Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Community-engaged
Research (CER) as the
Avenue to Promoting
Well-being and Recovery
in Drug Court
Authors
JOHN R. GALLAGHER
Associate Professor, Indiana
University School of Social
Work
ANNE NORDBERG
Associate Professor, Uni-
versity of Texas at Arlington
School of Social Work
RAYCHEL MINASIAN
Addictions Therapist, Oak-
lawn Psychiatric Center
SYDNEY SZYMANOWSKI
Graduate Research Assistant
(GRA), Indiana University
School of Social Work
JESSE CARLTON
Chief Probation Ocer, St.
Joseph County, IN Probation
KRISTIN FEE
Drug Court Coordinator,
St. Joseph County, IN Drug
Court
JANE WOODWARD MILLER
Drug Court Judge, St. Joseph
County, IN Drug Court
JOHN HORSLEY
Vice President of Adult Ser-
vices, Oaklawn Psychiatric
Center
TARA PAIANO
Drug Court Coordinator,
Elkhart County, IN Drug
Court
JOHN R. GALLAGHER, ANNE NORDBERG, RAYCHEL MINASIAN, SYDNEY SZY-
MANOWSKI, JESSE CARLTON, KRISTIN FEE, JANE WOODWARD MILLER, JOHN
HORSLEY AND TARA PAIANO
Drug courts are an alternative to
incarceration for individuals who
have substance use disorders and
have been arrested for drug-relat-
ed crimes (e.g. possession of a con-
trolled substance). The rst drug
court began in 1989 in Florida and
it is estimated that there are over
3,000 drug courts now operating
throughout the United States. This
community-engaged research
(CER) evaluated the St. Joseph
County (Indiana) drug court by
identifying who was most likely to
graduate, who was most likely to
recidivate, and whether drug court
or probation was more eective
at reducing criminal recidivism.
Furthermore, although drug courts
are found in many communities,
research rarely describes the pro-
cess used to develop and implement
CER. Therefore, this article also
highlights the collaborative process
used in this drug court evalua-
tion. The ndings from this study
suggest that the St. Joseph County
(Indiana) drug court is an eec-
tive program at reducing criminal
recidivism and a valuable resource
for individuals who have substance
use disorders, the community, and
other stakeholders. Drug court
participants were less likely to
recidivate than probationers, and
a lower recidivism rate clearly
equates to many benets to the
community. The article concludes
with community-based implica-
COMMUNITY-ENGAGED
RESEARCH ARTICLES
ENGAGE! | iupui bicentennial edition 24
The authors dedicate this
article to Jim Matio. Every
community Jim lived in
beneted from his humor,
compassion, and love for
others.
GALLAGHER | DRUG COURT
tions, such as starting recovery support groups
that are welcoming to individuals who receive
medication-assisted treatment (MAT), market-
ing drug court to racial and ethnic minorities to
increase their representation in the program, and
disseminating research ndings throughout the
community via local news stories, podcasts, and
public lectures.
Keywords: community-engaged research (CER),
criminal justice, drug court, recidivism, social
work, substance use disorder
In the late 1980s, criminal justice stakeholders in
Miami, Florida decided to address an ongoing prob-
lem within the justice system. They had noticed that
people charged and convicted of minor drug oens-
es, such as possession, often reappeared before the
courts with the same charges (Wexler & Winick,
1996). This so-called revolving door was backlog-
ging the courts and punishment seemed ineective
to deter future criminal justice involvement. It cost
all involved and the community time, eort, and
money with no positive outcomes. These stakehold-
ers operationalized therapeutic jurisprudence or the
idea that criminal courts could be part of therapeu-
tic solutions, particularly for men and women who
had substance use disorders (Schneider, Bloom, &
Hereema, 2007). For people caught in the drag-
net of the war on drugs, treatment for substance
use disorders may be a more eective option than
incarceration. As a result, they implemented the
rst drug court in 1989 (Nolan, 2001) by diverting
people away from the traditional, punitive approach
to justice into this rst drug court that placed the
court, the judge, and criminal justice professionals
amidst a drug rehabilitation program (Schneider et
al., 2007; Slinger & Roesch, 2010; Wexler & Winick,
1996). The court diered dramatically in several
ways. For instance, the adversarial nature of the
traditional criminal justice process was suspended
with prosecutors and defense attorneys collaborat-
ing for the best interests of participants and crim-
inal justice workers, especially the judge, became
part of the therapeutic paradigm.
Drug court was a choice for participants and in
accepting the diversion, they agreed to plead guilty,
remain drug free, which was measured through
self-report and random and frequent drug tests,
follow treatment recommendations, and report to
drug court for supervision (Wexler & Winick, 1996).
Goldkamp (1994) conducted an evaluation of this
rst drug court and found promising outcomes.
