Status hearings in drug court: when more is less and less is more David S. Festinger *, Douglas B. Marlowe, Patricia A. Lee, Kimberly C. Kirby, Gregory Bovasso, A. Thomas McLellan Treatment Research Institute, University of Pennsylvania, 600 Public Ledger Building, 150 South Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106- 3475, USA Received 20 December 2001; received in revised form 24 May 2002; accepted 29 May 2002 Abstract 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. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Drug court; Treatment; Criminal justice; Antisocial personality 1. Introduction The high prevalence of drug involvement among criminal offenders is well documented. Findings indicate that approximately 60% of offenders test positive for illicit drugs at the time of their arrest in the majority of US booking facilities (National Institute of Justice, 1999). Additionally, approximately 80% of state and federal inmates (Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 1998), 80% of parolees (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001), and 55% of proba- tioners (Mumola, 1995) were incarcerated for a drug or alcohol related offense, were under the influence of drugs or alcohol while committing their offense, com- mitted their offense in furtherance of a drug habit, or are regular drug users. Over the past decade, drug courts have been devel- oped as a highly promising strategy for intervening with the large population of drug involved offenders. Drug courts provide drug offenders with an opportunity to avoid a criminal record or incarceration contingent upon no re-arrests and their successfully completing a standard regimen of substance abuse treatment, case management, drug testing and attendance at judicial status hearings. Since its genesis in Dade County, Florida in 1989, over 750 drug courts have been founded around the US with over 450 others currently in various stages of planning (Drug Court Clearinghouse et al., 2001). Belenko’s reviews of nearly 100 published and un- published evaluations of drug courts (Belenko, 1998, 1999, 2001) concluded that drug court programs provide significantly more community supervision, judicial over- sight, and substance abuse treatment to offenders than standard pre-trial supervision or probation programs. Furthermore, drug court clients generally remain in treatment significantly longer than individuals in pre- trial supervision or probation and they demonstrate greater reductions in substance use, criminal recidivism, and unemployment (Belenko, 1998, 1999, 2001). * Corresponding author. Tel.:  /1-215-399-0980; fax:  /1-215-399- 0987 E-mail address: dfestinger@tresearch.org (D.S. Festinger). Drug and Alcohol Dependence 68 (2002) 151 /157 www.elsevier.com/locate/drugalcdep 03765-8716/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. PII:S0376-8716(02)00187-4