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

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.

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Gallagher ◽  
Elizabeth A. Wahler ◽  
Raychel M. Minasian ◽  
Abigail Edwards

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
John Robert Gallagher ◽  
Anne Nordberg ◽  
Raychel Minasian ◽  
Sydney Szymanowski ◽  
Jesse Carlton ◽  
...  

Drug courts are an alternative to incarceration for individuals who have substance use disorders and have been arrested for drug-related crimes (e.g. possession of a controlled substance). The first drug court began in 1989 in Florida and it is estimated that there are over 3,000 drug courts now operating throughout the United States.  This community-engaged research (CER) evaluated the St. Joseph County (Indiana) drug court by identifying who was most likely to graduate, who was most likely to recidivate, and whether drug court or probation was more effective at reducing criminal recidivism.  Furthermore, although drug courts are found in many communities, research rarely describes the process used to develop and implement CER.  Therefore, this article also highlights the collaborative process used in this drug court evaluation.   The findings from this study suggest that the St. Joseph County (Indiana) drug court is an effective program at reducing criminal recidivism and a valuable resource for individuals who have substance use disorders, the community, and other stakeholders. Drug court participants were less likely to recidivate than probationers, and a lower recidivism rate clearly equates to many benefits to the community.  The article concludes with community-based implications, such as starting recovery support groups that are welcoming to individuals who receive medication-assisted treatment (MAT), marketing drug court to racial and ethnic minorities to increase their representation in drug court, and disseminating research findings throughout the community via local news stories and public lectures.


2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 282-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eliana Sarmiento ◽  
Kate Seear ◽  
Suzanne Fraser

Alcohol and other drug testing is used in a range of environments including workplaces, schools, sporting tournaments, substance treatment and criminal justice system settings. It is also the cornerstone of the drug court model. Despite its centrality, it has received little scholarly attention. In this article, we address this gap through a study of how the drug-testing regime unfolds at one Australian drug court. Based on ethnographic observation, qualitative interviews with drug court participants, and analysis of drug court documents, this article examines how participants experience drug testing. Drawing on Carol Bacchi’s poststructuralist policy analysis framework, we examine how the “problem” of substance “dependence” is conceptualized in one drug court’s approach to drug testing, and we consider some of the effects of the policy. We argue that the everyday and seemingly mundane ritual of urination becomes a core technique for the governance of drug court subjects and note that the testing regime is onerous, regimented, and invasive. We also trace some of the effects of this policy and its implementation for participants. We suggest that the urine-testing regimen might operate counterproductively, intensifying participants’ involvement with the criminal justice system. Its reliance on an abstinence model may heighten exposure to substance-related harms and segregate drug court participants from the “rest of society,” inhibiting other aspects of their lives, including their relationships and employment prospects. Overall, we argue that these effects are at odds with the stated purposes of the drug court. We conclude with some reflections on claims about the therapeutic value and potential of drug courts and suggest opportunities for reform.


2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 971-989
Author(s):  
Susan H. Witkin ◽  
Scott P. Hays

Operating with community support and through partnerships among treatment providers and the criminal justice system, drug courts address substance abuse as a root cause of criminal behaviors. Drug court success depends heavily on implementing the drug court model with fidelity and adhering to widely recognized best practices, in particular, following the “Ten Key Components” of drug court success. This study assesses drug court procedures and practices through the eyes of those who were actively participating in it. Focusing on five rural counties that had recently established drug courts, the study summarizes the results of interviews with 15 drug court participants. Importantly, this study is an evaluation of the operation of the drug courts themselves from the perspective of the participants of these drug courts rather than an evaluation of drug court participant impacts.


2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-81
Author(s):  
Adam Rzetelny ◽  
Barbara Zeller ◽  
Nicholas Miller ◽  
Kathy Egan City ◽  
Kenneth L. Kirsh ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Lisa M. Shannon ◽  
Afton Jackson Jones ◽  
Jennifer Newell ◽  
Connie Neal