Specically, recidivism rates among drug court
graduates was assessed at 32% compared to 48 to
55% among comparison groups. Since then, many
other studies have conrmed Goldkamp’s positive
ndings, such as a large-scale governmental study
(U.S. Government Accountability Oce, 2005)
and meta-analyses and systematic reviews (Aos,
Miller, & Drake, 2006; Lowenkamp, Holsinger, &
Latessa, 2005; Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacK-
enzie, 2012; Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2006).
Notwithstanding the contradictory results of a few
studies (Brown, 2010; Miethe, Lu, & Reese, 2000),
the drug court model was deemed so successful that
it has been adapted for other populations, such as
people with mental illnesses (Schneider et al., 2007)
Additionally, drug courts and other treatment
courts (e.g. mental health courts, veterans courts,
family treatment courts) have been replicated over
3,000 times and are found in all 50 states, as well
as other countries, such as Canada, Ireland, United
Kingdom, and Australia, to name a few (National
Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2019).
-
()
Drug court stakeholders collaborated with the
researchers on all aspects of this study. The drug
court judge, chief probation ocer, and drug court
Note: This research was funded by a grant from the Indiana University School of Social Work, Center for Social Health and Well-Being.
25 VOL. 1, ISSUE 2
coordinator were the main stakeholders involved in
the process, but feedback and insight was wel-
comed from the entire drug court team. Treatment
providers and prosecuting and defense attorneys,
for example, also helped with the research design.
Drug court is a criminal justice, community-based
program; therefore, it was important that the
research design and the ndings be understandable
to lay persons, those without academic or statistical
backgrounds. With that in mind, the drug court
and research teams identied the best methodology
to reach laypersons. For instance, it was decided to
use statistics that produce percentages, which are
easily understandable to laypersons.
That is just one example of the in-depth collabo-
ration between the drug court and research teams.
The collaboration also included developing the
research questions for this study, interpreting the
ndings and exploring the implications of the nd-
ings, disseminating the knowledge gained from this
study to drug court participants, the community,
and others, and working on manuscripts, such as
this one, to reach international, multidisciplinary
audiences. The purpose of this CER was to answer
the following three research questions. First, which
drug court participants are most likely to graduate?
Second, which drug court participants are most
likely to recidivate? Third, is drug court or proba-
tion more eective at reducing criminal recidivism?
The data collection for this study did not involve
human subjects; therefore, this research was
not subject to Institutional Review Board (IRB)
regulations. A graduate research assistant (GRA)
collaborated with the chief of probation and drug
court coordinator to collect the necessary data
from participant’s electronic charts.
To determine which drug court participants were
most likely to graduate, data were collected on all
participants (n = 178) who either graduated or were
terminated from drug court from 2015 to 2018. The
outcome variable was graduation. There were eight
predictor variables. 1 The predictor variables were
gender, ethnicity, education at time of admission
into drug court, employment or student at time of
admission into drug court, drug of choice, violation
within rst 30 days of drug court, mental health,
and time between arrest and admission.
To determine which drug court participants were
most likely to recidivate, data were collected on
all participants (n = 178) who either graduated
or were terminated from drug court from 2015 to
2018. There were nine predictor variables and one
outcome variable. 2 The outcome variable was re-
1 A predictor variable explains changes in the outcome variable. The outcome variable was graduation (0 = terminated, 1 = graduated).
The predictor variables were as follows: gender (0 =female, 1 = male), ethnicity (0 = non-white, 1 = white), education (0 = did not have a
high school diploma or equivalent at time of admission into drug court, 1 = had a high school diploma or equivalent at time of admission
into drug court), employment or student (0 = not employed or a student at time of admission into drug court, 1 = employed or a student
at time of admission into drug court), drug of choice (0 = heroin and other opioids, 1 = non-opioids), rst 30 days (0 = had a violation
within the rst 30 days of drug court, 1 = did not have a violation within the rst 30 days of drug court), mental health (0 = depressive
disorder, 1 = no depressive disorder), and time between arrest and admission (0 = was admitted/plead into drug court 91 days or more
following arrest, 1 = was admitted/plead into drug court 90 days or less following arrest).
2 The outcome variable was (0 = did not recidivate, 1 = recidivated). The predictor variables were as follows: gender (0 = female, 1 =
male), ethnicity (0 = non-white, 1 = white), education (0 = did not have a high school diploma or equivalent at time of admission into
drug court, 1 = had a high school diploma or equivalent at time of admission into drug court), employment or student (0 = not employed
or a student at time of admission into drug court, 1 = employed or a student at time of admission into drug court), drug of choice (0 =
heroin and other opioids, 1 = non-opioids), rst 30 days (0 = had a violation within the rst 30 days of drug court, 1 = did not have a viola-
tion within the rst 30 days of drug court), mental health (0 = depressive disorder, 1 = no depressive disorder), time between arrest and
admission (0 = was admitted/plead into drug court 91 days or more following arrest, 1 = was admitted/plead into drug court 90 days or
less following arrest), and outcome (0 = terminated, 1 = graduated).
