Understanding Success and Nonsuccess in the Drug Court

Abstract

The drug court was developed as a response to the ineffectiveness of the traditional criminal justice response to addiction. It has grown from 1 Miami court in 1989 to more than 2,100 drug court programs across the United States in 2011. The drug court has been described as a restorative or community justice intervention that can benefit the offender, direct and indirect victims, and the community as a whole through its combination of treatment, intensive supervision, and regular court appearances. Although the number of qualitative drug court studies has increased in recent years, there are few studies that compare those who successfully complete the drug court program with those who do not complete. This article is a qualitative study of drug court participants in an Arkansas drug court program. The article compares and contrasts the perceptions of those graduated from the program with those who were terminated from the program.

Keywords

drug court restorative justice qualitative research

The drug court was developed as a response to the ineffectiveness of the traditional criminal justice response to addiction (Belenko, 1998; Hora, Schma, & Rosenthal, 1999). The so-called “War on Drugs” was mounted with the ostensible goal of preventing drug abuse by Americans (Blumenson & Nilsen, 1998). The approach seems to suggest that interdiction of drug supplies was expected to drive prices up and lessen availability of drugs. The current American drug policy also operates, at least in part, on the premise that punitive criminal sanctions would deter persons from using drugs. However, observers note that this tactic has failed to lessen availability or use of drugs. The price of street drugs, adjusted for inflation, has declined rather than increased. Drugs are as readily available as ever, and usage has shown no decrease in over 20 years (Robinson & Scherlen, 2007). With 24% of the 4 million adults on probation having a drug violation and approximately 20% of state prisoners and 55% of federal inmates incarcerated for drug offenses, the problem of nonviolent drug offenders becomes a revolving door of recidivism (Lindquist, Krebs, & Lattimore, 2006).

Drug Courts—Background

The seemingly endless cycle of drug offenders moving through the criminal justice system prompted one Florida judge, out of frustration with the traditional criminal law approach, to create the first drug court. The difference in approach and practice of the drug court from the traditional criminal justice system was dramatic and soon caught the attention of other judges and practitioners (Hora et al., 1999). The drug court has grown from 1 Miami court in 1989 to 2,193 drug court programs across the United States by 2011 (National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 2011). It has been described as an example of therapeutic jurisprudence (Hora et al., 1999) and also as a restorative or community justice intervention that can benefit the offender, direct and indirect victims, and the community through its combination of treatment, intensive supervision, and regular court appearances (Fulkerson, 2009; Keena, Fulkerson, & Griep, 2008).

Restorative justice operates on the premise that sanctions for criminal conduct should give equal weight to the needs of the victim, the offender, and the community (Zehr, 1997). A restorative intervention should provide an offender a chance to repair the harm caused by the criminal conduct and also to make amends to a victim and to the community (Umbreit, 2000). Providing opportunities for persons to shake the bonds of addiction and become productive workers and citizens and caring and effective parents is clearly an outcome of the drug court program that falls within the parameters of restorative justice.

Howard Zehr (2002) recognizes that some responses to crime may have restorative justice features and that “[i]t is important to view restorative justice models along a continuum from fully restorative to not restorative with several points or categories in between” (p. 55). The drug court is at least partially restorative in nature in that it does provide offenders the opportunity to repair harms caused by their conduct. In some cases, there are direct victims of drug addiction through thefts, property damage, and other such fallout from the offenders’ behavior. In other cases, there may be no direct victims of drug addiction; there are clearly indirect victims in the offenders’ families, employers, and coworkers. The drug court provides the means to repair and rebuild these damaged relationships.

Studies have consistently shown that the drug court program is effective in reducing recidivism for those persons who complete the rigorous program (Fulkerson, 2012; Goldkamp, White, & Robinson, 2001a; Martinez & Eisenberg, 2003; Rempel et al., 2003). A national study of 2,020 graduates from 95 drug courts around the nation reported 2-year recidivism rates for drug court graduates to be 27.5% (Roman, Townsend, & Bhati, 2003). As stated above, retention in the drug court program is a key predictor of reduced recidivism. A national study reviewed outcomes and costs of 18 drug court sites and found graduation rates that ranged from 25% to 82% (Carey, Finigan, & Pukstas, 2008).

Those who successfully complete a drug court program will typically emerge from the process with no conviction or the expungement of any underlying conviction. Drug court programs generally fall under one of two formats: the preadjudication drug court and the postadjudication drug court. In a preadjudication court, the defendant waives his right to a speedy trial, his right to a jury trial, and confrontation of witnesses. In the event the defendant is successful in completing the drug court program, the charges against the defendant are dismissed (Reisig, 2002). In the postadjudication format, the defendant enters a plea of guilty to the charges. The defendant is then placed on probation and transferred to the drug court for supervision (Lurigio, 2008). Those who are unsuccessful in the program face termination from the program and sentencing following revocation of their deferred or probationary sentence (Armstrong, 2003).

The similarities of the two formats are much greater than the differences. Both formats offer the potential outcome of having no criminal judgment of conviction to the successful participants. In both formats, the defendant is subject to stringent terms and conditions of the drug court program. In both formats, the participants who are unsuccessful will be removed from the program and be sentenced on the underlying charges without the benefit of a trial by jury, confrontation of witnesses, or the other constitutional trial rights that protect other defendants (Fulkerson, in press).

