John R. Gallagher’s research while affiliated with George Mason University and other places

Disparities in treatment court outcomes, and how the majority of treatment courts are struggling to monitor and react to important indicators of racial disparities in their programs

Forensic social work is any practice context involving human interactions with legal systems and phenomena associated with criminal or civil law. This book provides an intermediate exploration of the profession from these angles and offers multiple examples of various forensic social work practice fields. The book is divided into sections focused on theory, policy, and practice and designed for utilization by emerging social workers and those with more extensive experience in the field. Throughout the text, experts from across the profession make significant contributions by explaining the function and practice of social work in forensic settings and identifying and providing information about the nuanced experiences of forensic social workers and the people they serve.

Forensic social work is any practice context involving human interactions with legal systems and phenomena associated with criminal or civil law. This book provides an intermediate exploration of the profession from these angles and offers multiple examples of various forensic social work practice fields. The book is divided into sections focused on theory, policy, and practice and designed for utilization by emerging social workers and those with more extensive experience in the field. Throughout the text, experts from across the profession make significant contributions by explaining the function and practice of social work in forensic settings and identifying and providing information about the nuanced experiences of forensic social workers and the people they serve.

Treatment courts have been part of the criminal justice system for nearly three-and-a-half decades. The first treatment court, an adult drug court, began in 1989 in Florida, and due to the success of drug courts in reducing criminal recidivism rates, the intervention has evolved to address other problems and populations, such as veterans treatment courts (VTCs) and family treatment courts (FTCs). Treatment courts have been credited with promoting criminal justice reform, as they offer a rehabilitative approach to justice, as compared to historical punitive models. Research, however, has consistently shown that racial and ethnic minorities have lower completion rates in some treatment courts than their white counterparts. This study is the first statewide evaluation to use the Racial and Ethnic Disparities (RED) Program Assessment Tool to assess for racial and ethnic disparities in programming across several types of treatment courts (n = 30). Results showed that 64.9% of white participants completed treatment court, whereas all other races had completion rates less than 30.0%. Implications for treatment court practice are discussed in reference to staff training, the quality of treatment participants receive for substance use and mental health disorders, future research, and other key components of the treatment court model.

This qualitative study explores three important and understudied areas of drug court research (e.g., women, opioid use disorder, and medication-assisted treatment [MAT]). The research question for this study is: What are women’s thoughts, opinions, and experiences in drug court, in regard to the quality of treatment they received for their opioid use disorders and to the use of MAT in drug court programming to treat opioid use disorders? To answer the research question, data from female drug court participants (n = 14) were collected through a focus group methodology. Four themes emerged from the analysis: 1) Women had more positive views toward the use of extended-release injectable naltrexone, as compared to methadone and buprenorphine; 2) Women reported fears about using MAT to treat their opioid use disorders because they felt it could negatively impact their housing, where they were able to receive substance use disorder and mental health treatment, and their ability to maintain custody of their children; 3) Women reported histories of oppression, mainly trauma, and shared that, in some situations, they were not comfortable disclosing they were using or considering using MAT because of further oppressions they may experience; and 4) Women reported that the use of a non-adversarial approach by the judge, consistent with key component two of the drug court model, helped minimize their concerns related to the use of MAT and gave them a safe place during status hearings to discuss their opioid use disorder treatment and recovery. Implications for drug court practice and criminal justice reform are discussed, such as promoting access to housing and treatment for women who use MAT to treat their opioid use disorders and creating safe, anti-oppressive environments to promote recovery for female participants.

Drug courts have been part of the criminal justice system for over 30 years. A plethora of quantitative quasi-experimental, experimental, and meta-analytic studies have demonstrated their effectiveness at promoting recovery from substance use disorders and reducing criminal recidivism. Qualitative studies, however, are less common and little is known about specific populations that drug courts serve, such as women. To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative interpretive meta-synthesis (QIMS) of women’s experiences in drug court (n = 79). The QIMS resulted in four new, overarching themes related to (1) receiving praise, compassion and encouragement from the judge and counseling staff; (2) promotion of parenting skills and improvement of mother-child relationships; (3) receiving gender-specific services addressing co-occurring mental health and trauma issues; and (4) continuous performance monitoring, including drug testing, which held participants accountable for their conduct while promoting gradual development of intrinsic motivation for change. Implications for drug court practice and future research are discussed.

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.