COMMUNITY-ENGAGED
RESEARCH ARTICLES
ENGAGE! | iupui bicentennial edition 26
cidivism. The predictor variables were as follows:
gender, ethnicity, education at time of admission
into drug court, employment or student at time of
admission into drug court, drug of choice, vio-
lation within rst 30 days of drug court, mental
health, time between arrest and admission, and
graduation.
Additionally, to compare the recidivism rates
between drug court participants and probationers,
data were collected on probationers (n = 186) who
had an outcome revoked or completed from 2015
to 2018. Probationers were matched to the drug
court sample by arrest/oense type, meaning they
had an arrest/oense that was eligible for drug
court but they did probation instead. Probationers
and drug court participants were also matched
by their Indiana Risk Assessment System (IRAS)
scores; both groups had a start score of 21. The
IRAS score indicates an individual’s risk of recidi-
vating. The score also assists criminal justice pro-
fessionals in developing individualized treatment
plans and interventions to increase individuals’
protective factors (e.g. gaining and sustaining em-
ployment, abstaining from illicit drug use, having
stable housing). Recidivism data were collected
through Odyssey, an electronic system for ling
criminal cases in St. Joseph County (Indiana). Re-
cidivism was dened as any new local (St. Joseph
County, Indiana) arrest for a felony or misde-
meanor oense that resulted in charges being
led during drug court/probation and up to 36
months post drug court/probation discharge. The
denition of recidivism was provided by the drug
court and approved by the Indiana Oce of Court
Services, Problem-Solving Courts Committee, a
division of the state government that certies In-
diana problem-solving courts. The recidivism data
were collected in 2019.
The ndings are presented in reference to the
three research questions. Starting in 2013, the
drug court for this study completed a program
evaluation once every three years; therefore, the
current ndings are compared and contrasted
with the 2013 and 2016 program evaluations
(Gallagher, 2013; Gallagher, Ivory, Carlton, &
Woodward Miller, 2014; Gallagher, Wahler, &
Lefebvre, 2016; Gallagher et al., 2018).
Which drug court participants are
most likely to graduate?
Statistics were used to determine if signicant
dierences existed in graduation outcomes. The
analyses revealed that four predictor variables
were signicantly associated with graduating drug
court. First, participants who had a high school
diploma or equivalent at the time they were ad-
mitted to drug court were more likely to graduate
(60%) than participants who did not have a high
school diploma or equivalent at admission (42%)3.
Second, participants who did not have a violation
within the rst 30 days of drug court were more
likely to graduate (73%) than participants who
had a violation during this timeframe (22%)4. The
violations included in the analysis were dilute
drug screens, positive drug screens indicating
new drug use, missed treatment or court appoint-
ments, and new arrest. Third, non-White partic-
ipants were more likely to graduate (62%) than
White participants (47%)5. Fourth, participants
who were admitted/plead to drug court 91 days
or more following their arrest were more likely to
graduate (61%) than participants who were ad-
mitted/plead to drug court 90 days or less follow-
ing their arrest (46%)6.
3 (X² = 5.12, p < 0.05)
4 (X² = 46.09, p < 0.01)
5 (X² = 2.76 p < 0.10)
6 (X² = 2.93, p < 0.10)
GALLAGHER | DRUG COURT
27 VOL. 1, ISSUE 2
Other notable ndings were that women and men
graduated drug court at relatively equal rates and
there was a 10% dierence in graduation rates
between participants who identied heroin or
other opioids as their drug of choice versus those
who identied non-opioids as their drug of choice.
Specically, 55% of the women and 47% of the
men graduated drug court7. In regard to drug of
choice, 45% of the participants who identied
heroin or other opioids as their drug of choice
graduated, compared to a 55% graduation rate for
participants who identied non- opioids as their
drug of choice8. As noted in Figure 1, in the 2016
program evaluation, only 30% of participants who
identied heroin or other opioids as their drug
of choice graduated drug court; therefore, the
current graduation rate of 45% for this population
is a promising nding. Also, 91 drug court par-
ticipants (51%) identied heroin or other opioid
as their drug of choice and 87 participants (49%)
identied non-opioids as their drug of choice. For
participants who identied heroin or other opi-
oids as their drug of choice (n = 91), about 50%
(n = 45) received a medication-assisted treatment
(MAT) while in drug court. Of those who received
a MAT, 38 were prescribed naltrexone (e.g. Vivi-
trol) and seven were prescribed buprenorphine
(e.g. Suboxone). When comparing those who
received a MAT (n = 45) versus those who did
not (n = 46), the graduation rates were relatively
the same. Specically, 46% of those who did not
receive a MAT graduated drug court, compared
to a 44% graduation rate for those who received a
MAT9.
