Preeti Menon’s research while affiliated with American University and other places

Racial disparities in treatment courts

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.

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.