





































Community-engaged 
Research (CER) as the 
Avenue to Promoting 
Well-being and Recovery 
in Drug Court

Authors 
JOHN R. GALLAGHER
Associate Professor, Indiana 
University School of Social 
Work

ANNE NORDBERG
Associate Professor, Uni-
versity of Texas at Arlington 
School of Social Work

RAYCHEL MINASIAN
Addictions Therapist, Oak-
lawn Psychiatric Center

SYDNEY SZYMANOWSKI
Graduate Research Assistant 
(GRA), Indiana University 
School of Social Work

JESSE CARLTON
Chief Probation Officer, St. 
Joseph County, IN Probation

KRISTIN FEE
Drug Court Coordinator, 
St. Joseph County, IN Drug 
Court

JANE WOODWARD MILLER
Drug Court Judge, St. Joseph 
County, IN Drug Court

JOHN HORSLEY
Vice President of Adult Ser-
vices, Oaklawn Psychiatric 
Center

TARA PAIANO
Drug Court Coordinator, 
Elkhart County, IN Drug 
Court

JOHN R. GALLAGHER, ANNE NORDBERG, RAYCHEL MINASIAN, SYDNEY SZY-
MANOWSKI, JESSE CARLTON, KRISTIN FEE, JANE WOODWARD MILLER, JOHN 
HORSLEY AND TARA PAIANO

abstract 
Drug courts are an alternative to 
incarceration for individuals who 
have substance use disorders and 
have been arrested for drug-relat-
ed crimes (e.g. possession of a con-
trolled 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 pro-
cess used to develop and implement 
CER.  Therefore, this article also 
highlights the collaborative process 
used in this drug court evalua-
tion. The findings from this study 
suggest that the St. Joseph County 
(Indiana) drug court is an effec-
tive 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 implica-

C O M M U N I T Y - E N G A G E D  
R E S E A R C H  A R T I C L E S 

ENGAGE!  |  i u p u i  b i c e n t e n n i a l  e d i t i o n 24

The authors dedicate this 
article to Jim Matio.  Every 

community Jim lived in 
benefited from his humor, 
compassion, and love for 

others.



G A L L A G H E R  |  D R U G  C O U R T 

tions, such as starting recovery support groups 
that are welcoming to individuals who receive 
medication-assisted treatment (MAT), market-
ing drug court to racial and ethnic minorities to 
increase their representation in the program, and 
disseminating research findings throughout the 
community via local news stories, podcasts, and 
public lectures.    

Keywords: community-engaged research (CER), 
criminal justice, drug court, recidivism, social 
work, substance use disorder 

introduction 
In the late 1980s, criminal justice stakeholders in 
Miami, Florida decided to address an ongoing prob-
lem within the justice system. They had noticed that 
people charged and convicted of minor drug offens-
es, such as possession, often reappeared before the 
courts with the same charges (Wexler & Winick, 
1996). This so-called revolving door was backlog-
ging the courts and punishment seemed ineffective 
to deter future criminal justice involvement. It cost 
all involved and the community time, effort, and 
money with no positive outcomes. These stakehold-
ers operationalized therapeutic jurisprudence or the 
idea that criminal courts could be part of therapeu-
tic solutions, particularly for men and women who 
had substance use disorders (Schneider, Bloom, & 
Hereema, 2007). For people caught in the drag-
net of the war on drugs, treatment for substance 
use disorders may be a more effective option than 
incarceration. As a result, they implemented the 
first drug court in 1989 (Nolan, 2001) by diverting 
people away from the traditional, punitive approach 
to justice into this first drug court that placed the 
court, the judge, and criminal justice professionals 
amidst a drug rehabilitation program (Schneider et 
al., 2007; Slinger & Roesch, 2010; Wexler & Winick, 
1996). The court differed dramatically in several 
ways.  For instance, the adversarial nature of the 
traditional criminal justice process was suspended 

with prosecutors and defense attorneys collaborat-
ing for the best interests of participants and crim-
inal justice workers, especially the judge, became 
part of the therapeutic paradigm.  