Next, Figure 2 compares drug court graduation
rates from the 2013 and 2016 program evalua-
tions to this 2019 study. As noted in the gure,
from 2013 to 2016, the graduation rate increased
by eight percent. However, from 2016 to 2019,
there was a 13% decrease in graduation rate.
The decrease in graduation rate does not require
FIGURE 1
GRADUATION RATES BASED ON DRUG OF CHOICE
COMPARING THE 2016 AND 2019 PROGRAM EVALUATIONS
Opioids
2016
Graduated
Terminated
Opioids
2019
Non-
Opioids
2016
80%
60%
40%
20%
30% 30%
45% 45%
55% 55%
70% 70%
0%
Non-
Opioids
2019
FIGURE 2
DRUG COURT GRADUATION RATES
COMPARING THE 2013, 2016, AND 2019 PROGRAM EVALUATIONS
Graduation
Rate 2013
Graduation
Rate 2016
Graduation
Rate 2019
Graduated
Terminated
70%
50%
60%
40%
30%
20%
10%
55%
63%
50% 50%
45%
37%
0%
7 (X² = 0.88, p = 0.35)
8 (X² = 1.82, p = 0.18)
9 (X² = 0.01, p = 0.91)
COMMUNITY-ENGAGED
RESEARCH ARTICLES
ENGAGE! | iupui bicentennial edition 28
urgent attention, but the rate should be moni-
tored on a yearly basis to assess the trend over
time. Nationally, the majority of drug courts have
a graduation rate between 50% and 75%, so the
St. Joseph County (Indiana) drug court is in that
range (Marlowe, Hardin, & Fox, 2016). Also,
it is important to note that a lower graduation
rate does not mean a particular drug court is less
eective. Some drug courts, for instance, with
lower graduation rates may accept participants
with high criminogenic risk factors (e.g. criminal
histories, severe substance use disorders, un-
employment, etc.) and it is expected that these
programs will have a lower graduation rate than
drug courts that only accept low risk participants.
Furthermore, the opioid epidemic has had devas-
tating consequences on individuals, families, and
communities and social service and healthcare
systems have often responded to the epidemic
retroactively, at no fault to them, the systems
simply could not predict the magnitude of the
problem. Presumably, drug courts may have also
shown a similar pattern where many programs
were unprepared for the opioid epidemic and
logically this would have a negative impact on
graduate rates.
Which drug court participants are
most likely to recidivate?
Statistics were used to determine if signicant
dierences existed in recidivism outcomes. The
analyses revealed that two variables were signi-
cantly associated with recidivism. First, and not
surprisingly, participants who were terminated
from drug court were more likely to recidivate
(52%) than graduates (21%)10. Second, non-White
participants were more likely to recidivate (49%)
than White participants (33%)11. This nding is
surprising, considering non-White participants
were more likely to graduate than White partici-
pants (62% and 47%, respectively) and graduating
drug court seems to decrease the risk of recidi-
vism. Perhaps non-White participants experience
more post-drug court risk factors (e.g. peers who
use drugs, limited recovery support system, pov-
erty, etc.) than White participants that negatively
impact their ability to sustain their recovery, but
only future research will help determine whether
this is true or not. In the 2016 program evalua-
tion, 53% of non-White participants recidivated;
therefore, there has been a four percent decrease
in the recidivism rate for this population.
Other notable ndings were that women and men
recidivated at similar rates and the recidivism rate
among the drug of choice variable was relatively
equal. Specically, 31% of the women and 40% of
the men recidivated12. In regard to drug of choice,
34% of the participants who identied heroin or
other opioids as their drug of choice recidivated,
compared to a 39% recidivism rate for partici-
pants who identied non-opioids as their drug of
choice13. As mentioned previously, for the partic-
ipants who identied heroin or other opioid as
their drug of choice (n = 91), about 50% (n = 45)
received a medication-assisted treatment (MAT)
while in drug court. When comparing those who
received a MAT (n = 45) versus those who did
not (n = 46), the recidivism rates were relatively
the same. Specically, 33% of those who did not
receive a MAT recidivated, compared to a 36% re-
cidivism rate for those who received a MAT 14. Ad-
ditionally, for the entire drug court sample, their
Indiana Risk Assessment System (IRAS) scores
decreased from 21 at the start of the program to
17 by the end of the program.
10 (X² = 17.67, p < 0.01)
11 (X² = 2.97, p < 0.10)
12 (X² = 1.20, p = 0.27)
13 (X² = 0.48, p = 0.49)
14 (X² = 0.09, p = 0.77)
GALLAGHER | DRUG COURT
29 VOL. 1, ISSUE 2
Is drug court or probation more
eective at reducing criminal
recidivism?
