Improving graduation rates in drug court: A qualitative study of participants’ lived experiences
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895816682578 |
| Published date | 01 September 2017 |
| Author | Elyse Lefebvre,John Robert Gallagher,Anne Nordberg |
| Date | 01 September 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895816682578
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2017, Vol. 17(4) 468 –484
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1748895816682578
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
Improving graduation rates
in drug court: A qualitative
study of participants’ lived
experiences
John Robert Gallagher
Indiana University South Bend, USA
Anne Nordberg
The University of Texas at Arlington, USA
Elyse Lefebvre
Indiana University South Bend, USA
Abstract
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.
Corresponding author:
John Robert Gallagher, PhD, LSW, LCAC, Assistant Professor, School of Social Work, Indiana University
South Bend, IN, USA.
Email: johngall@iupui.edu
682578CRJ0010.1177/1748895816682578Criminology & Criminal JusticeGallagher et al.
research-article2016
Article
Gallagher et al. 469
Keywords
Drug court, phenomenology, problem-solving courts, qualitative research, substance use
disorder
Introduction
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (2015), it is estimated that 9
percent of Americans need treatment for their substance use disorders, while only about
1 percent actually receive treatment. In 2013, for example, only about three million out
of the 23 million Americans who were in need of treatment for their substance use disor-
ders actually received some intervention (NIDA, 2015). European countries are experi-
encing similar trends. For example, the most commonly used illicit opioid in Europe is
heroin, and despite an increase in heroin overdoses and deaths, barriers still exist in
providing treatment to all those in need (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and
Drug Addiction [EMCDDA], 2016). It is likely that this lack of treatment is a significant
factor as to why so many individuals are being sent to the criminal justice system for
reasons related to illicit drug use. More alarming, is the notion that drug offenders are
likely to recidivate if they do not receive treatment for their substance use disorders
while incarcerated. For example, Cooper et al. (2014) found that roughly 77 percent of
drug offenders, from 30 states, were arrested for a new crime within five years of being
released from state prisons. Additionally, the National Association of Drug Court
Professionals (NADCP) (2016) estimates that, once released from prison, 95 percent of
offenders will return to illicit drug use. Clearly, simply incarcerating individuals who
have a substance use disorder has not been an effective method to eliminate illicit drug
use and drug-related crimes.
High criminal recidivism rates, continued illicit drug use, and failure to provide the
necessary treatment for individuals who have a substance use disorder are only three of
the shortcomings that have been associated with the criminalization of drug policy
(Seddon et al., 2008), and these shortcomings are seen globally. Consistent with the
United States, recent British drug policy, for example, has focused heavily on utilizing
the criminal justice system as an avenue to treat substance use disorders, relying on coer-
cive treatments and having treatment providers in courts, probation offices, and prisons,
for instance (Seddon et al., 2008). This approach, however, is not without limitations,
namely that British research has provided little evidence that coercive treatment is effec-
tive (Seddon et al., 2008) and the approach is limited to the relationship between illicit
drug use and crime, which does not address the many other societal contexts influencing
this social problem (Stevens, 2011). Despite the many limitations with global drug poli-
cies, interventions, such as drug courts, continue to expand globally and it is important
to increase our knowledge base on these programs.
In 1989, in Miami-Dade County, the first drug court was established to help address
the lack of treatment available in the criminal justice system and high recidivism rates
(NADCP, 2016; Nolan, 2001). Drug courts are conceptualized through 10 key compo-
nents (NADCP, 1997). These key components are what distinguish drug courts from
other common criminal justice interventions, such as probation. Examples of the key
To continue reading
Request your trial