All drug court participants, those who fail to abide by the program terms and conditions and those who succeed, face a gauntlet of sanctions that are meted out for program violations (Dorf & Sabel, 2000; Lindquist et al., 2006). Drug court sanctions operate on the basis of deterrence theory in an effort to subject participants to penalties for violations of program rules including drug use (Lindquist et al., 2006). The drug court program recognizes that the path from addiction to recovery is not always a straight line and that there will often be relapses (Hora et al., 1999). Sanctions include public service, short jail sentences, additional treatment requirements, house arrest, electronic monitoring, and restriction on activities (Lindquist et al., 2006), Drug court sanctions have been shown to have a favorable correlation with improved outcomes relative to drug usage and reoffense rates (Harrell & Roman, 2001). When considering the series of graduated sanctions that are usually applied before termination, it is possible that the total sentence for an unsuccessful drug court participant may be harsher than the sentence that would have been rendered in the traditional court process. Thus, there may be significant disparity between the outcomes for the drug court “graduates and noncompleters.”

There is a substantial body of research on drug courts, including various program reviews and outcome studies. However, there have been few qualitative studies of drug courts (Burns & Peyrot, 2003; citing Gottfredson, Kearley, Najaka, & Rocha, 2005; Podkopacz, 2004; Wolfer & Roberts, 2008). It appears that few of these studies compare the perceptions of those who succeed in a drug court with those who fail. Podkopacz (2004) considered a number of factors related to the drug court experience and perceptions of participants. However, the only factor of which there was any comparison of the perceptions of those who completed the program with those who did not complete was the perceived fairness of the drug court judge. Podkopacz’s study reported that the successful participants rate the judge higher in terms of fairness than do those who were not successful.

Other qualitative studies such as that of Lindquist et al. (2006) compared perceptions of drug court participants, drug court staff, and other probationers regarding sanctions and rewards used in the drug court. Lindquist, however, did not compare the perceptions of those who completed the program with those who did not. The Lindquist study suggests that jail and treatment were believed to be the most effective sanctions in the Florida drug courts that were studied.

Where other qualitative drug court studies have reviewed the perceptions of drug court participants and staff, there is little research that compares those perceptions of the persons who successfully navigate the drug court program with those who are not successful. This article is a qualitative study of the perceptions of the drug court program of those drug court participants who have graduated or have been terminated from an Arkansas drug court program.

Greene County, Arkansas Drug Court

The Greene County Drug Court became operational in 2005. This program is comparable with drug courts nationwide in that it follows a team approach that includes the drug court judge, prosecuting attorney, defense attorneys, probation officer, counselor, and administrative assistant as members of the team. A screening process that includes initial referral from defense counsel or prosecutors selects participants for consideration. Participants must have no criminal history of violence or weapons violations. The offenses need not be a drug violation if the offense is related to drug addiction. The program does not accept first offenders, as it is believed that there are other treatment options available for first offenders. Following the attorney referral, the person undergoes a screening by the probation officer and by the drug court counselor. The screening includes a criminal history search and a review of any incident or other reports on the individual by the State Department of Community Corrections. After acceptance into the program, participants meet the probation officer on a regular basis, take part in individual and group counseling, and attend mandatory alcoholic anonymous (AA) meetings. Treatment is required on an “as-needed” basis and includes outpatient, inpatient, and in some cases, long-term treatment-oriented program at a regional correctional facility operated by the State Department of Community Corrections. The participants are also subjected to frequent random drug screening (Greene County Drug Court, 2006). The court has an average caseload of 30 participants. The drug court counselor is required to have a bachelor-level college degree but is not required to be certified.

The program has specific requirements regarding the frequency of individual and group treatment sessions. This requirement has been favorably associated with higher graduation rates (Carey et al., 2008). The team members attend a team meeting and a drug court session each week. Treatment providers, other than the counselor, do not attend team meetings or court sessions. The presence of treatment providers at court sessions has not been shown to have any impact on program retention (Carey et al., 2008). The prosecuting attorney regularly attended these meetings where the public defender’s office was not regularly present. Carey et al. (2008) reported that drug courts in which the prosecutor regularly attended team meetings had higher graduation rates (58%) than those who did not (43%). The differences in graduation rates were greater when considering defense attorney attendance at team meetings and drug court sessions. Drug courts in which the defense attorney attended team meetings had graduation rates of 59% compared with a 37% graduation rate in courts where the defense attorney was not regularly present (Carey et al., 2008).

The drug court team recognizes that relapses are a part of the recovery process (Hora et al., 1999). The drug court process also seeks to enable participants to understand their addiction and the impact that addiction had on their lives (Cresswell & Deschenes, 2001). The treatment-oriented team approach attempts to give participants a meaningful opportunity to benefit from this program.

The Greene County Drug Court also uses a phased program that requires 15 to 18 months to complete. The program has four identifiable phases. During each phase, participants are required to take part in individual and group counseling sessions, attend 12-step program meetings, submit to random, but regular urinalysis, and appear before the drug court for progress reports (Greene County Drug Court, 2006).

Participants are required to be gainfully employed or to perform volunteer work at approved locations until finding regular employment. At each phase, the degree of supervision and the number of court appearances decline. This decrease in supervision is a reward for progress on the part of the participant and is a practice that has been favorably associated with higher graduation rates (Carey et al., 2008). The program has established sanctions for violation of program rules, including urine tests. The sanctions are graduated and range from community service work, to short jail sentences, to inpatient treatment, and to incarceration up to 9 months for a treatment-oriented program in a regional correctional facility. If continuing graduated sanctions are not effective, the final step for an unsuccessful participant may be termination from the drug court program and sentencing on the underlying criminal charges (Greene County Drug Court, 2006).

