Evidence-Based Screening and Assessment: A Randomized Trial of a Validated Assessment Tool in Three New York City Drug Courts, 2011-2015 (ICPSR 36310)
Version Date: Jul 28, 2022 View help for published
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Michael Rempel, Center for Court Innovation
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36310.v1
Version V1
Summary View help for Summary
With funding from the National Institute of Justice, the Center for Court Innovation examined the impact of introducing an evidence-based risk-need assessment and treatment matching protocol into three New York City drug courts. Preexisting practice in all three sites involved administration of a non-validated bio-psychosocial assessment, whose results informed the professional judgment of court-employed case managers, but without the aid of a structured decision making system.
Citation View help for Citation
Export Citation:
Funding View help for Funding
Subject Terms View help for Subject Terms
Geographic Coverage View help for Geographic Coverage
Smallest Geographic Unit View help for Smallest Geographic Unit
County
Restrictions View help for Restrictions
This data collection may not be used for any purpose other than statistical reporting and analysis. Use of these data to learn the identity of any person or establishment is prohibited. To protect respondent privacy, the data file in this collection is restricted from general dissemination. To obtain this file, researchers must agree to the terms and conditions of a Restricted Data Use Agreement in accordance with existing ICPSR servicing policies.
Distributor(s) View help for Distributor(s)
Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)
Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection
Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose
The primary goals of the study were to explore differences between the experimental and control groups in terms of intermediate (treatment modality, program retention, graduation) and long-term (recidivism) outcomes; and to study the implementation of the evidence-based assessment tools. Per the researchers, the findings suggest that risk scores on the LSI-R are a reliable predictor of recidivism. Despite the validity of the LSI-R with the target population, there were no major differences between the two study groups in terms of rates of assignment to each possible treatment modality or in terms of intermediate or long-term outcomes. Further, results from a supplemental qualitative study of the implementation of the protocol reveal important information about the implementation integrity of the experimental protocols, as well as the quality and utility of the validated assessments from the perspective of drug court staff. Specifically, although drug court staff found the evidence-based assessment tools to provide useful information that aided their decision-making, staff nonetheless used the tools largely to confirm their professional judgments, while failing to adopt meaningful changes in their actual treatment matching decisions.
Study Design View help for Study Design
This study was a three-year randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a structured treatment matching protocol that was linked to the use of a validated addiction screener, the Texas University Drug Screen (TCUDS II), and a comprehensive risk-needs assessment tool, the Level of Services Inventory-Revised (LSI-R). Over the study period, criminal defendants found legally eligible for one of the participating drug courts (Misdemeanor Brooklyn Treatment Court, Brooklyn's STEP Felony Treatment Court, and the Queens Misdemeanor Treatment Court) were randomly assigned either to be clinically assessed with the aid of the TCUDS II and LSI-R or with the preexisting bio-psychosocial assessment only. If subsequently enrolled in the drug court program, those assessed with the TCUDS II and LSI-R were then to have their initial treatment modality reflect their scoring on the evidence-based tools according to a structured treatment matching system that, while partially prescriptive, allowed for some discretion within each set of cut-off scores.
Demographic, instant case, and treatment modality were collected from administrative records for 265 participants who were referred to drug court and had completed both the LSI-R and TCUDS in their initial screening between April 2011 and April 2014. Participants had consented to be part of a larger study on the efficacy of the LSI-R and TCUDS as evidence-based assessment practices in drug court. All participants' cases were tracked for a period of at least one year between their initial assessment and download of recidivism data in April 2015. Criminal history, instant case, and recidivism data were obtained from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services in a de-identified, matched data file. The tracking time from intake to final data download ranged from 389 to 1505 days
Sample View help for Sample
Convenience; 265 participants recruited from three drug courts located in New York City.
Time Method View help for Time Method
Universe View help for Universe
Drug court participants
Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)
Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection
Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables
Variables include information about criminal history, instant case (the nature of the arrest that led to their participation in the study), substance use history, program placement (residential or outpatient drug treatment) and recidivism. Demographic information collected includes age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, marital status, employment, and homelessness history.
Response Rates View help for Response Rates
47%
Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales
In addition to administrative records, the study utilized two measurement tools: the Texas University Drug Screen (TCUDS II) and the Level of Services Inventory-Revised (LSI-R).
HideOriginal Release Date View help for Original Release Date
2022-07-28
Version History View help for Version History
2022-07-28 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:
- Performed consistency checks.
- Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
Notes
The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.
ICPSR usually offers files in multiple formats for researchers to be able to access data and documentation in formats that work well within their needs. If you have questions about the accessibility of materials distributed by ICPSR or require further assistance, please visit ICPSR’s Accessibility Center.
One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.