Drug court was a choice for participants and in 
accepting the diversion, they agreed to plead guilty, 
remain drug free, which was measured through 
self-report and random and frequent drug tests, 
follow treatment recommendations, and report to 
drug court for supervision (Wexler & Winick, 1996). 
Goldkamp (1994) conducted an evaluation of this 
first drug court and found promising outcomes. 
Specifically, recidivism rates among drug court 
graduates was assessed at 32% compared to 48 to 
55% among comparison groups. Since then, many 
other studies have confirmed Goldkamp’s positive 
findings, such as a large-scale governmental study 
(U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005) 
and meta-analyses and systematic reviews (Aos, 
Miller, & Drake, 2006; Lowenkamp, Holsinger, & 
Latessa, 2005; Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacK-
enzie, 2012; Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2006). 
Notwithstanding the contradictory results of a few 
studies (Brown, 2010; Miethe, Lu, & Reese, 2000), 
the drug court model was deemed so successful that 
it has been adapted for other populations, such as 
people with mental illnesses (Schneider et al., 2007) 
Additionally, drug courts and other treatment 
courts (e.g. mental health courts, veterans courts, 
family treatment courts) have been replicated over 
3,000 times and are found in all 50 states, as well 
as other countries, such as Canada, Ireland, United 
Kingdom, and Australia, to name a few (National 
Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2019).   

community-engaged research 
(cer) 
Drug court stakeholders collaborated with the 
researchers on all aspects of this study.  The drug 
court judge, chief probation officer, and drug court 

 Note:  This research was funded by a grant from the Indiana University School of Social Work, Center for Social Health and Well-Being.

25 VO L .  1 ,  I S S U E  2



coordinator were the main stakeholders involved in 
the process, but feedback and insight was wel-
comed from the entire drug court team.  Treatment 
providers and prosecuting and defense attorneys, 
for example, also helped with the research design.  
Drug court is a criminal justice, community-based 
program; therefore, it was important that the 
research design and the findings be understandable 
to lay persons, those without academic or statistical 
backgrounds.  With that in mind, the drug court 
and research teams identified the best methodology 
to reach laypersons.  For instance, it was decided to 
use statistics that produce percentages, which are 
easily understandable to laypersons.   

That is just one example of the in-depth collabo-
ration between the drug court and research teams.  
The collaboration also included developing the 
research questions for this study, interpreting the 
findings and exploring the implications of the find-
ings, disseminating the knowledge gained from this 
study to drug court participants, the community, 
and others, and working on manuscripts, such as 
this one, to reach international, multidisciplinary 
audiences.  The purpose of this CER was to answer 
the following three research questions.  First, which 
drug court participants are most likely to graduate?  
Second, which drug court participants are most 
likely to recidivate?  Third, is drug court or proba-
tion more effective at reducing criminal recidivism?  

methodology 
The data collection for this study did not involve 
human subjects; therefore, this research was 
not subject to Institutional Review Board (IRB) 
regulations.  A graduate research assistant (GRA) 
collaborated with the chief of probation and drug 
court coordinator to collect the necessary data 
from participant’s electronic charts.   

graduation 

To determine which drug court participants were 
most likely to graduate, data were collected on all 
participants (n = 178) who either graduated or were 
terminated from drug court from 2015 to 2018. The 
outcome variable was graduation. There were eight 
predictor variables. 1 The predictor variables were 
gender, ethnicity, education at time of admission 
into drug court, employment or student at time of 
admission into drug court, drug of choice, violation 
within first 30 days of drug court, mental health, 
and time between arrest and admission.

criminal recidivism 
To determine which drug court participants were 
most likely to recidivate, data were collected on 
all participants (n = 178) who either graduated 
or were terminated from drug court from 2015 to 
2018. There were nine predictor variables and one 
outcome variable. 2 The outcome variable was re-