Those who complete this rigorous court-supervised treatment program are recognized in a very moving and positive graduation ceremony before family, friends, employers, supporters, and other drug court participants. This is an example of Braithwaite’s (1989) “reintegrative shaming.” Those who do not make it through the program are typically sentenced to a term of years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. This is an example of Braithwaite’s (1989) “disintegrative shaming.” There are significant differences in the outcomes for these two groups. This article explores the perceptions of these two disparate groups. The comparison will allow the court to determine whether any of the drug court programs and practices should be modified, expanded, or eliminated.

Method

Using a restorative perspective, this study was conducted to identify the varied perceptions the impact of drug court leaves on its participants. To properly evaluate their perspectives, the research team was provided a list of 16 drug court participants who had been separated, either by graduation or termination, from the Greene County Drug Court in 2009. This is a small study population. Qualitative studies, however, often use relatively small numbers of participants because the depth of information and the variation in experiences are of interest. The intent is not to generalize the information; therefore, a large number of participants are neither practical nor beneficial (Creswell, 2007; Hennink, Hutter, & Bailey, 2011). For example, Roberts and Wolfer (2011) interviewed 10 female drug court graduates out of a total graduating class of 17. Similarly, Fischer, Geiger, and Hughes (2007) studied 11 females in a qualitative drug court study.

This study uses solid organizational learning principles to organize the study into four stages. The first stage in this evaluation required the drug court judge to determine the reasons for the evaluation. The research team asked, “Tell us what you want to know? What are you interested in evaluating? What would you like to know about the drug court that would make a difference in what you do?” The final question was important in determining the utility of the findings: how the evaluation may be useful.

Determining who would benefit from this evaluation was the second stage. Mendelow (1997) referred to these people as “stakeholders” (p. 177) or “those who have a stake in the evaluation findings” (Patton, 2002, p. 41). The court, probation officers, drug court participants, and the community were identified as critical stakeholders.

After identifying the stakeholders, the next stage involved the development of a set of evaluative questions or an interview schedule. Stakeholders were asked to consider which questions they wanted answered and why certain questions were important to the study. Preskill and Torres (1999) explained that by involving primary stakeholders in the development of the questions, opposing views can be considered and evaluated. Similarly, Patton (2002) recommended including opposing viewpoints to improve utilization of the findings. Questions were designed to ask the participants to reconstruct their experiences and perceptions. Distinguishing between those who complete the program as compared with those who do not could have significant implications for the program supervisors as they continually attempt to refine and improve the program.

Once drug court administrators identified potential participants, a preliminary letter of inquiry was hand-delivered to all but one of the noncompleters at the county jail. On release from one confinement, the whereabouts of one noncompleter was unknown. Graduates were contacted in the community. The letter was designed to ascertain their willingness to participate in the study by asking, “Would you be willing to participate in an interview designed to explore the perceptions and experiences of the drug court?”

All of the 15 recruited participants agreed to be interviewed. Jail administrators scheduled interviews with participating inmates at the county jail. Interviews with graduates were conducted in the community. A Participant Informed Consent Form was prepared at a sixth-grade reading level and signed by all participants, prior to each interview. The consent form outlined statements of confidentiality, right to withdrawal, lack of risk, and all other ethical issues or concerns. All interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim by the researchers to ensure that data were preserved for analysis, and conducted within 12 months of the participants’ program separation. Member checks were performed during the interview process to increase the data credibility and validity. During the interview, the researchers restated or summarized information and then questioned the participant to determine accuracy. Finally, transcriptions were cross-checked and amended by the researchers.

The final stage involved a phenomenological analysis of the data, connecting the various themes to develop a general description of the experience. The first specific technique of a phenomenological analysis strategy was accomplished through “epoche” (Creswell, 2003, p. 52), the Greek word meaning to “refrain from judgment” (Patton, 2002, p. 484). Merriam (1998) described epoche as the process that a researcher employs to try to view the “phenomenon from several different angles or perspectives” (p. 158).

“Bracketing” was the second specific technique used to analyze the participants’ experiences. This analytical process, according to Patton (2002), is a term coined by Husserl in 1913 that “brackets out the world and presuppositions to identify the data in pure form, uncontaminated by extraneous intrusions” (p. 485).The brackets were then transformed into “clusters of meanings,” as expressed in phenomenological concepts, or “codes” (Manning & Cullum-Swan, 1998, p. 253). From the various clusters, the researcher was able to view the participants’ perceptions from differing lenses or themes.

The subsequent step in the phenomenological analysis involved connecting the various themes to arrive at a general description of the experience. The descriptions were presented in textural and structural approaches. Patton (2002) explained that textural descriptions were the participants’ perceptions or an “abstraction of the experience that provides content and illustration, but not yet essence” (p. 486). Conversely, structural descriptions were explanations of the real meaning of the experience or the “deeper meanings for the individuals who, together, make up the group” (Patton, 2002, p. 486). The phenomenological analysis concluded with a synthesis of the texture and structure, “recognizing that a single unifying meaning of the experience exists” (Creswell, 2003, p. 55).

