Drug Court Team Research Articles

Communication and collaboration in a drug court team.

A multidisciplinary team is a hallmark feature of drug courts and other specialized treatment dockets. Comprised primarily of practitioners from the criminal legal system and mental health and addictions services treatment systems, team members exchange information and engage in shared decision-making. Though practitioners in these contexts have some guidance regarding organizational and structural elements needed to facilitate efficient and effective communication and collaboration, less is known about the role individual team members' actions and behaviors play in this process. Using data from a survey, process evaluation, and qualitative interviews administered to 19 members of a single drug court team in a Midwestern urban setting, this study describes several communication and collaboration practices of drug court team members and explores how they may contribute to the general effectiveness of the drug court. This study underscores the potential utility of operationalizing and measuring day-to-day, individual-level communication and collaboration practices in future studies of drug court process, in order to index drug court team dynamics that may contribute to its effectiveness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

“If not you, then who?”: a qualitative case study of a drug treatment court

ABSTRACT This qualitative case study included 11 members of a multidisciplinary adult drug court (ADC) team who participated in semi-structured interviews that explored their understanding of how their role as an ADC team member informs their practice. Interviews were analyzed according to thematic analyses procedures. Findings suggest the physical seating of the ADC team and the participants in the courtroom may foster or hinder a therapeutic approach. In addition, the analysis pointed to the importance of taking client privacy into consideration in the reporting of client information to support drug court participant agency. The results reveal the benefit of purposeful courtroom setup and operations conducive to a therapeutic approach, enhanced inpatient treatment options, and role clarity of team members. Further, the development of matrices of services supporting access to acute treatment for drug court participants is needed.

Supplemental Material for Communication and Collaboration in a Drug Court Team

Supplemental Material for Communication and Collaboration in a Drug Court Team

A Focus Group Analysis with a Drug Court Team: Opioid Use Disorders and the Role of Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) in Programming

ABSTRACT Drug courts are an alternative to incarceration for individuals who have substance use disorders and nonviolent arrests, and these programs can be an avenue to recovery for those who have opioid use disorders. This qualitative study used a focus group methodology to explore drug court team members’ thoughts, opinions, and lived experiences related to how the program treats opioid use disorders and the role of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) in programming. The drug court team had favorable views toward MAT and reported that participants who received MAT experienced many positive outcomes. Additionally, members of the drug court team often had to educate participants on MAT, as some participants had inaccurate information and beliefs about MAT that were based on myths. The drug court team also candidly discussed their paradigm shift from not allowing MAT to incorporating MAT into programming. Implications for drug court practice and future research are discussed.

The Drug Court Team and Discretionary Decision-Making: A Mixed-Methods Examination of Sanctioning Responses to Continued Participant Alcohol and Other Drug Use

Drug courts attempt to gain participant compliance and alcohol and other drug (AOD) use abstinence through a strategy of moderate and progressive sanctioning, but its discretionary application possesses the capacity for disparity across participants and behaviors. The purpose of this study was to examine the drug court team’s (DCT) discretionary use of sanctions in response to continued participant AOD use. A mixed-methods approach was used for analyzing agency data ( n = 1,032) and interviews of five members of the DCT. Data were collected from an adult felony drug court over a 6-year period (2008–2013) and use to answer the following research question: “What participant characteristics and program performance measures affected sanctioning outcomes?” We found that offender attributes did play a role in the sanctioning decision, but program performance measures were stronger predictors of sanction type.

Supervision Strategies for Social Work Students Managing Faith and Spirituality in Addictions Practice

Field placement in addictions treatment offers social work students several diverse and rich opportunities for learning. Addictions practice exposes students to spirituality as a domain of health and well-being foundational to many recovery programs. For practicum students, learning to manage personal religious beliefs and spirituality can be a significant need in field supervision. Based on the supervisory experiences of a field instructor and field coordinator who have collaborated in field education for 10 years (as well as were colleagues on a family drug court team prior), this article presents strategies for helping students manage their personal beliefs about faith and spirituality in addictions practice. Supervision strategies presented include: (a) separating spirituality from religion, (b) reframing addiction viewed as sin, (c) offering reflective feedback, (d) self-reflecting through journaling, process recording, and other assignments, and (e) promoting experiential activities to connect personally with people of different backgrounds.

