|
Executive Summary
Introduction
From 1997 to 1999, the Crime and Justice Research Institute conducted
focus groups with drug court participants in six American drug courts1
to solicit the views of individuals who are involved in the drug court
process. The objective was to test some of the assumptions that have been
made about drug court participants in the design and operation of drug
courts—assumptions concerning the role of the courtroom, the drug
court judge, drug testing, and the use of sanctions, particularly jail
and treatment services. The focus group approach was a way of providing
more immediate, personal feedback than might otherwise occur and placing
evaluation research in the context of the experiences and impressions
of the most important participants in the drug courts.
The six adult drug courts were selected to represent diversity of approach,
location, and drug court population. In each site court staff volunteered
enthusiastically and went to great lengths to facilitate the focus groups,
finding space and helping to enlist volunteers. Planners hoped to limit
the number of participants and the duration of the focus groups; in each
jurisdiction, at least two focus groups ranging from 8 to 22 participants
and lasting no more than 2 hours were conducted. (The larger groups were
an accommodation of unanticipated enthusiasm on the part of drug court
participants who wished to volunteer.) Each site visit also included interviews
with drug court officials and administrators and observations of the drug
courts in session. The rooms in which the focus groups were conducted
ranged from treatment program meeting rooms to courtrooms and jury rooms.
Each participant was offered an honorarium of $25, paid at the end of
the session, although some declined. Payment was discussed with the cooperating
court in advance to address any concerns.
Each focus group began with an explanation of the group’s purpose
and an introduction of the session facilitators, who made it clear that
they were researchers who did not represent any of the agencies involved
in the drug court and were seeking helpful information from participant
views of their experiences. Participants were told that the session was
being recorded, but their identities would remain confidential and neither
whether they participated nor the content of what they said would in any
way affect their status in the drug court program. Each signed a written
summary of these understandings before the focus group proceeded.
The focus groups included diverse participants with different racial
and ethnic backgrounds, types of drug problems and histories, criminal
histories, and status in the drug court program. Planners were concerned
that the groups might disproportionately include each court’s most
successful participants, but the groups, in fact, represented participants
at all stages of the drug court process, from individuals who had been
in the program only a matter of weeks to recent graduates. They included
drug court participants who were proceeding fairly successfully through
the treatment regimen, as well as those who were struggling to stay in
the program. These focused discussions with drug court participants conveyed
an overall impression that the visited drug courts were indeed working
with defendants with very serious substance abuse and related problems.
Focus Group Questions Posed to Drug Court Participants
The focus groups were designed to elicit drug court participant views
on a limited number of questions about their lives at and before their
time of entry into the drug court program and about various aspects of
their drug court experiences to date. Although the intention was to ask
the same questions in each focus group, modifications in focus group content
occurred on occasion as group members commented on unanticipated topics.
- Drug histories and motivation for entering drug court: Participants
were asked to describe briefly how they came to be in drug court, their
current status (stage of involvement in the program), their specific
drug and crime problems (type and frequency of usage) before they entered
drug court, and their reasons for entering drug court.
- Drug and crime problems in participants’ residential neighborhoods:
Participants were asked to describe briefly the specific drug and
crime problems found in their city neighborhood.
- General understanding of the drug court: Participants were
asked to explain what they understood to be the purpose of the drug
court, how they viewed it in a general sense, and how it compared with
other court, criminal justice, and treatment experiences.
- The courtroom experience: Participants were asked to describe
and critique the courtroom experience in drug court, including what
typically happened, how they viewed the roles of the major actors, positive
and negative features of the in-court day, and the fairness and effectiveness
of the actions they witnessed there. In addition, they were asked to
identify the biggest problems they saw in the courtroom process and to suggest
ways in which the process could be improved.
- Peers’ commitment to treatment: Participants were asked
about the attitudes, actions, and perceived dedication and success of
other participants. They were asked to describe the most common problems
they saw in their peers (relating to drugs, behavior, attitudes, and
compliance) and the motivation and commitment of their peers to the
treatment process. They were asked to describe the characteristics of
the most successful participants (i.e., what they believed made them
succeed). Participants were also asked how their peers viewed the drug
court option compared with other sanction alternatives, such as jail or
probation, and the extent to which they believed drug court was helping
others in real terms.
- The treatment experience: Participants were asked to describe
and discuss the treatment process, what they viewed as its strengths
and weaknesses, and how they assessed its overall effectiveness. They
were asked to identify the most challenging parts of the treatment process
and to provide feedback on particular elements of their program (e.g.,
phases of treatment, types of activity, acupuncture). They were asked
to identify the biggest problems in the treatment process that should
be improved to produce better results.
- Drug use and crime by participants during treatment: Participants
were asked to assess the extent to which all participants continued
to use drugs and engage in crime while in the drug court program. They
were also asked about the effectiveness of drug testing and the likelihood
of getting caught if using drugs while in the program.
- Court responses to participant progress: Participants were
asked to describe the court’s and the treatment program’s
responses to participant progress (both successful and noncompliant
behavior) and to rate the fairness and effectiveness of the court in
encouraging compliance. Participants were asked about the use of specific
sanctions (including incarceration) and their relative importance in
maintaining compliance.