Assessing the impact of a program is difficult. A major assumption in this type of study was that the organization is truly interested in assessing its value. Without commitment from the drug court judge and probation officer, this study could not have been successfully completed. Another assumption was that the stakeholders, in this case, the participants, were willing to participate in the study. Without participation from the stakeholders, this study could not have adequately assessed the drug court’s impact. There are also some potential limitations to the study. Although graduates and those who did not graduate had already been separated from the drug court program and should not have feared reprisals for negative comments, they may not have perceived participation as truly voluntary. Those who did not complete the program were incarcerated in the county jail while awaiting transportation to state correctional facilities and may have feared parole delays for failure to participate. The research team members who conducted the interviews were not associated with the drug court, representing universities in adjacent states. As all of the offenders made some type of negative comment about the program, it is assumed that the participants did not fear repercussions.

Findings

The findings presented in the following section were derived from interviews of 15 of 16 drug court participants who had been separated, either by graduation or termination, from the Greene County Drug Court in 2009. Each participant signed an Informed Consent Form prior to the interview that was tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The interviews lasted approximately 1 hr. Each recording was transcribed verbatim, and the transcription was double checked for validity and credibility of the information. Finally, the findings are described through a narrative. The intent is not to condense the responses to statistical form but to reveal them as descriptively and as richly as possible.

Six of the seven noncompleters were interviewed, while they were detained in the Greene County Jail and were awaiting transfer to state facilities for service of their sentences. The single noncompleter who did not participate in the study served her sentence and was released from confinement before the researchers could seek her permission. After release from confinement, her whereabouts were unknown. All of the nine graduates participated and were interviewed in the community.

Characteristics of Participants

Two demographic questions were included in the interviews to determine possible characteristics that potentially explain particular patterns of response. These questions examined each participant’s age and education level. In general, graduates were better educated than those who did not complete the program. Overall, 78% of the nine graduates had a high school or greater education level, with 50% of them college educated. However, only one noncompleter had attended college, three had completed high school and two had attained less than a high school education.

Ratio-level statistics regarding participants’ age were also analyzed. Overall, those who did not complete the program were more youthful than the graduates. The graduates’ ages ranged from 23 to 44 years. The mean, mode, and median ages were 35. Similarly, the noncompleters’ ages ranged from 26 to 43. The mean age, however, was 32; the median and mode ages were 27 years. These statistics show that those who did not complete the program were generally 8 years younger than were the graduates.

Reasons for Entering Drug Court

When asked to describe their reason(s) for entering drug court, there was little variance in the manner in which graduates and noncompleters responded. “My attorney advised me” was the overwhelming response. There was disparity, however, between the perspectives of graduates and noncompleters as to why drug court was recommended by their attorney. More than half of the noncompleters but less than a fifth of the graduates acknowledged their attorneys’ recommended drug court simply “to avoid going to prison.” For example, a noncompleter said his attorney advised him “to get into the drug court. I just didn’t want to go to prison. I didn’t care what I had to do. I just didn’t want to go to prison.” Another noncompleter was warned by his attorney that “being in jail is easier than going through the drug court” but recommended drug court for the treatment benefits. Similarly, more than half of the graduates believed their attorneys advised them to enroll in drug court specifically to attain substance abuse treatment in lieu of incapacitation. A graduate explained,

I got caught cooking meth and I was real bad into drugs and in and out of jail, did about a year in the county jail and then I heard about drug court. . . . [my attorney] got it worked out and drew up the papers and that’s what got me into drug court instead of having to worry about going to prison.

Although their decision to enter drug court may have been recommended by their attorneys, 67% of the graduates and 33% of the noncompleters conceded they entered drug court to recover from their addictions. A graduate commented, “I personally wanted to stop using, but I had no idea what drug court was about. So I had a choice between another rehab and drug court and I chose drug court.”

Participants’ Satisfaction with Drug Court Experience

When asked to describe their overall satisfaction with the drug court program, few differences materialized between graduates’ and nongraduates’ perceptions of the drug court program. All but one of the combined 15 participants expressed satisfaction. Specifically, one graduate made the following comment:

My satisfaction is that I’m not doing drugs no more and that has helped me out in so many ways in my life. . . I’ve never lived this clean before and it’s really showing me how to appreciate life and it’s giving me values. In general, it has just really turned my life around.

Similarly, a noncompleter remarked, “It’s a great course. I feel like I got screwed in the revocation process, but feel it’s a great thing. I mean, it works.” This statement suggests worth to all participants even those who do not complete the program requirements.

Most participants praised the drug court counseling program. Eighty percent of the participants deemed individual counseling the most beneficial component of drug court. Group counseling, however, received split reviews, and notable differences were observed between the graduates and noncompleters. For example, more than half of the participants described group sessions negatively. Group sessions were described as chaotic and disorderly by 33% of the graduates and 71% of the noncompleters. The following statement illustrates the commonality of responses:

A lot of times the sessions would be a joke, there would be a lot of laughing and cutting up and stuff and [counselor] would just let it happen and we wouldn’t even stay on certain topics because the other ones would get a side conversation going because they knew they could and it would get [counselor] side-tracked . . . I didn’t get a whole lot out of group.

Despite the alleged chaotic and disorderly group sessions, the majority of graduates (67%) reported that they benefited from group interaction, whereas only 29% of noncompleters judged group counseling as beneficial. A participant explained, “You always think it’s just you and you’re the only one but when you get in that room and you start hearing what everyone else’s problems are, you learn you’re not so much different.”

