Treatment Services in Adult Drug Courts: Report on the 1999 National Drug Court Treatment Survey

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Peyton ◽  
Robert Gossweiler
Keyword(s):  
Drug Court ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Treatment Services ◽  
National Drug ◽  
Drug Court Treatment

The Experiences of Young Adult Offenders Who Completed a Drug Court Treatment Program

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 750-758 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen A. Moore ◽  
Melissa M. Barongi ◽  
Khary K. Rigg
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Treatment Program ◽  
Word Processing ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Word Processing Program ◽  
Processing Program ◽  
Drug Court Treatment ◽  
Study Participants

Although there has been a proliferation of studies on the effectiveness of drug court programs, these studies are largely quantitative in nature. Little is known about the experiences of persons who participate in drug court. In this study, we aimed to fill this knowledge gap by exploring experiences of young adults who completed an adult drug court treatment program. Nine semi-structured interviews were conducted, typed into a word-processing program, and then entered into a data analysis software program. Using grounded theory strategies, analysis revealed several emergent themes, which are presented chronologically to provide a narrative of study participants’ experiences before, during, and after the program. Findings provide insights on how participants perceive drug courts and experiences that might facilitate or impede completion of drug court programs. Our findings are particularly important for drug court professionals as they attempt to develop appropriate recommendations for best practices and new policy initiatives.

A Proposed Prevention Intervention for Nondrug-Dependent Drug Court Clients

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
David DeMatteo
Keyword(s):  
Best Practice ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Criminal Recidivism ◽  
Addictive Behaviors ◽  
Prevention Intervention ◽  
Substantial Body ◽  
Behavioral Techniques ◽  
Drug Court Treatment ◽  
Clinically Significant

A substantial body of research supports the effectiveness of drug courts in terms of reducing drug use and criminal recidivism among drug-involved offenders. However, it is unclear whether drug courts are appropriate for all clients, most notably the sizeable portion of clients who do not have a diagnosable or clinically significant substance use disorder. For these clients, drug court treatment may be ineffective or even contraindicated. Instead, best practice standards suggest that these clients would benefit from a prevention intervention designed to interrupt the acquisition of addictive behaviors. Unfortunately, such interventions have not been tested with adult offenders in drug courts. In this article, we describe a platform of cognitive and behavioral techniques that can potentially be used with nondrug-dependent drug court clients.

The Effect of Drug Court Programming on Recidivism: the Cincinnati Experience

2003 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 389-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shelley Johnson Listwan ◽  
Jody L. Sundt ◽  
Alexander M. Holsinger ◽  
Edward J. Latessa
Keyword(s):  
Drug Court ◽  
Rapid Expansion ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Multiple Indicators ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
The Social ◽  
Drug Court Treatment ◽  
Drug Dependent ◽  
Organizational Costs

The impetus of the drug court movement can be traced to a number of factors, such as the social and organizational costs of imprisonment and the literature surrounding the effectiveness of community-based treatment. Regardless of its origins, however, drug courts have altered the way in which court systems process drug cases and respond to drug-dependent offenders. Evaluations of U.S. drug courts are beginning to emerge, and although the outcome results are encouraging, not all courts are showing a reduction in rearrest rates. Despite the rapid expansion of drug courts, their growing prevalence, and popularity, little is known about the drug court model's ability to achieve its objectives in a variety of circumstances. This research adds to the literature on drug courts by examining the effect of drug court programming on multiple indicators of recidivism. Results of the study are mixed; however, the drug court treatment group did perform better when examining arrest for a drug-related offense.

Social Recovery, Social Capital, and Drug Courts

2010 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Boeri ◽  
Aukje Lamonica ◽  
Liam Harbry
Keyword(s):  
Drug Testing ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Job Skills ◽  
Treatment Programs ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Team Approach ◽  
Treatment Providers ◽  
Drug Court Treatment

Drug courts were established for criminal offenders whose primary offense is related to drug use. As an alternative to incarceration, the drug court incorporates drug treatment with close judicial supervision. A team approach includes the judge, public defender, case workers and/or treatment providers, and a coordinator. Traditional drug court treatment programs offer therapeutic approaches that include mandatory counseling, 12-step (self-help) group meetings, attendance at regular court sessions, random drug testing, and, in some cases, life skills training (Nolan 2003). Some drug courts place particular emphasis on furthering participants' education and their job skills. In these examples, employment and education are seen as important treatment outcomes (Leukefield 2007; Deschenes 2009). Adding services to drug court programs such as employment and educational resources and increasing the number of residential treatment beds also improves retention rates for participation and helps contain recidivism rates (Deschenes 2009). Most studies find drug court participants to have substantially lower re-arrest rates than comparison samples, with recidivism as low as 27 percent compared to 70 percent for drug offenders who did not participate in a drug court program (Belenko 1998; May 2008).

