Drug Courts pp 317-336 | Cite as

Strategies for Administering Rewards and Sanctions

  • Douglas B. Marlowe


In the social and psychological sciences, few findings have been so reliably demonstrated that they may qualify as laws of human behavior. The principles of operant conditioning or contingency management are one such set of laws. These principles have been proven time and again in a multitude of diverse settings to the point that they are no longer the subject of scientific dispute. The techniques for effective implementation of operant conditioning are reviewed in this chapter. If one’s goal is to improve adaptive functioning and reduce antisocial behavior on the part of offenders, then it is essential to closely monitor their behavior and impose certain and immediate sanctions for infractions and rewards for achievements (1). Failing to punish misconduct inevitably makes behavior worse, and failing to reward accomplishments makes those accomplishments less likely to recur.


Criminal Justice System Procedural Justice Operant Conditioning Antisocial Personality Disorder Drug Court 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Marlowe DB, Kirby KC. Effective use of sanctions in drug courts: lessons from behavioral research. Natl Drug Court Inst Rev 1999;2:1–31.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marlowe DB. Effective strategies for intervening with drug abusing offenders. Villanova Law Rev 2002;47:989–1025.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burdon WM, Roll JM, Prendergast ML, Rawson RA. Drug courts and contingency management. J Drug Issues 2001;31:73–90.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harrell A, Roman J. Reducing drug use and crime among offenders: the impact of graduated sanctions. J Drug Issues 2001;31:207–232.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martin G, Pear J. Behavior Modification: What It Is and How to Do It, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hineline PN. Negative reinforcement and avoidance. In Honig WK, Straddon JER, eds. Handbook of Operant Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall 1976:364–414.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sidman M. Avoidance behavior. In Honig WK, ed. Operant Behavior: Areas of Research and Application. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1966:448–498.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Association of Drug Court Professionals. Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice; 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stitzer ML, McCaul ME. Criminal justice interventions with drug and alcohol abusers: the role of compulsory treatment. In Edwards EK, Braukmann CJ, eds. Behavioral Approaches to Crime and Delinquency. New York: Plenum; 1987:225–233.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Taxman FS. Graduated sanctions: stepping into accountable systems and offenders. Prison J 1999;79:182–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Azrin NH, Holz WC. Punishment. In Honig WK, ed. Operant Behavior: Areas of Research and Application. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1966:388–447.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Houten R. Punishment: from the animal laboratory to the applied setting. In Axelrod S, Apsche J, eds. The Effects of Punishment on Human Behavior. New York: Academic Press; 1983:13–44.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nurco DN, Hanlon TE, Kinlock TW. Recent research on the relationship between illicit drug use and crime. Behav Sci Law 1991;9:221–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldkamp JS. The drug court response: issues and implications for justice change. Albany Law Rev 2000;63:923–961.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Festinger DS, Marlowe DB, Lee PA, Kirby KC, Bovasso G, McLellan AT. Status hearings in drug court: when more is less and less is more. Drug Alcohol Depend 2002 68:151–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Lee PA. The judge is a key component of drug court. Drug Court Rev 2004;4:1–34.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Lee PA, Dugosh KL, Benasutti KM. Matching judicial supervision to clients’ risk status in drug court. Crime Delinquency 2006;52:52–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Newsom C, Favell JE, Rincover A. The side effects of punishment. In Axelrod S, Apsche J, eds. The Effects of Punishment on Human Behavior. New York: Academic Press; 1983:285–316.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sidman M. Coercion and its Fallout. Boston: Authors Cooperative; 1988.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thibaut JW, Walker L. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1975.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tyler TR. Psychological models of the justice motive: antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. J Pers Soc Psychol 1994;67:850–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sherman LW. Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: a theory of the criminal justice sanction. J Res Crime Delinquency 1993;30:445–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seligman MEP. Helplessness. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman; 1975.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huddleston CW, Meyer W, Marlowe DB. Rethinking Court Responses to Client Behavior: Incentives and Sanctions—New Tools to Build a Better Drug Court. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute and Bureau of Justice Assistance; 2006.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meyer WG. Developing Consensus on Sanction and Incentive Guidelines in the Drug Court. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute; 2002.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Higgins ST, Budney AJ, Bickel WK, Foerg FE, Donham R, Badger G. Incentives improve outcome in outpatient behavioral treatment of cocaine dependence. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1994;51:568–576.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sisson RW, Azrin NH. The community reinforcement approach. In Hester RK, Miller WR, eds. Handbook of Alcoholism Treatment Approaches: Effective Alternatives. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon; 1989:242–258.