The one noncompleter who expressed an overall dissatisfaction with drug court explained,

They just stuck me here. No one ever advised me of how hard the drug court is. They said I could finish it to stay out of jail. I didn’t get a choice. They said, “you get drug court” and that was it.

Although the overwhelming majority of participants expressed an overall satisfaction with drug court, graduates and noncompleters articulated a number of criticisms. Participants were critical of the programs’ (a) lack of confidentiality, (b) one-size-fits-all mentality to counseling, (c) judicial subjectivity, and (d) required meetings and employment conflicts.

Lack of confidentiality

Many of the participants described themselves in terms that reflect low self-esteem, so it is not surprising that they expressed dissatisfaction with the drug court’s lack of confidentiality in drug court sessions. In all, 7 participants (4 of whom were noncompleters) believed drug court sessions were “humiliating,” “embarrassing,” or “degrading.” When questioned as to how they felt after a drug court session, nearly half (47%) of the offenders believed they were “stigmatized” in the open drug court sessions. According to a “winner,”

I never really felt better about myself after I had been in court, because I didn’t want everyone else hearing my business. Personal issues, like personal things going on with family, girlfriends, boyfriends, children, should not be discussed in open court.

Referring to the unintended outcome of drug court sessions, a noncompleter said,

The judge would talk specifically about others’ personal lives. I just don’t think we should know that much about their personal lives. It just shouldn’t be put out there like that. I think the humiliation makes us act out more than helps us. I don’t mind talking about those issues in counseling, in private, but not in public. The public courtroom is just not the place for it.

One-size-fits-all mentality to counseling

Nearly half of all participants criticized drug court for employing a counselor who specializes in alcoholism, as opposed to drug addiction. Although acknowledging their view ignores the skill and special knowledge that many alcoholics working in the field have gained, they did not believe that simply being a recovering alcoholic qualifies one to work effectively with drug addicts. A participant explained, “I’m not sure that they know as much about drug addiction as they do alcoholism. I would rather they have a counselor that really understands . . . really knows drug addiction.” That response was endorsed by 83% of the noncompleters, but only one graduate echoed the sentiment.

Judicial subjectivity

Although the findings revealed overall satisfaction with the drug court program, there was inconsistency among the participants’ satisfaction with the drug court judge. All of the nine graduates reported positive interactions, describing the judge as “just” and “kindhearted.” However, 5 of the 6 nongraduates criticized the judge for differential or “unfair” treatment. Their skepticism was fueled by a belief that “too much familiarity” with offenders affects the judge’s objectivity. An offender clarified his position by stating, “I don’t think he can stay fair. He knows too much about us. I don’t think he can be impartial.” Another participant explained, “It’s hard to go from one judge to another because they are not consistent and there is too much bias. They know too much about each person to be fair and impartial at sentencing.”

Required meetings and employment conflicts

Nearly three fourths of the participants indicated dissatisfaction stemming from a conflict between the number of required meetings and the mandate to maintain employment. Some participants believed frequent “court required” meetings undermined their ability to secure and maintain gainful employment. Some offenders said the frequent interruptions with work were problematic for their employers. In the words of a “winner,”

It was kind of hard to take off work and let everyone know what was going on and cutting my hours at work. But, after a while we got it down to where I could just go right back to work and it really wasn’t a problem.

Although the graduates found a way to resolve the conflict (n = 6; 67%), noncompleters viewed the conflict insurmountable (n = 5; 83%). They believed drug court should require fewer meetings or be more accommodating with employment commitments. Comments such as, “It’s hard to find a job because there are so many requirements” and “You can only work a couple hours a day without it interfering in their meetings” reflected their perceptions.

Drug Court Provides Opportunities to Repair Harm

In addition to inquiring about participants’ satisfaction with the drug court program, they were also asked to explain whether the drug court program provided a chance to repair problems that their past drug abuse had caused to their family, friends, and community. All of the participants described dysfunctional relationships prior to drug court. Adjectives such as “unwanted,” “untrustworthy,” and “rejected” were used by all participants to describe their perception of those relationships. Several commented about the lack of trust between them and others. As explained by a participant, “Trust is how my drug use impacted my family. I would steal things from them and use them to get things I needed. I would only call them to get me out of trouble.” Likewise, a graduate explained that prior to drug court, he felt “isolated” from friends. As a result, he would associate with other addicts, refer to them as his makeshift friends, and blame them for his own addiction. Finally, several participants made remarks about being rejected by the community, using expressions such as “cast offs” and “junk” to describe how they felt they were treated by the community. One participant said,

I had a lot of people in the community who looked up to me because I was on the basketball team and then when I started doing drugs they all saw it. They all saw me messin’ up and going to jail and doing drugs. They would tell me how their kid used to look up to me. So that’s a big way I saw that I affected the community with my drug use.

Following drug court, the majority of participants reported repaired relationships with family, friends, and the community. Those who failed to complete drug court indicated a much more positive response than what would be expected. Overall, 67% of the graduates and 57% of the noncompleters claimed that their drug court participation helped them reclaim trust and achieve admiration from their family, friends, and community. For instance, a participant explained,

My family didn’t trust me and didn’t want me in their home. They’d lock the doors and when they would go out of town, they would not let me over or house-sit or poodle sit for them. But now, they go out of town and they give me their key, and they give me gas money and that’s just a big darn difference from you can’t be at our house even if we’re here, period.

