Since the inception of drug court in the late 1980s, it has become a widely used alternative to incarcerating drug offenders. Previous research has detailed the effectiveness of programming on recidivism, participants’ perceptions of the service delivery model, and cost-effectiveness. The scholarship related to drug offender motivations to participate in drug court has largely discussed family obligations and the sense of loss stemming from drug abuse, and only two studies have discussed the fear of prison as a primary motivator. This research utilized semi-structured interviews with former drug court participants from a rural county in California to ascertain their motivation for engaging in drug court (N = 29). The results show 79% of participants were trying to avoid prison or jail, while 62% were motivated to end the cycle of drug abuse in their lives. The conclusion has policy implications for future drug court design; however, additional research is needed.
BelenkoS. (1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review, 1, 1-27.
2.
BelenkoS. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review: 2001 update. New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
3.
BurnsS. L.PeyrotM. (2003). Tough love: Nurturing and coercing responsibility and recovery in California drug courts. Social Problems, 50, 416-438.
4.
CannavoJ.NochajskiT. H. (2011). Factors contributing to enrollment in a family treatment court. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 27, 54-61.
5.
CareyS. M.MackinJ. R.FinniganM. W. (2006). What works? The ten key components of drug court: Research-based best practices. Drug Court Review, 3, 6-42.
6.
CosdenM.BaschJ. E.CamposE.GreenwellA.BarazaniS.WalkerS. (2006). Effects of motivation and problem severity on court-based drug treatment. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 599-618.
7.
DeschenesE. P.TurnerS.GreenwoodP. W. (1995). Drug court or probation? An experimental evaluation of Maricopa County’s Drug Court. Justice System Journal, 18, 55-73.
8.
EmersonR. M. (1983). Holistic effects in social control decision-making. Law & Society Review, 17, 425-455.
9.
EvansE.JaffeA.UradaD.AnglinD. M. (2012). Differential outcomes of court-supervised substance abuse treatment among California parolees and probationers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 539-556.
10.
FaroleD. J.CissnerA. B. (2005). Seeing eye to eye? Participant and staff perspectives on drug court. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
11.
FischerM.GeigerB.HughesM. E. (2007). Female recidivists speak about their experience in drug court while engaging in appreciative inquiry. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 703-722.
12.
FulkersonA. (2009). The drug treatment court as a form of restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 12, 253-267.
13.
FulkersonA.KeenaL. D.O’BrienE. (2012). Understanding success and nonsuccess in the drug court. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 20, 1-20.
14.
GoldkampJ. S.WhiteM. D.RobinsonJ. B. (2002). An honest chance: Perspectives on drug courts. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 6, 369-372.
15.
GottfredsonD. C.KearleyB.NajakaS. S.RochaC. M. (2005). The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: 3-year outcome study. Evaluation Review, 29, 42-64.
16.
GottfredsonD. C.NajakaS. S.KearleyB. (2003). Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial. Criminology & Public Policy, 2, 171-196.
17.
GreenB. L.RockhillA.FurrerC. J. (2007). Does substance abuse treatment make a difference for child welfare case outcomes?Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 460-473.
18.
GreigJ. (2013). New report says non-violent criminals are clogging Illinois prisons. Chicago, IL: Medill Reports, Northwestern University.
19.
HoraP. F.SchmaW. G.RosenthalJ. T. A. (1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system’s response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review, 74, 439-538.
20.
HuddlestonW.MarloweD. B. (2011). Painting the current picture: A national report on drug courts and other problem-solving court programs in the United States. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.
21.
HuddlestonW.MarloweD. B.CaseboltR. (2008). Painting the current picture: A national report card on drug courts and other problem-solving court programs in the United States. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, National Drug Court Institute.
22.
JoeG. W.ChastainR. L.MarshK. L.SimpsonD. D. (1990). Opioid addiction and treatment: A 12-year follow-up. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
23.
JudgeM. (1997). Critical issues for defenders in the design and operation of a drug court. Washington, D.C.: National Legal Aid & Defender Association, Indigent Defense.
24.
KeenaL. D.FulkersonA.GriepM. (2007). Volunteers in a drug treatment court restorative justice program. International Journal of Restorative Justice, 3, 21-39.
25.
LindquistC. H.KrebsC. P.WarnerT. D.LattimoreP. K. (2009). An exploration of treatment and supervision intensity among drug court and non-drug court participants. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 167-193.
ListwanS. J.SundtJ. L.HolsingerA. M.LatessaE. J. (2003). The effect of drug court programming on recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 389-411.
28.
MillerN. S.FlahertyJ. A. (2000). Effectiveness of coerced addiction treatment (alternative consequences): A review of the clinical research. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18, 9-16.
29.
MisczynskiD. (2012). Corrections realignment: One year later. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
30.
MitchellO.WilsonD. B.EggersA.MacKenzieD. L. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 60-71.
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (2010). Behind bars II: Substance abuse and America’s prison population. New York, NY: Columbia University.
33.
NolanJ. L. (2001). Reinventing justice: The American drug court movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1, 261-283.
35.
RempelM.Fox-KralsteinD.CissnerA.CohenR.LabriolaM.FaroleD.. . . MagnaniM. (2003). The New York State adult drug court evaluation: Policies, participants, and impacts. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
36.
RobertsJ. C.WolferL. (2011). Female drug offenders reflect on their experiences with a county drug court program. Qualitative Report, 16, 84-102.
37.
RomanJ.TownsendW.BhatiA. S. (2003). Recidivism rates for drug court graduates: Nationally based estimates. Washington, DC: Caliber Associates, The Urban Institute.
38.
SanfordJ. S.ArrigoB. A. (2005). Lifting the cover on drug courts: Evaluation findings and policy concerns. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 239-259.
ShafferD. K. (2011). Looking inside the black box of drug courts: A meta-analytic review. Justice Quarterly, 28, 493-521.
41.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Drug courts: Overview of growth, characteristics, and results. Washington, DC: Author.
42.
VandermauseR.SevertsenB.RollJ. (2012). Re-creating a vision of motherhood: Therapeutic Drug Court and the narrative. Qualitative Social Work, 12, 620-636.
43.
WilsonD. B.MitchellO.MacKenzieD. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459-487.
44.
WolferL. (2006). Graduates speak: A qualitative exploration of drug court graduates’ views of the strengths and weaknesses of the program. Contemporary Drug Problems, 33, 303-320.
45.
WorcelS. D.FurrerC. J.GreenB. L.BurrusS. W. M.FiniganM. W. (2008). Effects of family treatment drug courts on substance abuse and child welfare outcomes. Child Abuse Review, 17, 427-443.