- Participant recommendations for improving drug courts: Participants
were asked for suggestions that might improve the drug court program
in their jurisdictions.
Policy Implications of Drug Court Participant Views
Important themes relating to core assumptions implicit in the drug
court model emerge from these focus group discussions with participants
in drug court programs around the country. Drug court participants include
individuals with very serious substance abuse problems and related difficulties,
many of which have gone unaddressed for long periods of time. Many have
been processed by the criminal justice system and health and other service
agencies frequently during their lives before drug court. Focus group
participants had strong opinions about features of the drug court approach,
including the importance of the judge, the power of the threat of sanctions
(particularly incarceration), and the motivation of the personal attention
and positive incentives of the drug court regimen. They had many positive,
practical suggestions about how their drug courts could be improved.
The comments of focus group participants have implications for the following
assumptions of the drug court model.
Drug Court Assumptions and Implications
- The drug court model represents an effective vehicle for substance
abuse treatment of drug offenders. Focus group participants in the
six sites made statements affirming that judicial supervision and closely
coordinated treatment are a powerful combination. Many participants
with prior treatment experience found the drug court far more effective
due to the judicial role, the close communication link between treatment
staff and the court, drug testing, and the threat of incarceration.
- The nonadversarial drug court courtroom is a powerful vehicle/modality
for treatment in which all aspects of operation are designed to facilitate
treatment effectiveness. Much focus group discussion dealt with
participants’ in-court experiences, which had several powerful
elements, including the perceived hands-on and personal supervision
of the judge, the high expectations placed on participants, the supportive
roles of other courtroom actors, the constructive pressure of peers
in the courtroom, the lessons learned from watching other cases, and
the visible display of rewards and sanctions. Participants dreaded appearing
before the judge with a bad report and looked forward to having a good
report and earning praise or advancement. The courtroom served as the
locus for enforcement of responsibility and accountability.
- Participants enroll in drug court primarily to avoid adverse consequences
of their criminal cases, not out of a sincere wish to engage in treatment
and get off drugs. By far, most participants in each of the focus
groups admitted that their decisions to enter drug court were based
on a calculation to avoid a jail or prison sentence. Some participants
said that they accepted the program mainly because they needed treatment
and did not need any further convincing. However, many of those who
acknowledged their initial wish to avoid conviction and incarceration
stated that, after they were in the program for a while, their motivation
changed to wanting to be free of drugs and reclaim their lives.
- Sitting in the courtroom watching other cases serves a positive
(therapeutic) role in supporting the treatment process for participants.
Although some participants complained about sitting in court “all
day,” most demonstrated in their accounts that they were greatly
affected by what they saw. They saw “classmates” who moved
forward to graduation with great acclaim and some who, having failed
to attend treatment or deliver negative tests, were sent to jail or
terminated from the program. They commented on the structure of the
court day and, in Seattle, regarded “express
scheduling” (i.e., going first) as a very positive reward.
- The hands-on role of the judge is central to the effectiveness
of the drug court and plays a powerful role in effective treatment.
Much of the conversation in all focus groups centered on the judge.
It was clear that participants practically unanimously personalized
the drug court experience and developed a close connection to the judge,
sometimes referring to him or her as a parent figure. Many were impressed
that a judge would speak to them at all and could not recall ever having
had conversations or interactions with any other comparable authority
figure. They thrived on the judge’s praise and approval and dreaded
disappointing or angering the judge by poor performance. They generally
feared sanctions and mostly believed the judge was supportive. They
also freely admitted that without the judge, they would not be “forced”
to stick to the treatment process, because, as “addicts,”
they would find a way to “beat” the program.
- The thoughtful use of rewards and sanctions in the drug court experience
serves as a powerful inducement to compliant behavior, participation
in the drug court treatment process, and eventual success. It is
apparently true that incarceration was the sanction with which participants
were preoccupied. They explained their motivation to enter the drug
court, as well as their motivation to proceed successfully, in large
part so as to stay out of jail. However, they were also very affected
by more minor sanctions, such as sitting in the jury box, writing essays,
or being upbraided for poor behavior in front of the whole court. At
the same time, participants expressed support of the use of incentives,
ranging from praise in court, having their names highlighted before
the court, certificates for passing through certain treatment phases,
to, ultimately, graduation. Focus group discussions were infused with
statements of pride in what might to others seem as small accomplishments,
such as having a good record of testing, perfect treatment, and having
held a job. It is clear that positive incentives were powerful inducements
to successful performance in the eyes of the participants.
- The use of incarceration as a sanction is fundamental to the effectiveness
of the drug court approach. The fair and selective use of incarceration
as a sanction had a clear and powerful effect on drug court participants,
with few exceptions. The drug offenders, regardless
of prior experience with the criminal justice system, nearly universally
did not like jail, feared jail, and would go to great lengths to avoid
it. This fear motivated them both to enter the drug court program and
to try to succeed while in the program. Participants also commented
that the use of incarceration that was too frequent, assigned for petty
offenses, or meted out in an arbitrary or inconsistent way had the opposite
effect and produced anger, resistance, and a feeling among participants
that justice was not being done. As court observers, they commented
on witnessing different sanctions assigned to people committing the
same program offenses and argued that such inconsistency was unfair
and detracted from the credibility of the drug court.