Another participant’s perception was more explicit in explaining how drug court helped her repair a strained family relationship:

I do feel like [Drug Court] provided me with a chance to fix things. I was always in jail or didn’t pay my child support, and since I’ve been in the program I see my kids every week; I pay my child support every week; my mom and them [are] proud of me . . . [Drug Court] made me do a journal and I never would have done that. But when I go back and I read it, I see the changes I made.

Several participants acknowledged that the drug court assisted them in breaking free of destructive friendships. Because the program only authorizes associations with supportive, drug-free friends, they were able to sustain a period of sobriety. One participant asserted, “Staying clean is the best way we can payback others for the troubles we caused.”

This expression of the participants’ perceptions of what they gained from the drug court experience is indicative of the restorative nature of the drug court program. It should be noted that this was true for the successful participants as well as those who were unable to complete the program, albeit at a slightly lower rate than for those who graduated.

Finally, there is ample evidence to believe that the drug court has upheld its responsibility to support efforts to integrate offenders into the community and to ensure opportunities for participants to make amends. The majority of participants (67%) attributed mandated community service for providing a chance to make reparation. Through service activities, graduates and noncompleters believed that their affiliation with drug court earned them admiration by community members. “I was supported” and “I was treated respectfully” in the community are statements that exemplify the commonality of responses. A graduate made the following summative remark:

I think you get a lot of chances to stay clean and when you do that, the community benefits. I mean, they are the real victim here. When I’m clean they don’t have to pay for people in jail, my hospital bills, or other problems with drug use. So community service helps repair some harm we’ve caused.

This statement indicates the participant’s newfound awareness that there are “victims” of the participant’s behavior. This is another example of the restorative nature of this program. Even the sanctions used in the program are restorative.

Drug Court Encouraged Offender Accountability

Through the many demands and constant threat of incarceration for noncompliance, participants believe that the drug court encourages offenders to accept accountability for their behavior. According to the participants, workbook assignments, individual and group counseling, interactions with the judge, mandatory employment, and community service assignments seek to get to the core of the nebulous thinking that allows offenders to justify harming themselves and others or to deny the consequence of his or her addiction. Most of the graduates indicated that they were grateful for the drug court rigor because their accountability was dependent on it. As one winner clarified,

Once I realized the harm my drugging has caused others, I knew it was up to me to step-up, to do what I could to change. No one told me how hard Drug Court was going to be. It’s really hard. But, that is why I now know that I’m accountable for my daughter’s health, my past-due medical bills, [and] my own health. I caused the damages and the only way I can fix it is to stay sober.

To augment a sense of accountability, a surprising 78% of graduates and 67% of noncompleters expressed a need for stricter drug court programming. In that regard, a noncompleter conceded,

For the most part, the last six months they didn’t know I had even screwed up. I wished they would have checked on me more to catch me before it got out of hand. I take some responsibility. I could have been truthful, but we don’t change our habits. We are all deceitful. We always have been and probably always will be.

Discussion

The dual nature of the drug court is evident in its fusion of rehabilitative goals with deterrence-based punishments. The drug court operates with the treatment coerced by threat of sanctions. As with any other criminal punishment that is an alternative to incarceration, the drug court produces success stories and also those who are not able to complete the program successfully. The graduates are those who successfully navigate the rigorous program to the graduation ceremony at the end. The noncompleters are those who are unable to stay off drugs or comply with the rules of the drug court and are terminated from the program and sentenced to a period of incarceration for their underlying offense. The study suggests several differences between the perceptions and opinions of the graduates and the noncompleters.

All but one of the drug court participants stated that they entered the drug court program on the advice of counsel. It should be noted that this one participant was sentenced to drug court by the presiding judge without a referral by the prosecutor or a defense attorney and without the normal screening and recommendation for the program by the drug court probation officer and counselor. As such, it may be observed that all of the other participants who came to the program in the normal fashion did so on the advice of their attorney and with the agreement of the participant. However, the basis for this legal advice and the basis on which the defendants received the advice differ markedly between the graduates and the noncompleters.

More than half the noncompleters but less than one fifth of the graduates stated that the goal of this recommendation was to give the person a chance to avoid prison, while more than half of the graduates said their attorney suggested that the reason for their recommendation was based on the treatment they would receive in drug court. The graduates overwhelmingly stated that they entered drug court to beat their addiction. Two thirds of graduates, compared with only one third of the noncompleters, expressed the view that their purpose in agreeing to enter drug court was to address their addiction. Thus, motivation directed toward getting at the root of the problem of addiction rather than the more short-term goal of avoiding prison appears to be more predictive of success. The Podkopacz (2004) study reported that staying out of prison (69.2%) and avoiding a conviction (62.2%) were the predominant motivations for entering the drug court program. In contrast, this study did not indicate differences between those who complete the program and those who did not.

The graduates and noncompleters also differ in age and educational attainment. Graduates are generally 8 years older and are better educated than noncompleters. This suggests that a certain maturity that is gained by age and education is beneficial in helping one work through the difficult process of addressing addiction through a demanding program such as the drug court.