1 A predictor variable explains changes in the outcome variable. The outcome variable was graduation (0 = terminated, 1 = graduated). 
The predictor variables were as follows: gender (0 =female, 1 = male), ethnicity (0 = non-white, 1 = white), education (0 = did not have a 
high school diploma or equivalent at time of admission into drug court, 1 = had a high school diploma or equivalent at time of admission 
into drug court), employment or student (0 = not employed or a student at time of admission into drug court, 1 = employed or a student 
at time of admission into drug court), drug of choice (0 = heroin and other opioids, 1 = non-opioids), first 30 days (0 = had a violation 
within the first 30 days of drug court, 1 = did not have a violation within the first 30 days of drug court), mental health (0 = depressive 
disorder, 1 = no depressive disorder), and time between arrest and admission (0 = was admitted/plead into drug court 91 days or more 
following arrest, 1 = was admitted/plead into drug court 90 days or less following arrest).

2 The outcome variable was (0 = did not recidivate, 1 = recidivated). The predictor variables were as follows: gender (0 = female, 1 = 
male), ethnicity (0 = non-white, 1 = white), education (0 = did not have a high school diploma or equivalent at time of admission into 
drug court, 1 = had a high school diploma or equivalent at time of admission into drug court), employment or student (0 = not employed 
or a student at time of admission into drug court, 1 = employed or a student at time of admission into drug court), drug of choice (0 = 
heroin and other opioids, 1 = non-opioids), first 30 days (0 = had a violation within the first 30 days of drug court, 1 = did not have a viola-
tion within the first 30 days of drug court), mental health (0 = depressive disorder, 1 = no depressive disorder), time between arrest and 
admission (0 = was admitted/plead into drug court 91 days or more following arrest, 1 = was admitted/plead into drug court 90 days or 
less following arrest), and outcome (0 = terminated, 1 = graduated).

C O M M U N I T Y - E N G A G E D  
R E S E A R C H  A R T I C L E S 

ENGAGE!  |  i u p u i  b i c e n t e n n i a l  e d i t i o n 26



cidivism. The predictor variables were as follows: 
gender, ethnicity, education at time of admission 
into drug court, employment or student at time of 
admission into drug court, drug of choice, vio-
lation within first 30 days of drug court, mental 
health, time between arrest and admission, and 
graduation. 

Additionally, to compare the recidivism rates 
between drug court participants and probationers, 
data were collected on probationers (n = 186) who 
had an outcome revoked or completed from 2015 
to 2018. Probationers were matched to the drug 
court sample by arrest/offense type, meaning they 
had an arrest/offense that was eligible for drug 
court but they did probation instead. Probationers 
and drug court participants were also matched 
by their Indiana Risk Assessment System (IRAS) 
scores; both groups had a start score of 21. The 
IRAS score indicates an individual’s risk of recidi-
vating. The score also assists criminal justice pro-
fessionals in developing individualized treatment 
plans and interventions to increase individuals’ 
protective factors (e.g. gaining and sustaining em-
ployment, abstaining from illicit drug use, having 
stable housing). Recidivism data were collected 
through Odyssey, an electronic system for filing 
criminal cases in St. Joseph County (Indiana). Re-
cidivism was defined as any new local (St. Joseph 
County, Indiana) arrest for a felony or misde-
meanor offense that resulted in charges being 
filed during drug court/probation and up to 36 
months post drug court/probation discharge. The 
definition of recidivism was provided by the drug 
court and approved by the Indiana Office of Court 
Services, Problem-Solving Courts Committee, a 
division of the state government that certifies In-
diana problem-solving courts. The recidivism data 
were collected in 2019.  

findings 
The findings are presented in reference to the 
three research questions. Starting in 2013, the 
drug court for this study completed a program 
evaluation once every three years; therefore, the 
current findings are compared and contrasted 
with the 2013 and 2016 program evaluations 
(Gallagher, 2013; Gallagher, Ivory, Carlton, & 
Woodward Miller, 2014; Gallagher, Wahler, & 
Lefebvre, 2016; Gallagher et al., 2018).

Which drug court participants are 
most likely to graduate? 