The recidivism rate of drug court participants was
compared to that of probationers. As noted in
Figure 3, drug court participants were less likely to
recidivate than probationers (36% and 44%, respec-
tively). This eight percent dierence in recidivism
rates highlights the eectiveness of the St. Joseph
County (Indiana) drug court. Participants of drug
court recidivate less than probationers, and this
equates to many benets to the county, such as cost
savings by having to prosecute less criminal cases,
presumably less drug use and drug-related crime in
the county, and the many benets that come from
recovery (e.g. improved quality of life, higher em-
ployment rates, healthier lifestyles, to name a few).
It is also important to highlight that, although the
graduation rate for the St. Joseph County (Indiana)
drug court decreased from 2016 to 2019 (please
see Figure 1), the recidivism rates from 2016 to
2019 stayed relatively the same (34% and 36%,
respectively), suggesting that even those who were
terminated from drug court beneted from the pro-
gram, in regard to reducing the risk of recidivating.
Additionally, when comparing the 2013 ndings for
drug court to the current ndings, there has been
an 11% decrease in recidivism in the past six years.
Specically, in 2013, the recidivism rate was 47%
and in 2019, the recidivism rate is 36%.
Findings from this CER suggest that the St. Joseph
County (Indiana) drug court is an eective program
at reducing criminal recidivism and a valuable
resource for individuals who have substance use
disorders, the community, and other stakeholders.
Drug court participants were less likely to recidivate
than probationers, and this nding is consistent
with meta-analytic reviews of drug courts' impact
on recidivism (Mitchell et al., 2012; Shaer, 2011)
and results from evaluations of single drug courts
(Brown, 2011). In this study specically, only 36%
of drug court participants recidivated, whereas the
recidivism rate for probationers was 44%. This
eight percent dierence in recidivism rates high-
lights the eectiveness of the drug court, and a low-
er recidivism rate equates to many benets to St.
FIGURE 3
DRUG COURT AND PROBATION RECIDIVISM RATES
COMPARING THE 2013, 2016, AND 2019 PROGRAM EVALUATIONS
Drug
Court
2013
Drug
Court
2016
Drug
Court
2019
Did not recidivate
Recidivated
Probation
2013
Probation
2016
Probation
2019
80%
60%
40%
20%
53%
69% 66% 64%
56%
44%
34% 36%
44%
56%
47%
31%
0%
COMMUNITY-ENGAGED
RESEARCH ARTICLES
ENGAGE! | iupui bicentennial edition 30
Joseph County (Indiana), such as cost savings by
having to prosecute less criminal cases, presumably
less drug use and drug-related crime in the county,
and the many benets that come from recovery
(e.g. improved quality of life, higher employment
rates, healthier lifestyles, to name a few).
Recovery Coaches, Future CER,
and the First 30 Days in Drug Court
Participants who have a violation within the rst
30 days of drug court are consistently less likely to
graduate than their counterparts who do not have a
violation during this timeframe. This nding is true
for the 2013 and 2016 program evaluations (Gal-
lagher, 2013, Gallagher et al., 2016) and for this
2019 study, suggesting that the rst month of the
program is a critical time in determining whether a
participant will complete the program or not. The
drug court currently has recovery coaches, an inter-
vention they did not have during the 2013 and 2016
program evaluations. As a result, it is recommend-
ed that high-risk participants (based on IRAS scores
and other assessment tools) be provided with a
recovery coach immediately upon admission to the
program. Recovery coaches can connect high-risk
participants to the community by assisting them
in accessing recovery support groups, providing
transportation to and from treatment, helping them
apply for, gain, and sustain employment, and en-
courage other protective factors that may decrease
the risk of having a violation within the rst 30 days
of the program. Additionally, future research is
needed in this area to assess the specic challenges
that some participants face in the rst month of
the program. It is recommended that for the 2022
program evaluation, qualitative research methods
be used, such as focus groups or individual inter-
views, to learn participants’ thoughts, opinions,
and experiences related to the rst month of drug
court. Drug court participants are key stakeholders
in CER and they may provide a behind-the-scenes
perspective on the program that cannot be captured
quantitatively.
MAT and Community-Based
Recovery Support Groups
In light of a national opioid epidemic, it is prom-
ising that 45% of the participants who identied
heroin or other opioids as their drug of choice
graduated. In comparison, in the 2016 program
evaluation, only 30% of participants who identi-
ed heroin or other opioids as their drug of choice
graduated (Gallagher et al., 2018). Furthermore,
of the drug court participants who identied her-
oin or other opioid as their drug of choice, about
half received a MAT while in the program, most
commonly naltrexone (e.g. Vivitrol) followed by
buprenorphine (e.g. Suboxone).
Despite evidence that MAT is an eective approach
in treating opioid use disorders (National Institute
on Drug Abuse, 2016), research has suggested that
some drug courts may underutilize or not allow
participants to take MAT, sometimes because
stakeholders had negative views toward MAT
and did not consider MAT to be consistent with
their abstinence-based philosophy of treatment
(Friedmann et al., 2012; Matusow et al., 2013).