The two populations expressed some common criticisms of the program. Almost three fourths of the participants stated that the schedule was too demanding and made it difficult to maintain employment. However, 67% of the graduates were able to manage these scheduling conflicts, whereas 83% of the noncompleters reported that these conflicts were insurmountable and suggested more accommodations for scheduling. This suggests again that those who succeed are able to overcome obstacles, whereas those who fail are more easily distracted from the tasks at hand. This finding may also suggest that more should be done to ensure that defendants are aware of the demanding nature of the drug court program during the screening and referral process.

It is important to educate defendants that when setting priorities they should put recovery before their job. Without a successful recovery, they will be unable to maintain gainful employment. The conflicts of employment schedules and the demands of the drug court program, however, are substantial problems and deserve the attention of the drug court team. Work, as in employment, is required of the drug court participants. Also, they must “work” the drug court program. Successfully accommodating both can be a daunting task. The significant differences between the graduates and noncompleters on the work-drug court scheduling issue suggests that finding some solution to this issue could have a positive impact on program retention.

Another common view was praise for the individual counseling sessions with 80% expressing positive views of this aspect of the program. This is contrasted with the fact that more than half of the participants were critical of the group sessions. But, only one third of the graduates were critical of group sessions compared with almost three fourths of the noncompleters. There was also concern with the background and qualification of the drug court counselor. The counselor was a recovering alcoholic and there were concerns that this counselor did not fully understand the problems and needs of the drug addicts in the program. However, there was a great disparity between the two groups on this point as well. Almost all of the noncompleters were critical of the qualifications of the counselor compared with only one of the graduates. The drug court supervisors should also address criticisms of the group sessions. The concern of whether the personal background of the counselor as to addiction history and past drug of choice should be the basis of future research.

An even more pronounced distinction between the two groups is in their view of the drug court judge. Consistent with the findings of Podkopacz (2004), all the graduates had praise for the judge, whereas 5 of the 6 noncompleters were critical of the judge, particularly as to his subjectivity at the time they were terminated from the drug court and sentenced. Although there is a clear distinction between the graduates and noncompleters as to their view of the judge, there is much more consensus as to the drug court sessions. Almost half of the participants expressed the opinion that there was far too much personal information discussed in the open court in the presence of the other drug court participants. Again, a higher percentage of noncompleters (57%) than graduates (38%) expressed this view. But, this opinion may be a source of concern. One issue, however, may be that drug court participants are not properly prepared for the nature and scope of the drug court sessions. Personal matters of the participants are relevant to their treatment and progress in the program. The participants should be made aware that these issues are relevant and appropriate for discussion. There could be an issue as to the manner in which these issues were discussed in court sessions. However, the dominant criticism of the judge was the reported lack of impartiality in revocation hearings and not the conduct of the judge in weekly court sessions. The legal and ethical issue as to whether the judge who presides over the drug court should also preside over revocation proceedings should be the subject of further research.

The fact that there is such disparity between the two groups in most of these areas of criticism suggests that the drug court participants who succeed are more motivated and have the ability to benefit from the program and the others are more critical and are now seeking to cast blame on others for their own failings.

There are also important areas of agreement between the two populations. Most participants, including even a majority of those who failed to complete the program, reported benefits that support the restorative nature of the drug court program. Two thirds of graduates and more than half of the noncompleters stated that the drug court program allowed them repair relationships with family, significant others, and the community. It was also reported that the mandatory community service required of all drug court participants gave them a chance to make amends to the community. These findings suggest that the drug court program is effective because it gives offenders an opportunity to repair harm to the community, family, and friends, and to accept accountability for their behavior. These findings further provide strong evidence that drug court, even for those who fail to complete the program, falls within the realm of restorative justice (Fulkerson, 2009). The positive impact the program has regarding repairing family relationships could be considered as a source of strengthening the program by drawing on family as a resource for the drug court program, in general, and the drug court participants, in particular. Drawing on family as mentors in family group counseling programs could have a positive impact on program retention (Keena et al., 2008).

There was general consensus that the drug court is effective at least in part through making offenders accountable. It was broadly suggested among graduates and noncompleters that the program could be improved by injecting even more accountability into the program. As candidly observed by one offender, “[w]e are all deceitful.” Perhaps more supervision may be needed to reduce the number of those who become noncompleters.

The court should institute a systematic method of program assessment including collection of statistics related to admission standards, graduation rates, longitudinal recidivism rates, and exit interviews of participants. Data collected from these sources would be helpful to the court and would allow program modifications to improve and enhance the quality services to participants and the community. Regular reporting of program statistics has been favorably associated with improved graduation rates (Carey et al., 2008).

Conclusion

Marshall’s (1999) restorative justice definition, as “a process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future,” captures this core idea of drug courts as a restorative justice practice, a collaborative process to resolve harms. This study supports the position that the drug court is a restorative justice program. The participants benefit by being made accountable for their behavior and being required to adhere to a rigorous schedule of counseling, 12-step meetings, drug testing, meaningful employment, community service, and regular monitoring of progress by the drug court judge.

All of these elements of the drug court program have a basis in requiring that the person be accountable and responsible for their own successes or failures. Offenders are required to recognize that their addiction and their failure to recognize and deal with addiction have consequences to them, their family, employers, and the community.

The drug court program is difficult for all participants. There are numerous pitfalls and obstacles that lie before all who embark on this path. This study suggests that older, more educated offenders, and those who enter the program with a clearer goal of defeating addiction, rather than avoiding incarceration, have a greater likelihood of separating from the drug court as “successful” rather than “unsuccessful.”

