Raychel M. Minasian’s research while affiliated with Indiana University South Bend and other places

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 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.

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.

Drug courts began in 1989 in Miami-Dade County, FL. Due to their success in treating substance use disorders and reducing criminal recidivism, they have expanded globally and are currently operating in countries such as Australia, Canada, and Scotland, to name a few. Drug courts can be a key intervention in addressing the opioid epidemic. This is the first known qualitative study to ask drug court participants (n = 38) who have opioid use disorders questions related to their lived experiences in drug court, as well as direct questions related to the use of medication-assisted treatments (MATs) in drug court. Overall, drug court participants felt that MATs were helpful for treating their opioid use disorders; however, some participants reported using other drugs while on MATs and they viewed their recovery through a harm reduction lens. Additionally, participants emphasized the importance of using MATs in combination with counseling that used cognitive and behavioral therapies. Implications for drug court practice and future research are discussed.

Drug courts began in the United States in 1989, and nearly three decades of evidence has shown that drug courts are more effective than other criminal justice interventions at reducing criminal recidivism. There has, however, been a trend in some drug courts where African Americans are less likely to graduate than their White counterparts, which is concerning because evidence has also shown that graduating the program reduces the odds of recidivating. Little is known about African Americans’ experiences in drug court, and this is the first known qualitative study to ask African American women (N = 8) about the most helpful aspects of drug court that support them in graduating and how the drug court could be more helpful in supporting them to graduate. The women felt that the drug court judge was their advocate and understood the unique challenges they faced with balancing the demands of drug court with motherhood. Conversely, the women felt that they were not receiving effective, gender-responsive treatment for their substance use disorders, which was a barrier to them graduating drug court. The findings are discussed in reference to drug court practice and future research.