Sentencing to Drug Court

Drug courts are frequently touted as an alternative sentencing option for low-level drug offenders and were even promoted by U.S. presidential candidates in 2020. While national organizations tout that “Drug Courts Work,” there are many who question their efficacy. Favorable statistics and success stories depend on close fidelity to the prescribed models from the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. With rapid adoption of drug courts nationwide, and little oversight of their fidelity to the drug court model, some judges may operate drug courts in ways that can harm, rather than help, an increasing number of participants. Improper drug court admissions and heavy use of jail sanctioning lead to worse outcomes for participants—and to suspicion toward drug courts among the criminal justice reform movement of which drug courts aim to be a part. While the drug court model has evolved as a treatment model for offenders with high criminogenic risk and high treatment need, some judges either disregard or are unaware of this shift. Participants are supervised more closely and are often given higher treatment dosages than they require to address their substance use disorder. Low-level offenders may end up with accrued jail time through their drug court participation that exceeds the amount they would have received had they simply been sentenced to a jail term at the outset of their plea. Increased oversight of drug courts, combined with required education for judges and court staff, will lead to a better understanding of the drug court model. By identifying the proper target population, focusing on treatment, and reducing or eliminating jail sanctions, drug courts will align with the national model, improve outcomes, and reduce both jail time and recidivism of their participants. This Article outlines the evolution of the drug court model and shows that lack of understanding of that evolution leads to harsher sentencing for low-level drug offenders.

The Effects of Race and Ethnicity on Admission, Graduation, and Recidivism in the Milwaukee County Adult Drug Treatment Court

Drug courts play a key role in the criminal justice system by diverting individuals from incarceration and providing them with resources to address substance use issues and reduce criminal recidivism. However, it is unclear whether drug courts reflect—or even exacerbate—preexisting racial/ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. While prior literature has offered some insight into the influence of race and ethnicity on drug court success, much of the focus has been on outcomes (i.e., program completion and recidivism) rather than disparities at earlier stages (i.e., referral to admittance). The current study adds to this body of research by evaluating the Milwaukee County Adult Drug Treatment Court to examine whether racial/ethnic disparities exist at several stages of the drug court process: (1) referral to admittance, (2) likelihood of graduation, and (3) likelihood of recidivism. Results of the analyses determined racial/ethnic disparities in the likelihood of admission to the drug court, as well as the likelihood of graduation. There were no racial/ethnic disparities found in the likelihood of recidivism. The analyses also identified several additional variables that were influential in the likelihood of admission (risk score, prior record), likelihood of graduation (age, prior record, custody sanctions), and recidivism (drug court outcome).

Parent and Child Reports of Parenting Behaviors: Agreement Among a Longitudinal Study of Drug Court Participants

Identifying ways to support children of parents with substance use disorder is a critical public health issue. This study focused on the parent-child relationship as a critical catalyst in child resilience. Using data from a longitudinal cohort study, the aims of this study were to: (1 ) examine the agreement between parent and child reports of parenting behaviors and (2 ) describe the association between agreement and child mental health. Participants were 50 parent-child dyads that included parents enrolled in an adult drug court and their children, aged 8–18. Overall, agreement (i.e., concordance) between parent and child reports of parenting was slight to fair. Parents reported their parenting behaviors to be slightly more positive than how children rated the same behaviors in the areas of: involvement, 0.53 (SD = 0.80); positive parenting, 0.66 (SD = 0.87), and monitoring behaviors, 0.46 (SD = 0.90). Parents also rated themselves, in comparison to their children's reports, as using less inconsistent discipline, −0.33 (SD = 1.00), and less corporal punishment, 0.13 (SD = 1.01). Agreement was related to some, but not all, child mental health outcomes. When parents rating their parenting as more positive than their child reported, that had a negative effect on child self-esteem and personal adjustment. Contrary to hypotheses, we did not find a significant relationship between positive parenting and internalizing problems. Findings have implications for obtaining parent and child reports of parenting within the drug court system, and for identifying children at higher risk for externalizing problems.