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hora PF, Schma WG, Rosenthal JTA. Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionalizing the criminal justice system’s response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Rev 1999;74:439–538.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Deci EL, Koestner R, Ryan RM. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol Bull 1999;125:627–668.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Marlowe DB, Glass DJ, Merikle EP, Festinger DS, DeMatteo DS, Marczyk GR, et al. Efficacy of coercion in substance abuse treatment. In Tims FM, Leukefeld CG, Platt JJ, eds. Relapse and Recovery in Addictions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2001:208–227.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Satel SL. Drug Treatment: The Case for Coercion. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute; 1999.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Taxman FS, Marlowe DB. Risk, needs, responsivity: in action or inaction? Crime Delinquency 2006;52:3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Andrews DA, Bonta J. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 2nd ed. Cincinnati: Anderson; 1998.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    DeMatteo DS, Marlowe DB, Festinger DS. Secondary prevention services for clients who are low risk in drug court: a conceptual model. Crime Delinquency 2006;52:114–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Marlowe DB, Patapis NS, DeMatteo DS. Amenability to treatment of drug offenders. Fed Probation 2003;67:40–46.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Peters RH, Haas AL, Murrin MR. Predictors of retention and arrest in drug court. Natl Drug Court Inst Rev 1999;2:33–60.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Patterson CM, Newman JP. Reflectivity and learning from aversive events: toward a psychological mechanism for the syndromes of disinhibition. Psychol Rev 1993;100:716–736.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Petry NM. Discounting of delayed rewards in substance abusers: relationship to antisocial personality disorder. Psychopharmacology 2002;162:425–432.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fishbein D. Neuropsychological function, drug abuse, and violence: a conceptual framework. Crim Justice Behav 2000;27:139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Marlowe DB, Kirby KC, Festinger DS, Husband SD, Platt JJ. Impact of comorbid personality disorders and personality disorder symptoms on outcomes of behavioral treatment for cocaine dependence. J Nerv Ment Dis 1997;185:483–490.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Messina N, Farabee D, Rawson R. Treatment responsivity of cocaine-dependent patients with antisocial personality disorder to cognitive-behavioral and contingency management interventions. J Consult Clin Psychol 2003;71:320–329.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Silverman K, Wong C, Umbricht-Schneiter A, Montoya I, Schuster C, Preston K. Broad beneficial effects of cocaine abstinence reinforcement among methadone patients. J Consult Clin Psychol 1998;66:811–824.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Higgins ST. Some potential contributions of reinforcement and consumer-demand theory to reducing cocaine use. Addict Behav 1996;21:803–816.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kleiman MAR, Tran TH, Fishbein P, Magula MT, Allen W, Lacy G. Opportunities and Barriers in Probation Reform: A Case Study of Drug Testing and Sanctions. Berkeley: University of California, California Policy Research Center; 2003.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Lee PA, Schepise MM, Hazzard JER, Merrill JC, et al. Are judicial status hearings a key component of Drug Court? During-treatment data from a randomized trial. Crim Justice Behav 2003;30:141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Lee PA. The role of judicial status hearings in drug court. Offender Subst Abuse Rep 2003;3:33–34, 44–46.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    McLellan AT, Cacciola J, Kushner H, Peters R, Smith I, Pettinati H. The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index: cautions, additions and normative data. J Subst Abuse Treat 1992;9:461–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    DeMatteo DS, Festinger DS, Lee PA, Marlowe DB. Substance Use Patterns in Drug Court: No Problem? Paper presented at the 67th Annual Scientific Meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, June 2005, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Harrell A, Cavanagh S, Roman J. Final Report: Findings From the Evaluation of the D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute; 1999.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Harrell A, Smith B. Evaluation of the District of Columbia Superior Court Drug Intervention Program: Focus Group Interviews. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute; 1997.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Goldkamp JS, White MD, Robinson JB. An honest chance: perspectives on drug courts. Fed Sentencing Rep 2002;6:369–372.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Satel SL. Observational study of courtroom dynamics in selected drug courts. Natl Drug Court Inst Rev 1998;1:43–72.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Cooper CS. 1997 Drug Court Survey Report: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice; 1997.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Lee PA, Fox G, Alexander R, Mastro NK, et al. Contingency Management in Drug Court. Presentation at the 67th Annual Scientific Meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, June 2005, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Prendergast ML, Hall EA, Roll JM. Judicial Supervision and Contingency Management in Treating Drug-Abusing Offenders: Preliminary Outcomes. Poster session presented at the 67th Annual Scientific Meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, June 2005, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Marlowe DB, DeMatteo DS, Festinger DS. A sober assessment of drug courts. Fed Sentencing Rep 2003;16:153–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas B. Marlowe
    • 1
  1. 1.Treatment Research InstituteUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations