The researcher hypothesis was not supported in the bivariate nor the multivariate analyses. Probationary and drug use outcomes were in the opposite direction from that theorized, and none of the five measures of recidivism demonstrated a significant effect of DYT. In addition, the researchers’ findings were consistent with the experimental replication of the HOPE program because there was no differences in arrests, revocations, or convictions between HOPE participants and individuals receiving standard probation across the four sites. Although the overall conclusion from the researchers’ study was that administering procedural changes drawn from swift and certain approaches in probation without a judge did not have a significant impact on behavior …show more content…
One important distinction between DYT and protocols like the HOPE project or drug treatment courts is the role of the judge. Judges or other courtroom officials outside of probation may add both a level of legitimacy and theater to the sanction process. Although being sanctioned by a PO certainly carries a penalty, the spectacle of being brought into a court or hearing room because of one’s behavior bears added weight on the situation and adds a level of legitimacy to the process. Whether the presence of these procedures added to the sanctions themselves in jurisdictions outside of Delaware could not be discerned from the present study. Yet, in a comprehensive study of 23 drug courts and six comparison sites, the greatest positive effects (reduced criminal behavior and drug use) were observed among drug court participants whose judges spent time with them, supported them, and treated them with respect. Nevertheless, aside from the multisite study of drug courts, little research exists on the specific impact of the involvement of a judge and the nature of that involvement on offender outcomes. An awareness of procedures and ultimately, comparison of different procedures across jurisdictions is warranted.The issues of swiftness and severity of sanctions, as well as of judicial involvement, all impacted the DYT protocol. Whether differing levels of sanction or having a judge involved would have made a difference is speculative, but the POs directly involved with …show more content…
One client discussed how his surroundings constantly present triggers for him to return to using drugs: “Every day, I live in a neighborhood with drugs everywhere. Every day is high risk for me.” Others explained they were not ready to stop using and that interventions were unlikely to change that attitude. A male client revealed, “It’s like, it’s on me and I ain’t ready. So it don’t matter the protocol, DYT or not. It ain’t gonna work because I ain’t stoppin.” Similarly, another client remarked: “Don’t matter if it’s this DYT or some other. You ain’t going to change me unless I want to be changed. Any protocol, any, none will work because I don’t want to change. Everyone else be saying this and that but, really, it ain’t going to work. This is my life.” High unemployment rates, low education levels, and long criminal histories of the DYT probationers, as well as among the majority of persons with whom they daily interact, clearly impacted the world view of DYT probationers. It is thus vital to understand probationers’ risks, needs, and social context when developing swift and certain approaches to behavioral change. And, as one anonymous reviewer suggested, it may be that the drug problems among the high-risk population in this study, and in other high-crime urban areas, are rooted in strong