger
authors.forename: Patricia L
authors.initials: PL
authors.lastname: Arabia
references.citation: Crime Delinq. 2006;52(1):52-76
references.pmid: 18174915
references.citation: J Nerv Ment Dis. 1980 Jan;168(1):26-33
references.pmid: 7351540
references.citation: J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 2003 May-Jun;23(3):176-82
references.pmid: 12782900
references.citation: Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007 May;88 Suppl 2:S24-30
references.pmid: 17056207
references.citation: Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007 May;88 Suppl 2:S4-13
references.pmid: 17071020
references.citation: Crim Justice Rev. 2008;33(3):343-360
references.pmid: 19724664
references.citation: Psychol Addict Behav. 2001 Jun;15(2):97-108
references.pmid: 11419236
references.citation: Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002 Oct 1;68(2):151-7
references.pmid: 12234644
references.citation: Drug Alcohol Depend. 2005 Aug 1;79(2):145-55
references.pmid: 16002024
references.citation: J Subst Abuse Treat. 2000 Jun;18(4):349-58
references.pmid: 10812308
references.citation: J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007 Jun;32(4):341-7
references.pmid: 17481457
references.citation: Behav Sci Law. 2005;23(2):183-98
references.pmid: 15818611
references.citation: J Consult Clin Psychol. 1997 Aug;65(4):673-85
references.pmid: 9256569
references.citation: J Abnorm Psychol. 1996 May;105(2):166-80
references.pmid: 8722998
references.citation: Multivariate Behav Res. 1991 Jan 1;26(1):83-107
references.pmid: 26782613
references.citation: Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007 May;88 Suppl 2:S14-23
references.pmid: 17257782
references.citation: J Subst Abuse Treat. 1992;9(3):199-213
references.pmid: 1334156
references.citation: J Subst Abuse Treat. 2006 Jul;31(1):17-24
references.pmid: 16814007
references.citation: J Subst Abuse. 1998;10(3):217-32
references.pmid: 10689656
references.citation: Subst Use Misuse. 1998 Oct;33(12):2441-67
references.pmid: 9781824
references.citation: J Nerv Ment Dis. 1985 Jul;173(7):412-23
references.pmid: 4009158
references.citation: J Subst Abuse Treat. 2004 Oct;27(3):223-32
references.pmid: 15501375