Jane Woodward Miller’s research while affiliated with Indiana University South Bend and other places

Drug courts are an alternative to incarceration for individuals who have substance use disorders and have been arrested for drug-related crimes (e.g. possession of a controlled substance). The first 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 effective at reducing criminal recidivism. Furthermore, although drug courts are found in many communities, research rarely describes the process used to develop and implement CER. Therefore, this article also highlights the collaborative process used in this drug court evaluation. The findings from this study suggest that the St. Joseph County (Indiana) drug court is an effective 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 benefits to the community. The article concludes with community-based implications, such as starting recovery support groups that are welcoming to individuals who receive medication-assisted treatment (MAT), marketing drug court to racial and ethnic minorities to increase their representation in drug court, and disseminating research findings throughout the community via local news stories and public lectures.

In this perspective article, the authors share our knowledge, expertise, and experiences in responding to the opioid epidemic in St. Joseph County (Indiana). The authors discuss five interventions we have used in the county to minimize the devastating effects of the opioid epidemic. Their hope is that the knowledge gained from this article will be transferred to other states and counties to further promote recovery and well-being for individuals who have opioid use disorders. The authors recommend that naltrexone (injectable extended-release) be offered in county jails, drug courts incorporate medication-assisted treatments (MATs) into their programming, recovery coaches be used in emergency rooms, harm-reduction recovery groups be accessible to individuals, and naloxone be readily available to communities. We also propose paradigm shifts in how some professionals approach treatment and conceptualize recovery. The authors challenge the agency-driven dichotomy of being either a harm-reduction or an abstinence-based program. Recovery is best understood on a spectrum and should be defined by the individuals we serve, not the projection of professional values or agency agendas of what they think ones recovery should look like.

Drug courts have been a key part of the criminal justice system since 1989, and this study contributes to the existing body of research by identifying which participants (n = 248) were most likely to graduate from a drug court in Indiana (United States). Three variables emerged as significant predictors of graduation. First, participants who were employed or were students at the time of admission were nearly 2.5 times more likely to graduate than participants who were not. Second, participants who were using opiates as their primary drug of choice were over 80% less likely to graduate than participants who were using non-opiates as their primary drug of choice. Third, participants who had violations in the first 30 days of the program were nearly 50% less likely to graduate than participants who did not violate in the first 30 days. Offering medication-assisted treatment (MAT), such as methadone, Suboxone, or Vivitrol, to participants who have an opiate use disorder may improve graduation rates for this population. Additionally, graduation rates may also improve by offering more resources to assist participants in gaining and maintaining employment or schooling, and this seems to be especially important within the first month of the program.

Drug courts have been used in the criminal justice system to treat substance use disorders since 1989. This study evaluates a drug court in Indiana, focusing specifically on the most predictive variables for being terminated from the program and comparing recidivism patterns of drug court and probation participants. Participants were most likely to be terminated from drug court if they did not have a high school diploma or equivalent at admission, were not employed or a student at admission, identified cocaine as a drug of choice, had more positive drug tests, had a violation within the first 30 days of the program, and had a criminal history. Additional findings suggest that drug court is more effective than probation at reducing criminal recidivism rates for offenders with substance use disorders. Implications for drug court practice and future research are discussed.