Improving Graduation Rates in Drug Court: A Qualitative Study of Participants' Lived Experiences

Background and Purpose:  For nearly three decades, drug courts have provided a rehabilitative approach within the criminal justice system for individuals who have a substance use disorder.  The goal of drug courts is to reduce criminal recidivism, and research has consistently suggested that participants that graduate drug court are less likely to recidivate than those who are terminated from the program.  This evidence, however, has been found mainly through quantitative methods.  Therefore, the benefits of qualitative research are not fully seen in the literature.  This qualitative study adds to the literature by asking drug court participants (n = 42) their views on the program.  Specifically, the research question was: How do drug court participants view the program, in regards to the most helpful aspects that support them in graduating and how the program could be more helpful in supporting them in graduating?

Methods:  Participants answered the following two open-ended questions on a survey.  First, could you please describe what aspects of drug court are most helpful to you in supporting you in graduating the program?  Second, could you please describe how drug court could be more helpful to you in supporting you in graduating the program?  Narrative analysis was an effective approach to answer the research question for this study, as the goal was to capture the behind-the-scenes aspects of participants and their role in drug court.  The data analysis was also guided by phenomenology.  Phenomenology is recommended when you have a research sample with similar characteristics, such as being a member of drug court, and when research questions can be answered best through participants’ sharing of their own personal lived-experiences.  Several strategies were used to increase the rigor and validity of the qualitative findings, including observer triangulation, interdisciplinary triangulation, peer debriefing, and negative case analysis.  NVivo 10 was used for the analysis. 

Findings:  Three themes emerged from the data.  First, participants felt that interventions that are common to drug courts, such as drug testing and having frequent contact with the judge, were most helpful in supporting them in graduating the program.  Second, participants felt that the agencies that offered treatment for their substance use disorders used punitive tactics and judgmental approaches that compromised the quality of treatment they received.  Third, participants felt that a barrier to graduating the program was that the drug court did not adequately assess for and treat their mental health diagnoses, such as depression and anxiety.  

Conclusion and Implications:  From a practice standpoint, assuring that drug courts are referring their participants to treatment providers who are utilizing evidence-based interventions in the treatment of substance use disorders may improve graduation rates.  Additionally, future qualitative research is suggested to develop an in-depth understanding of how treatment services are provided to participants.  Evaluating the quality of substance abuse treatment, perhaps through direct observations, may provide additional insight into whether or not participants are receiving evidence-based interventions and are being appropriately assessed for mental illnesses.