- Participation in drug court is more difficult than other sanctions
faced by offenders, thus encouraging defendants to opt for short jail
terms or probation instead of treatment. Some advocates of drug
courts have argued that drug courts are more difficult or more onerous
for offenders who would rather or could more easily serve short jail
terms or probation sentences. Participants did view the drug court experience
as tough, certainly tougher than incarceration or probation. They debated
graduation rates, and none of their estimates reached 50 percent of
all persons entering drug court. However, they viewed the possible “return”
from trying the drug court as worth the trouble: to be drugfree and
living a drug-free and healthy life. Their wish to avoid jail and prison
was based not only on fear of the experience, but also on an assessment
that it was worthless, a waste of time during which nothing positive
is accomplished and nothing is changed.
- The drug court should not involve persons with extensive prior
criminal histories or prior treatment histories, but rather
will be more effective with firsttime or less experienced offenders.
Although their responses may be construed as partly self-serving,
most participants thought that drug court should not exclude those with
extensive criminal histories, except for truly violent individuals.
The rationale was based on two arguments. First, it was not the fault
of these participants that they were unable to enter effective treatment
at an earlier stage, and with their longer habits and criminal histories,
they needed help as much if not more than first-time offenders. The
second argument was that a mix of participants served to better educate
all parties. There was a great deal to learn from the failure of older,
more experienced offenders. There was a feeling that criminal justice
distinctions were often arbitrary when used to classify substance abusers.
Many freely admitted to participation in various drug and property offenses,
noting that it is chance that determines which particular offense they
may have been apprehended for this time, and how that is a strange criterion
for admission to the drug court, when treatment is needed regardless
of the offense.
- Frequent, random, observed drug testing plays an important role
in encouraging participant compliance with treatment. Drug court
participants were consistent in arguing for regular, random, and observed
drug testing. In sum, participants saw drug testing as the critical
link between treatment and the court that provided an inescapable accountability.
There was nothing to argue about—except when mistakes were made—when
the tests results came back. Discussions in each focus group highlighted
stories of classmates who tried to defeat drug tests by adulterating
urine or timing drug use (for weekends, etc.), or by shifting to alcohol.
Participants made two claims: first, “addicts” will and do
try to beat the program and drug testing is the best check against that,
and second, it is unlikely that a person who tries to “beat”
the program or just “get over” could be successful through
the entire program. Participants generally believed that “cheaters”
all get caught in the end. At the same time, rumors were voiced in each
focus group site of some participant knowing at least one individual
who “faked” his or her way through the whole drug court program.
These stories, however, usually brought laughs and derision from other
participants.
- Acupuncture is an effective adjunct to treatment that reduces craving
during the initial stages and increases amenability to treatment. In
several sites participants were asked to discuss their experiences with
acupuncture as an element of the treatment program. There was a range
of opinion on this matter. Clearly, some participants found it very
valuable and calming. Others disliked the needles and failed to understand
the procedure’s value. Others claimed that acupuncture did nothing
for them.
- Paying fees for drug court treatment not only contributes to paying
some program costs but also teaches offenders accountability and responsibility
in the treatment process. Focus group participants mostly understood
the need to make a financial contribution to treatment, and they shared
their opinions on having small amounts assessed, often on a sliding
scale based on ability to pay. It is fair to say that paying fees is
one topic participants felt free to complain about, some asking how
they could be expected to pay each week when they were not employed,
etc.
- Participants do not engage in crime and substance abuse while in
treatment. Drug court participants were asked to estimate the extent
to which their peers used drugs and committed crimes while in the drug
court program. This question was, of course, awkward for participants,
who feared some consequence for “informing” on others. Nevertheless,
they were candid in admitting that drug use and crime were not uncommon
among participants in the early stages of the program, particularly
among participants who had not become committed to cleaning up their
lives. Estimates of how many used drugs and committed crimes in the
program varied, but generally indicated only a minority of participants.
They also noted that these were often participants who were terminated
from the program.
Participant Recommendations About How To Improve
Drug Courts
The focus groups produced a thoughtful collection of specific recommendations
from drug court participants suggesting ways to improve the effectiveness
of the program. The suggestions, which are detailed fully in this
report, deal with improved drug testing, employment issues, telephone
help-lines for after hours and weekends, self-help groups for difficult
crises and postgraduation adjustment, flexibility in payment of fees,
and a variety of other topics.
1. The focus groups in Portland, Oregon, and Las Vegas, Nevada, were
conducted as part of the National Drug Court Evaluation separately
funded by the National Institute of Justice. The results of those
focus groups are included here to illustrate the consistency of themes
across different sites.
|
| An Honest
Chance: Perspectives on Drug Courts |
April
2002 |
|