The ndings from this study, however, highlight
that the St. Joseph County (Indiana) drug court
is prepared to best treat opioid use disorders, and
one of the strategies they have used is collaborating
with community partners. For instance, the drug
court team received training on MAT in order to
accurately and eectively incorporate the inter-
vention into their programming, they invited an
addictionologist and medical social worker who
specializes in MAT to join the drug court team, they
had researchers facilitate focus groups with partic-
ipants who have opioid use disorders to learn their
experiences in the program (Gallagher, Marlowe, &
Minasian, 2019a), and they referred participants to
treatment providers who have expertise in treating
heroin and other opioids.
It is common for drug courts to encourage, or
require, their participants to attend communi-
ty-based recovery support groups, such as Alcohol-
GALLAGHER | DRUG COURT
31 VOL. 1, ISSUE 2
ics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous
(NA). This community support can be helpful to
some, but recent qualitative research has suggested
that some NA meetings may not be welcoming to
individuals who receive MAT, and even worse, some
participants reported being stigmatized and judged
for using MAT (Gallagher et al., 2019a). Actually,
a recent report from Narcotics Anonymous World
Services, Inc. (2016) acknowledged that some NA
meetings may be less welcoming to individuals
receiving MAT and individuals receiving MAT may
not be allowed to fully engage in the NA process.
Therefore, drug courts must be selective in deciding
which community-based recovery support groups
they refer their participants to. If groups that are
welcoming of MAT are not available in the local
community, then drug courts should collaborate
with community partners to develop their own re-
covery support groups to create a non-judgmental,
compassionate, and stigma-free environment that
promotes well-being and recovery.
Increasing the Representation of
Racial and Ethnic Minorities in
Drug Court
Since 2013, the drug court has experienced a
signicant decrease of racial and ethnic minority
(non-White) participants in the program. Based
on the demographics of St. Joseph County (Indi-
ana), the primary populations that seem to not be
equally represented in the drug court are African
Americans, followed by Hispanics. In 2013, 49%
of the participants were non-White. However,
this number decreased to 35% in the 2016 pro-
gram evaluation and 21% in this 2019 study. It
is recommended that the drug court increase the
number of non-White participants in the program.
Doing so may improve outcomes for African
Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities.
For instance, in 2013, when nearly half of the drug
court was non-White participants, there were no
racial disparities in outcomes, meaning White and
non-White participants had similar graduation
and recidivism rates. However, in 2016 and in
this study, non-White participants did not seem to
be equally represented in drug court and they were
more likely to recidivate than White participants.
It is important to note that understanding why ra-
cial disparities exist in some drug courts is a com-
plex phenomenon that requires a comprehensive
solution. At this point, the recommendation is to
increase the number of non-White participants in
drug court. To do that, there are two suggestions.
First, drug court stakeholders should market the
program to defense attorneys, particularly the
attorneys who commonly represent non-White
participants. This marketing may increase the
number of referrals the drug court receives from
non-White participants. Second, the drug court
should review their eligibility criteria to determine
whether any criterion may inadvertently exclude
non-White participants. According to Gallagher
(2019b), criteria that seem to commonly exclude
some non-White participants are having prior
felony convictions, suspected gang involvement,
ability to pay program fees (e.g. treatment, drug
tests), perceived level of motivation for change,
or perhaps denying someone drug court because
they had previously participated in the program.
Disseminating Drug Court
Knowledge to the Community
An essential component of CER is to disseminate
the knowledge gained from studies to the com-
munity. From an academic standpoint, the norm
in disseminating research ndings is to publish
articles in peer-reviewed journals and do presenta-
tions at national conference. These methods, how-
ever, are not practical in educating communities.
The knowledge gained from the CER of the St. Jo-
seph County (Indiana) drug court was successfully
shared with the community in three ways. First,
the researcher for the drug court facilitated multi-
ple professional trainings and free public presenta-
tions to educate a range of people the role of drug
court in their community. Additionally, a local
COMMUNITY-ENGAGED
RESEARCH ARTICLES
ENGAGE! | iupui bicentennial edition 32
university organized a community forum on the
opioid epidemic and four drug court stakeholders
were invited to be part of the panel presentation,
including the drug court judge, researcher, social
worker, and prosecutor. This was an opportunity
to highlight how drug courts can be an eective
approach in addressing the opioid epidemic.
Second, graduate students who were specializing in
addiction and mental health treatment completed
internships at drug court to assist with the CER and
to provide them with an opportunity to observe
drug court programming. Also, some undergrad-
uate and graduate social work students completed
service-learning projects in drug court, such as
having students observe a traditional court hearing
and drug court session and compare and contrast
the experiences (Gallagher, 2015). These types of
education (e.g. internships, service-learning) are im-
portant because students will graduate and practice
in our communities, and they will now be able to
share their knowledge on drug courts with others.