Improving graduation rates in drug court: A qualitative study of participants’ lived experiences

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 468-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Robert Gallagher ◽  
Anne Nordberg ◽  
Elyse Lefebvre
Keyword(s):  
Substance Use ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Lived Experiences ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Criminal Recidivism ◽  
Frequent Contact

For nearly three decades, drug courts have provided a rehabilitative approach within the criminal justice system for individuals who have a substance use disorder. The goal of drug courts is to reduce criminal recidivism, and research has consistently suggested that participants that graduate drug court are less likely to recidivate than those who are terminated from the program. This qualitative study adds to the literature by asking drug court participants ( N = 42) their views on the most helpful aspects of the program that support them in graduating and how the program could be more helpful to support them in graduating. Two themes emerged from the data: (1) participants felt that interventions that are common to drug courts, such as drug testing and having frequent contact with the judge, were most helpful in supporting them in graduating the program; (2) participants felt that the agencies that offered treatment for their substance use disorders used punitive tactics and judgmental approaches that compromised the quality of treatment they received, and they felt that this was a barrier to them graduating the program. The findings are discussed in reference to drug court practice.

scholarly journals The Family Framework in a Drug Treatment Court

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 237802311876146
Author(s):  
Daanika Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Drug Court ◽  
Therapeutic Strategies ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Institutional Practices ◽  
Predominately White ◽  
Program Selection ◽  
The Family ◽  
Ethnographic Observation ◽  
State Projects ◽  
Treatment Court

Drug courts reflect an expanding effort to transform the state’s response to drug crimes. Such programs merge punitive and therapeutic strategies in efforts to rehabilitate clients. The author takes the case of one drug court to elaborate on a set of institutional practices characterizing this mode of intervention. On the basis of ethnographic observation of the court’s weekly review hearings, interviews with program professionals, and analysis of documents and media accounts, the author describes the centrality of the “family framework”—the idea that clients are childlike and “grow up” in the context of the program—to the priorities, norms, and practices of drug court professionals. The family framework relied on raced and classed constructs of dependence and deservingness. These constructs shaped program selection and completion, enabling the court to focus on a predominately white and often middle-class client base. The author suggests that this case clarifies how state projects can both intensively regulate and circumscribe their scope to a population deemed worthy.

Validating Drug Court Collaboration Instrument: Differences in Model Adherence Between Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts

2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (11) ◽  
pp. 1990-2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaohan Mei ◽  
Jacqueline G. van Wormer ◽  
Ruibin Lu ◽  
Mia J. Abboud ◽  
Faith E. Lutze
Keyword(s):  
Drug Abuse ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
National Sample ◽  
Black Box ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Juvenile Courts ◽  
Black Boxes ◽  
Current Article ◽  
Guiding Principles ◽  
Better Than

Drug courts aim to significantly address drug abuse and drug-related criminality. However, the effectiveness of drug courts varies from court to court. The variation of success demands insights regarding what is going on inside the “black box” of drug court practices. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate to what extent drug courts are operated in adherence with guiding principles and strategies. Using a national sample and validated measures, the current article examines the “black boxes” of adult and juvenile drug courts across the country. We found that, in general, adult drug courts face less model adherence challenges in comparison with juvenile courts, which may, in part, explain why adult drug courts perform better than juvenile drug courts overall.

scholarly journals Treating Opioid Use Disorders in Drug Court: Participants’ Views on Using Medication-Assisted Treatments (MATs) to Support Recovery

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Gallagher ◽  
Elizabeth A. Wahler ◽  
Raychel M. Minasian ◽  
Abigail Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experiences ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Dade County ◽  
Criminal Recidivism ◽  
Opioid Epidemic ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Behavioral Therapies ◽  
Opioid Use Disorders

Drug courts began in 1989 in Miami-Dade County, FL. Due to their success in treating substance use disorders and reducing criminal recidivism, they have expanded globally and are currently operating in countries such as Australia, Canada, and Scotland, to name a few. Drug courts can be a key intervention in addressing the opioid epidemic. This is the first known qualitative study to ask drug court participants ( n = 38) who have opioid use disorders questions related to their lived experiences in drug court, as well as direct questions related to the use of medication-assisted treatments (MATs) in drug court. Overall, drug court participants felt that MATs were helpful for treating their opioid use disorders; however, some participants reported using other drugs while on MATs and they viewed their recovery through a harm reduction lens. Additionally, participants emphasized the importance of using MATs in combination with counseling that used cognitive and behavioral therapies. Implications for drug court practice and future research are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document