A behind-the-scenes perspective on the key components of drug court: A narrative analysis

ABSTRACTDrug courts continue to expand throughout the United States; however, little is known about participants’ lived experiences in the program, particularly as it relates to the key components of the drug court model. Fifteen participants of the Monroe County (Indiana) drug court completed surveys where they answered five open-ended questions related to key components of the drug court model. Participants reported mixed feelings related to the quality of counseling they received, and some felt that their individualized treatment needs were not being met. Overall, participants viewed the drug court team as supportive, and they felt that praise from the judge was one of the most helpful incentives they received. Some participants noted that the frequent and random drug testing system deterred them from using drugs and resulted in positive, cognitive changes that supported their recovery. The most common challenges associated with frequent and random drug testing were that some participants thought that it was too expensive and time-consuming which they felt could delay their progress in the program, or even their graduation. The findings are discussed in reference to drug court practice.

A Phenomenological and Grounded Theory Study of Women’s Experiences in Drug Court: Informing Practice Through a Gendered Lens

Drug courts have been a growing part of the criminal justice system since 1989. This qualitative study adds to the existing literature by developing an in-depth understanding of drug court from a woman’s (N = 25) perspective. Phenomenology and grounded theory guided the data collection and analysis, resulting in three themes. First, the women found the drug court team to be compassionate and empathetic, which they reported supported them in being successful in the program. Second, the majority of women reported histories of trauma and felt that the drug court could be improved by offering them more resources to treat their trauma. Third, the majority of women reported being single mothers and they shared examples of how being a single parent was a challenge to being successful in the drug court. Implications for drug court practice are discussed.

Editorial: Current Issues in Therapeutic Jurisprudence

<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>

The Drug Court Pharmacist: Expanding Pharmacy Practice and Addressing Substance Abuse

Problem solving courts, including Drug Court, were established to address substance abuse while providing an alternative to prison sentences and traditional corrections supervision. Drug Courts have been shown to reduce crime in participants and graduates, save the criminal justice and health care systems money, reduce victimization, and restore families. Pharmacists in Tippecanoe County, Indiana, and Carlton County, Minnesota, have established innovative practices as members of Drug Court teams; these practices include the provision of a variety of pharmaceutical and health-related services that other Drug Court team members are not able to provide. The role of the pharmacist on the Drug Court team deserves exploration in light of the increasing needs of problem-solving courts across the United States and the current substance abuse epidemic that unfortunately includes prescription drugs.
 Conflict of Interest
 "We declare no conflicts of interest or financial interests that the authors or members of their immediate families have in any product or service discussed in the manuscript, including grants (pending or received), employment, gifts, stock holdings or options, honoraria, consultancies, expert testimony, patents and royalties."
 
 Type: Idea Paper

Identifying and Addressing the Unmet Health Care Needs of Drug Court Clients

Drug courts address issues such as employment and housing but largely miss the opportunity to address important health care issues. The current study examined the prevalence and correlates of chronic medical conditions among a sample of drug court clients who were participating in a clinical trial of an intervention to reduce HIV risk. A total of 256 clients completed a health survey at entry into the drug court program and 9 months post-entry. The baseline health survey included a comprehensive list of chronic medical conditions, and participants were asked to indicate which, if any, they had ever been diagnosed as having. They were also asked to indicate whether or not they were currently receiving treatment for each chronic condition that they endorsed. The follow-up survey was identical to the baseline survey, with the exception that it contained items reflecting (1) whether or not any member of the drug court team engaged in discussion with the client about each of the chronic conditions reported and (2) whether the client received a referral to medical care for endorsed conditions while in the drug court program. Results indicated that over 50% of clients reported at least one chronic condition and 21% reported more than one condition. Among those with chronic conditions, 71% reported having chronic conditions for which they were not currently receiving treatment.Unfortunately, drug court clients reported that the drug court team did little to address these unmet health needs. Findings from this study suggest that clients could benefit if drug court programs began to widen their focus to include addressing health-related issues.