Third, the local news has supported drug court.
ABC 57 news in South Bend, IN aired a story on
how St. Joseph County (Indiana) has been a model
in addressing the opioid epidemic, and one inter-
vention discussed in the story was how the drug
court was successfully using MAT to help those
who have opioid use disorders (ABC 57 News,
2019). Additionally, WSBT news in Mishawka, IN
aired a similar story where the drug court judge
and researcher discussed how the drug court used
science and evidence-based interventions, such
as MAT, to support participants in their process
of healing and recovery (WSBT News, 2019).
Recently, the researcher for the drug court was
interviewed by the inSocialWork podcast series
where he completed a two-part podcast. In the
rst podcast, he discussed key components of the
drug court model and highlighted research demon-
strating their eectiveness (Gallagher, 2019c). In
the second podcast, he shared his research nd-
ings related to the factors that may contribute to
racial disparities in drug court graduation rates
and articulated best practices in working with
African American drug court participants (Galla-
gher, 2020). Local news stories and podcasts are,
perhaps, the most ecient and eective method
in disseminating knowledge to comminuties in
an easily accessible and clear manner, without
professional jargon. Plus, the information can be
accessed on television, websites, and social media,
which surely increases the number of community
members who are learning about drug court.
Limitations and Suggestions for
Future Research
This CER has several limitations, and it is recom-
mended that future research address these limita-
tions to continue adding to the knowledge base on
the role of drug courts in communities. In this study,
recidivism was only measured in St. Joseph County
(Indiana). Therefore, if an individual recidivated in
another county or state, that information was not
captured. When available, recidivism data should
be tracked statewide or even nationally, if possible.
Next, the probation group was matched to the drug
court group by two criteria, arrest/oense type and
IRAS score. Probationers had an arrest/oense that
was eligible for drug court but they did probation
instead and both groups had a starting IRAS score
of 21. These two criteria are important in match-
ing the two groups, especially IRAS scores because
criminogenic risk factors are consistently predictors
of criminal justice outcomes (e.g. recidivism). Future
research should enhance the matching process by
also matching key demographics, such as gender,
ethnicity, age, and criminal history (Brown, 2011).
Last, to further promote community engagement,
future research should use qualitative methods to
explore community members’ thoughts and opinions
on the role of drug court in their community. Focus
groups, for example, would be an eective method
to assess community perception and understanding
of drug court, and those ndings could be compared
and contrasted with drug court participants’ expe-
riences in the program and stakeholders’ views on
drug courts impact on the community.
GALLAGHER | DRUG COURT
33 VOL. 1, ISSUE 2
References
ABC 57 News. (2019, February).
New article outlines St. Joseph
County as model for ghting
opioid epidemic [News broad-
cast]. In Local News. South Bend,
IN: ABC 57 News. Available to
view at:https://abc57.com/
news/new-article-outlines-st-jo-
seph-county-as-model-for-ght-
ing-opioid-epidemic
Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E.
(2006). Evidence-based public
policy options to reduce future
prison construction, criminal
justice costs, and crime rates.
Federal Sentencing Reporter, 19,
275-290.
Brown, R. T. (2010). Systematic
review of the impact of adult
drug-treatment courts. Transla-
tional Research, 155, 263–274.
Brown, R. (2011). Drug court
eectiveness: A matched cohort
study in the Dane County drug
treatment court. Journal of Of-
fender Rehabilitation, 50, 191-201.
Friedmann, P. D., Hoskinson, R.,
Jr., Gordon, M., Schwartz, R.,
Kinlock, T., Knight, K., . . . Frisman,
L. K. (2012). Medication-assist-
ed treatment in criminal justice
agencies aliated with the Crimi-
nal Justice-Drug Abuse Treatment
Studies (CJ-DATS): Availability,
barriers, and intentions. Sub-
stance Abuse, 33, 9–18.
Gallagher, J. R. (2013). Program
evaluation of the St. Joseph Coun-
ty (South Bend), Indiana drug
court. South Bend, IN: Indiana
University South Bend, School of
Social Work.
Gallagher, J. R., Ivory, E., Carlton,
J., & Woodward Miller, J. (2014).
The impact of an Indiana (United
States) drug court on criminal
recidivism. Advances in Social
Work, 15, 507-521.
Gallagher, J. R. (2015). Promoting
drug court education in schools of
social work: Ideas in action. Social
Work Education: The International
Journal, 34, 428-436.
Gallagher, J. R., Wahler, E. A., &
Lefebvre, E. R. (2016). Program
evaluation of the St. Joseph Coun-
ty (Indiana) drug court. South
Bend, IN: Indiana University South
Bend, School of Social Work.
