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.

Drug Court Through the Eyes of Participants

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 971-989
Author(s):  
Susan H. Witkin ◽  
Scott P. Hays
Keyword(s):  
Substance Abuse ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Community Support ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Treatment Providers ◽  
Root Cause ◽  
Criminal Behaviors

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.

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.

Enacting Alcohol and Other Drug (Testing)-Related Harms in an Australian Drug Court

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 282-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eliana Sarmiento ◽  
Kate Seear ◽  
Suzanne Fraser
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Substance Dependence ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Therapeutic Value ◽  
Urine Testing

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.

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.

scholarly journals Implementation support for contingency management: preferences of opioid treatment program leaders and staff

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelli Scott ◽  
Shelly Jarman ◽  
Samantha Moul ◽  
Cara M. Murphy ◽  
Kimberly Yap ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Feedback ◽  
Contingency Management ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Team Approach ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Implementation Support ◽  
Training Performance ◽  
Opioid Treatment ◽  
Treatment Providers ◽  
External Facilitation

Abstract Background Contingency management (CM), a behavioral intervention that provides incentives for achieving treatment goals, is an evidence-based adjunct to medication to treat opioid use disorder. Unfortunately, many front-line treatment providers do not utilize CM, likely due to contextual barriers that limit effective training and ongoing support for evidence-based practices. This study applied user-informed approaches to adapt a multi-level implementation strategy called the Science to Service Laboratory (SSL) to support CM implementation. Methods Leaders and treatment providers working in community-based opioid treatment programs (OTPs; N = 43) completed qualitative interviews inquiring about their preferences for training and support implementation strategies (didactic training, performance feedback, and external facilitation). Our team coded interviews using a reflexive team approach to identify common a priori and emergent themes. Results Leaders and providers expressed a preference for brief training that included case examples and research data, along with experiential learning strategies. They reported a desire for performance feedback from internal supervisors, patients, and clinical experts. Providers and leaders had mixed feelings about audio-recording sessions but were open to the use of rating sheets to evaluate CM performance. Finally, participants desired both on-call and regularly scheduled external facilitation to support their continued use of CM. Conclusions This study provides an exemplar of a user-informed approach to adapt the SSL implementation support strategies for CM scale-up in community OTPs. Study findings highlight the need for user-informed approaches to training, performance feedback, and facilitation to support sustained CM use in this setting.

scholarly journals Editorial: Current Issues in Therapeutic Jurisprudence

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B Wexler ◽  
Michael L Perlin ◽  
Michel Vols ◽  
Pauline Spencer ◽  
Nigel Stobbs
Keyword(s):  
Drug Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Therapeutic Jurisprudence ◽  
Treatment Programs ◽  
Social Force ◽  
Therapeutic Consequences ◽  
The Us

<p><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">On behalf of the guest editors of this special issue, leading scholars and practitioners in the therapeutic jurisprudence (‘TJ’) field in Australia, Europe, and the US, we congratulate QUT and the authors for a valuable contribution to the increasingly influential presence of TJ on the international stage.</span></em></p><p><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">TJ had its genesis in the early 1990s as a new interdisciplinary approach to mental health law in the US, but has expanded remarkably in scope, reach and influence since then. TJ sees law as a social force which inevitably gives rise to unintended consequences, which may be either beneficial or harmful (what we have come to identify as therapeutic or anti-therapeutic consequences). These consequences flow from the operation of substantive rules, legal procedures, or from the behaviour of legal actors (such as lawyers and judges). It is in this sense that we conceive of the role of the law as a ‘therapeutic agent’. TJ researchers and practitioners typically make use of social science methods and data to study the extent to which a legal rule or practice affects the psychological well-being of the people it affects, and then explore ways in which anti-therapeutic consequences can be reduced, and therapeutic consequences enhanced, without breaching due process requirements. The jurisdiction with which TJ was most often associated in its earlier days tended to the that of the drug courts (in which the drug court team assists drug addicted offenders to break out of their cycle of offending by facilitating and supervising treatment programs as part of the court process itself) and the other so-called problem solving courts (more commonly referred to as ‘solution focussed courts’ in Australia).</span></em></p>

Interpretation and Utility of Drug of Abuse Immunoassays: Lessons From Laboratory Drug Testing Surveys

2010 ◽  
Vol 134 (5) ◽  
pp. 735-739 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy E. F. Melanson ◽  
Leland Baskin ◽  
Barbarajean Magnani ◽  
Tai C. Kwong ◽  
Annabel Dizon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Drug Testing ◽  
Drugs Of Abuse ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Cross Reactivity ◽  
Treatment Programs ◽  
Drug Of Abuse ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Urine Drug ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Pain Services

Abstract Context.—To assist with patient diagnosis and management, physicians from pain services, drug treatment programs, and the emergency department frequently request that urine be tested for drugs of abuse. However, urine immunoassays for drugs of abuse have limitations. Objective.—To use data from the College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing Surveys to determine and summarize the characteristics, performance, and limitations of urine immunoassays for drugs of abuse. Design.—Six years of urine drug testing proficiency surveys were reviewed. Results.—Lysergic acid diethylamide and methaqualone are infrequently prescribed or abused and, therefore, testing may be unnecessary. However, implementation of more specific testing for methylenedioxymethamphetamine and oxycodone may be warranted. Each drug of abuse immunoassay exhibits a different cross-reactivity profile. Depending on the cross-reactivity profile, patients with clinically insignificant concentrations of drugs may have false-positive results, and patients with clinically significant concentrations of drugs may have false-negative results. Conclusions.—Laboratory directors should be aware of the characteristics of their laboratories' assays and should communicate these characteristics to physicians so that qualitative results can be interpreted more accurately. Furthermore, manufacturer's claims should be interpreted with caution and should be verified in each organization's patient population, if possible.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document