Drug courts seek to break the cycle of substance use and crime by providing a community-based intervention to individuals with criminal justice involvement and substance-related issues. This study examined recidivism over a 2-year follow-up period as well as factors associated with recidivism for a sample of drug court participants (i.e., graduates and terminators) and a non-equivalent comparison group (i.e., individuals referred/assessed for the program who did not enter). In the 2-year follow-up window, fewer drug court graduates had any convictions compared with program terminators and referrals; specifically, fewer drug court graduates had drug trafficking convictions compared with program terminators and referrals. Fewer graduates were arrested and incarcerated in jail and/or prison in the 2-year follow-up; furthermore, graduates had spent less time incarcerated compared with program terminators and referrals. Demographics (i.e., age, race, marital status) and prior criminal justice system involvement were associated with recidivism; however, these factors had differential impacts for the three groups (i.e., graduates, terminators, and referrals). Drug court shows promise as a community-based intervention that helps keep individuals out of the criminal justice system during a 2-year follow-up period.


2000 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROGER H. PETERS ◽  
MARY R. MURRIN

This study examined outcomes for two treatment-based drug court programs during a 30-month follow-up period. Outcomes for drug court graduates were contrasted with those of nongraduates and of comparison groups that consisted of offenders who were placed on probation supervision during the same period and did not receive drug court services. Drug court graduates from both programs were significantly less likely to be arrested and had fewer arrests during follow-up in comparison to matched probationers and nongraduates. For both drug courts, the rates of arrest during the 30-month follow-up period declined in direct relationship to the duration of drug court involvement. Drug court graduates had lower rates of substance abuse than comparable groups of treated offenders. The implications for clinical practice and the need for additional drug court outcome research are discussed.


Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Alice Thornewill ◽  
Shelby Arnold

This chapter first reviews the relationship between substance abuse and criminal justice involvement, followed by a discussion of the history and development of drug courts, with a specific focus on their features, operations, and key components. The authors then discuss the extensive research on the effectiveness of drug courts, focusing primarily on outcomes of recidivism and substance use. Given the large body of research on drug courts, there is a great deal of data on the correlates and predictors of success in drug courts; the authors provide a summary of the key factors related to drug court success. They also mention the limitations in the extant research and note how future studies can address these shortcomings. The authors then discuss a newer drug court model—juvenile drug courts—with a focus on their key features and effectiveness. Finally, after discussing best practices in the development and operation of drug courts, “next steps” are proposed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 327-336
Author(s):  
Abenaa A. Jones ◽  
Fern J. Webb ◽  
Sonam O. Lasopa ◽  
Catherine W. Striley ◽  
Linda B. Cottler

A growing body of research is exploring the association between religiosity and drug use. Thus, this analysis examines the association between religiosity and substance use patterns among females in the criminal justice system. Data derived from 318 women recruited from a Municipal Drug Court System in St. Louis, Missouri, were used to determine the association between religiosity and substance use patterns. Results indicate that religiosity decreased the odds of cocaine use, observed for both crack/cocaine (CC) use alone (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.41) and crack/cocaine + marijuana (CC + MJ) (AOR = 0.32). Interestingly, this association was not found for MJ use alone. Other variables that were significantly associated with CC + MJ use included being non-Black (CC + MJ: AOR = 0.46; MJ: AOR = 0.28), 4+ arrests (CC + MJ: AOR = 4.66; CC: AOR = 2.64), and <30 years of age (CC + MJ: AOR = 0.37; CC: AOR = 0.16; MJ: AOR = 2.84). Future drug prevention and interventions should consider the potential protective effects of religiosity on substance use.


Author(s):  
Alexis M. Humenik ◽  
Sindhu Shivaji ◽  
Sara L. Dolan

Drug Court Treatment (DCT) Programs seek to integrate substance abuse treatment into the criminal justice system by providing a structured environment for offenders who engage in treatment in lieu of incarceration. DCT has shown successes in reducing drug/alcohol use, recidivism, and cost, but the impact of DCT on non-substance-related mental health outcomes is less clear. This study evaluated mental health correlates within a DCT sample through analyses of participants’ pre-entry and pre-graduation Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—Second Edition (MMPI-2) profiles. When diagnostic information was available, mood disorders had the highest comorbidity with alcohol/substance use diagnoses. Comparisons across administrations of the MMPI-2 indicated significant differences among mean scores on 6 Clinical scales, and mean profile elevation scores significantly decreased. Results suggest a significant presence of mental health comorbidities in DCT programs, and significant mental health improvements were seen for graduates, suggesting the utility of DCT for treating mental health problems in addition to substance use.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document