Comparing and contrasting White and African American participants' lived experiences in drug court

ABSTRACTDrug courts are designed to offer treatment in lieu of incarceration for nonviolent offenders who have substance use disorders. Recent evidence has suggested the African American participants are less likely to graduate drug court than their White counterparts. This qualitative study interviewed 38 participants from a midwestern drug court to compare and contrast Whites' (n = 22) and African Americans' (n = 16) lived experiences in the program in order to learn about the factors that may contribute to racial disparities in outcomes. Findings suggest that both White and African American participants felt that the drug court team was supportive and compassionate and wanted them to succeed in the program. White participants found managing the demands of drug court with other obligations they had to be a noticeable challenge, and they also reported continued alcohol use in the program even though the program required total abstinence. African Americans were most critical of the quality of substance abuse treatment they received and felt that they were forced to accept culturally incompetent labels. Findings have implications for drug court practice and future research.

A Qualitative Study Assessing the Effectiveness of the Key Components of a Drug Court

Drug courts are guided by 10 key components that help ensure fidelity to the treatment model and guide practitioners in effectively treating substance use disorders in criminal justice settings. This qualitative study assessed the effectiveness of certain key components, such as the quality of substance abuse treatment and the importance of frequent contact with the judge, by interviewing drug court participants (N = 41). Participants felt that the substance abuse counseling they received could have been improved by offering more individual counseling and by developing a trustworthy therapeutic relationship among the drug court team, participants, and substance abuse counselors. Having frequent contact with the judge and the random drug testing system were viewed as effective interventions in assisting participants with being successful in the program, with the ultimate goal of graduating drug court. Implications for drug court practice and future research are discussed.

Adaptive Interventions in Drug Court: A Pilot Experiment.

This pilot study (N = 30) experimentally examined the effects of an adaptive intervention in an adult misdemeanor drug court. The adaptive algorithm adjusted the frequency of judicial status hearings and clinical case-management sessions according to pre-specified criteria in response to participants' ongoing performance in the program. Results revealed the adaptive algorithm was acceptable to both clients and staff, feasible to implement with greater than 85% fidelity, and showed promise for eliciting clinically meaningful improvements in drug abstinence and graduation rates. Estimated effect sizes ranged from 0.40 to 0.60 across various dependent measures. Compared to drug court as-usual, participants in the adaptive condition were more likely to receive responses from the drug court team for inadequate performance in the program and received those responses after a substantially shorter period of time. This suggests the adaptive algorithm may have more readily focused the drug court team's attention on poorly-performing individuals, thus allowing the team to "nip problems in the bud" before they developed too fully. These preliminary data justify additional research evaluating the effects of the adaptive algorithm in a fully powered experimental trial.

Providing Recovery Services for Offenders with Co-Occurring Disorders

ABSTRACT Objectives: Providing adequate treatment and supervision for drug offenders with co-occurring disorders has been a challenge because they are usually not eligible for drug court and often fail to comply with the conditions of probation in other drug diversion programs. Here we report the results of a process evaluation of the Co-Occurring Disorders Court (CODC) implemented by the Superior Court of the County of Orange, California. Methods: Drug offenders who are chronically, persistently mentally ill and diagnosed with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or a major depressive disorder participated in an 18-month program that provides integrated treatment. Following evaluation by a psychiatrist and the drug court team (judge, public defender, probation officer, and mental health caseworker), they are placed on medication and referred to residential and/or outpatient drug treatment. During the program they are randomly drug tested and their progress is monitored by the drug court team; they receive sanctions for program noncompliance or rewards for program compliance. Results: In the first two years of operation the CODC admitted 72 offenders. The study findings indicate the majority of participants are being stabilized on their medications, which increases their treatment stay and improves their quality of life. At 6 months the participants show advances in social functioning, decreasing problems due to substance use, and productivity in the achievement of life goals. Conclusions: The results of the process evaluation indicate the program is achieving the stated objectives. The services provided to the CODC participants are well coordinated, offering continuity of care between the community and jail as well as extensive case management and supervision.