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Armstrong

(2003). Drug courts and the de facto legalization of drug use for participation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 94, 133-168.

Belenko

(Summer, 1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University [ACCN: 172909].

Blumenson

E. D.

Nilsen

E. S.

(1998). Policing for profit: The drug war’s hidden economic agenda. University of Chicago Law Review, 65, 35. Retrieved from http://ssrn.con/abstract=959869

Braithwaite

(1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Burns

S. L.

Peyrot

(2003). Tough love: Nurturing and coercing responsibility and recovery in California drug courts. Social Problems, 50, 416-433.

Carey

Finigan

Pukstas

(2008). Exploring the key components of drug courts: A comparative study of 18 adult drug courts on practices, outcomes and costs. Portland, OR: NPC Research.

Cresswell

L. S.

Deschenes

E. P.

(2001). Minority and non-minority perceptions of drug court, program severity, and effectiveness. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 259-292.

Creswell

J. W.

(2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10.

Dorf

Sabel

(2000). Drug treatment courts and emergent experimentalist government. Vanderbilt Law Review, 53, 831-883.

11.

Fischer

Geiger

Hughes

M. E.

(2007). Female recidivists speak about their experience in drug court while engaging in appreciative inquiry. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 703-722.

12.

Fulkerson

(2009). The drug treatment court as a form of restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 12, 253-267.

13.

Fulkerson

(2012). Drug treatment court versus probation: An examination of comparative recidivism rates. The Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 8, 30-45.

14.

Fulkerson

(in press). Due process in the drug court: How much process is due? Criminal Law Bulletin.

15.

Goldkamp

J. S.

White

M. D.

Robinson

J. B.

(2001a). An honest chance: Perspectives of drug court participants: Findings from focus groups in Brooklyn, Miami, Seattle, Las Vegas and San Bernardino. Philadelphia, PA: Crime and Justice Research Institute.

16.

Goldkamp

J. S.

White

M. D.

Robinson

J. B.

(2001b). Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court black box. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 27-72.

17.

Gottfredson

Kearley

Najaka

Rocha

(2005). The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: 3-year self report outcome study. Evaluation Review, 29, 42-64.

18.

Greene County Drug Court. (2006). Participant handbook. Paragould, AR: Department of Community Correction, Greene County Drug Court.

19.

Harrell

Roman

(2001). Reducing drug use and crime among offenders: The impact of graduated sanctions. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 207-232.

20.

Hennink

Hutter

Bailey

(2011). Qualitative research methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

21.

Hora

Schma

Rosenthal

(1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system’s response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review, 74, 439-538.

22.

Keena

Fulkerson

Griep

(2008). Offender perceptions of a restorative conferencing program in a drug treatment court. International Journal of Restorative Justice, 4, 80-100.

23.

Lindquist

C. H.

Krebs

C. P.

Lattimore

P. K.

(2006). Sanctions and rewards in drug court programs: Implementation, perceived efficacy, and decision making. Journal of Drug Issues, 36, 119-145.

24.

Lurigio

(2008). First 20 years of drug treatment courts: A brief description of their history and impact. Federal Probation: A Journal of Correctional Philosophy and Practice, 72, 13-17.

25.

Manning

P. K.

Cullum-Swan

B. N.

(1998). Narrative, content and semiotic analysis. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 246-275). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

Marshall

T. F.

(1999). Restorative justice: An overview. Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate. Retrieved from http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/occ-resjus.pdf

27.

Martinez

Eisenberg

(2003). Initial process and outcome evaluation of drug courts in Texas. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.

28.

Mendelow

A. L.

(1997). Stakeholder analysis for strategic planning and implementation. In King

W. R.

Cleland

D. I.

(Eds.), Strategic planning and implementation (pp. 176-191). New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

29.

Merriam

S. B.

(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (5^th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

30.

National Criminal Justice Reference Service. (2011). In the spotlight, drug courts—Facts and figures. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/spotlight/drug_courts/facts.html

31.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

32.

Podkopacz

(2004). Drug court defendant experience and fairness study. Minneapolis, MN: Fourth Judicial District Court of Minnesota.

33.

Preskill

H. S.

Torres

R. T.

(1999). Evaluative inquiry for learning in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

34.

Reisig

(2002). The difficult role of the defense lawyer in a post-adjudication drug treatment court: Accommodating therapeutic jurisprudence and due process. Criminal Law Bulletin, 38, 216-225.

35.

Rempel

Fox-Kralstein

Cissner

Cohen

Labriola

Farole

. . .Bader

(2003). The New York State adult drug court evaluation: Policies, participants and impacts. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

36.

Roberts

Wolfer

(2011). Female offenders reflect on their experiences with a county drug court program. Qualitative Report, 16, 84-102.

37.

Robinson

Scherlen

(2007). Lies, damned lies and drug war statistics: A critical analysis of claims made by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

38.

Roman

Townsend

Bhati

(2003). Recidivism rates for drug court graduates: Nationally based estimates. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

39.

Umbreit

(2000). Family group conferencing: Implications for crime victims. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

40.

Wolfer

Roberts

J. C.

(2008). A theoretical exploration of a drug court program based on client experiences. Contemporary Drug Problems, 35, 481-507.

41.

Zehr

(1997). Restorative justice: The concept. Corrections Today, 59, 68-70.

42.

Zehr

(2002). The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.