Gallagher, J. R., Wahler, E. A.,
Lefebvre, E., Paiano, T., Carlton,
J., & Woodward Miller, J. (2018).
Improving graduation rates in
drug court through employment
and schooling opportunities and
medication-assisted treatment
(MAT). Journal of Social Service
Research, 44, 343-349.
Gallagher, J. R., Marlowe, D. B., &
Minasian, R. M. (2019a). Partic-
ipant perspectives on medica-
tion-assisted treatment for opioid
use disorders in drug court.
Journal for Advancing Justice, 2,
39-54.
Gallagher, J. R. (2019b). Issue
brief: Racial and ethnic disparities
(RED) in treatment courts. Wash-
ington, DC: American University,
Justice Programs Oce, School
of Public Aairs.
Gallagher, J. R. (2019c, Decem-
ber). Episode 276 – Dr. John Gal-
lagher: It’s all about relationships:
Drug courts – what are they and
how do they work? (part 1 of 2)
[Audio podcast]. In inSocialWork
Podcast Series. Bualo, NY: Uni-
versity at Bualo School of Social
Work. Available to view at: https://
www.insocialwork.org/episode.
asp?ep=276
Gallagher, J. R. (2020, January).
Episode 278 – Dr. John Gallagher:
It’s all about relationships: Drug
courts – what are they and how
do they work? (part 2 of 2) [Audio
podcast]. In inSocialWork Podcast
Series. Bualo, NY: University at
Bualo School of Social Work.
Available to view at: https://
www.insocialwork.org/episode.
asp?ep=278
Goldkamp, J. S. (1994). Miami's
treatment drug court for felony
defendants: Some implications of
assessment ndings. The Prison
Journal, 74, 110-166.
Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M.,
& Latessa, E. J. (2005). Are drug
courts eective? A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Community
Corrections, 15, 5–28.
Marlowe, D. B., Hardin, C. D., &
Fox, C. L. (2016, June). Painting
the current picture: Anational
report on drug courts and other
problem-solving courts in the
United States. Alexandria, VA:
National Drug Court Institute.
Matusow, H., Dickman, S. L., Rich,
J. D., Fong, C., Dumont, D. M., Har-
din, C., . . . Rosenblum, A. (2013).
Medication assisted treatment in
US drug courts: Results from a
nationwide survey of availability,
barriers and attitudes. Journal of
Substance Abuse Treatment, 44,
473–480.
Miethe, T. D., Lu, H., & Reese, E.
(2000). Reintegrative shaming
and recidivism risks in drug court:
Explanations for some unexpect-
ed ndings. Crime & Delinquency,
46, 522-541.
Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers,
A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2012).
Assessing the eectiveness of
drug courts on recidivism: A me-
ta-analytic review of traditional
and non-traditional drug courts.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 40,
60-71.
Narcotics Anonymous World
Services, Inc. (2016). Narcotics
Anonymous and persons receiving
medication-assisted treatment.
Chatsworth, CA: Author.
National Association of Drug
Court Professionals. (2019). Jus-
tice for all. Retrieved from https://
www.nadcp.org
National Institute on Drug Abuse.
(2016). Eective treatments for
opioid addiction. Rockville, MD:
Author.
Nolan, J. L. (2001). Reinventing
justice: The American drug court
movement. Princeton, NJ: Prince-
ton University Press.
Schneider, R. D., Bloom, H., &
Hereema, M. (2007). Mental
health courts: Decriminalizing
the mentally ill. Toronto, Canada:
Irwin Law.
Shaer, D. K. (2011). Looking in-
side the black box of drug courts:
A meta-analytic review. Justice
Quarterly, 28, 493-521.
Slinger, E., & Roesch, R. (2010).
Problem-solving courts in Cana-
da: A review and a call for empir-
ically-based evaluation methods.
International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry, 33, 258-264.
U.S. Government Accountability
Oce. (2005). Adult drug courts:
Evidence indicates recidivism
reductions and mixed results for
other outcomes (No. GAO-05-
219). Washington, DC: Author.
Wexler, D. B., & Winick, B. J.
(1996). Law in a therapeutic key:
Developments in therapeutic juris-
prudence. Durham, NC: Carolina
Academic Press.
Wilson, D. B., Mitchell, O., & MacK-
enzie, D. L. (2006). A systematic
review of drug court eects on
recidivism. Journal of Experimen-
tal Criminology, 2, 459-487.
WSBT News. (2019, February).
Work in St. Joseph County to ght
opioid epidemic getting interna-
tional coverage [News broadcast].
In Local News. Mishawaka, IN:
WSBT News. Available to view
at: https://wsbt.com/news/
local/work-in-st-joseph-coun-
ty-to-ght-opioid-epidemic-get-
ting-international-coverage
COMMUNITY-ENGAGED
RESEARCH ARTICLES
ENGAGE! | iupui bicentennial edition 34
