DOI: 10.3886/icpsr36310
title: Evidence-Based Screening and Assessment: A Randomized Trial of a Validated Assessment Tool in Three New York City Drug Courts, 2011-2015
title: Archival Version

description: 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.
description: 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.
description: 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
description: 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.
description: Not applicable
description: Response Rates: 47%
description: 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).
description: Convenience; 265 participants recruited from three drug courts located in New York City.
description: Datasets: 
DS1: Evidence-Based Screening and Assessment: A Randomized Trial of a Validated Assessment Tool in Three New York City Drug Courts, 2011-2015
description: Drug court participants. Smallest Geographic Unit: County
description: face-to-face interview