Statistics were used to determine if significant 
differences existed in graduation outcomes. The 
analyses revealed that four predictor variables 
were significantly associated with graduating drug 
court. First, participants who had a high school 
diploma or equivalent at the time they were ad-
mitted to drug court were more likely to graduate 
(60%) than participants who did not have a high 
school diploma or equivalent at admission (42%)3. 
Second, participants who did not have a violation 
within the first 30 days of drug court were more 
likely to graduate (73%) than participants who 
had a violation during this timeframe (22%)4. The 
violations included in the analysis were dilute 
drug screens, positive drug screens indicating 
new drug use, missed treatment or court appoint-
ments, and new arrest. Third, non-White partic-
ipants were more likely to graduate (62%) than 
White participants (47%)5. Fourth, participants 
who were admitted/plead to drug court 91 days 
or more following their arrest were more likely to 
graduate (61%) than participants who were ad-
mitted/plead to drug court 90 days or less follow-
ing their arrest (46%)6.

3 (X² = 5.12, p < 0.05)

4 (X² = 46.09, p < 0.01)

5 (X² = 2.76 p < 0.10)

6 (X² = 2.93, p < 0.10)

G A L L A G H E R  |  D R U G  C O U R T 

27 VO L .  1 ,  I S S U E  2



Other notable findings were that women and men 
graduated drug court at relatively equal rates and 
there was a 10% difference in graduation rates 
between participants who identified heroin or 
other opioids as their drug of choice versus those 
who identified non-opioids as their drug of choice. 
Specifically, 55% of the women and 47% of the 
men graduated drug court7. In regard to drug of 
choice, 45% of the participants who identified 
heroin or other opioids as their drug of choice 
graduated, compared to a 55% graduation rate for 
participants who identified non- opioids as their 
drug of choice8. As noted in Figure 1, in the 2016 
program evaluation, only 30% of participants who 
identified heroin or other opioids as their drug 
of choice graduated drug court; therefore, the 
current graduation rate of 45% for this population 
is a promising finding. Also, 91 drug court par-
ticipants (51%) identified heroin or other opioid 
as their drug of choice and 87 participants (49%) 
identified non-opioids as their drug of choice. For 

participants who identified heroin or other opi-
oids as their drug of choice (n = 91), about 50% 
(n = 45) received a medication-assisted treatment 
(MAT) while in drug court. Of those who received 
a MAT, 38 were prescribed naltrexone (e.g. Vivi-
trol) and seven were prescribed buprenorphine 
(e.g. Suboxone). When comparing those who 
received a MAT (n = 45) versus those who did 
not (n = 46), the graduation rates were relatively 
the same. Specifically, 46% of those who did not 
receive a MAT graduated drug court, compared 
to a 44% graduation rate for those who received a 
MAT9.

Next, Figure 2 compares drug court graduation 
rates from the 2013 and 2016 program evalua-
tions to this 2019 study.  As noted in the figure, 
from 2013 to 2016, the graduation rate increased 
by eight percent.  However, from 2016 to 2019, 
there was a 13% decrease in graduation rate.  
The decrease in graduation rate does not require 

FIGURE 1 

GRADUATION RATES BASED ON DRUG OF CHOICE 

COMPARING THE 2016 AND 2019 PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 

Opioids 
2016 

Graduated

Terminated 

Opioids 
2019 

Non-
Opioids 

2016 

80%

60%

40%

20%

30% 30%

45% 45%

55% 55%

70% 70%

0%

Non-
Opioids 

2019 

FIGURE 2 

DRUG COURT GRADUATION RATES 

COMPARING THE 2013, 2016, AND 2019 PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 

Graduation 
Rate 2013 

Graduation 
Rate 2016 

Graduation 
Rate 2019 

Graduated

Terminated 70%

50%

60%

40%

30%

20%

10%

55%

63%

50% 50%
45%

37%

0%

7 (X² = 0.88, p = 0.35)

8 (X² = 1.82, p = 0.18)

9 (X² = 0.01, p = 0.91)

C O M M U N I T Y - E N G A G E D  
R E S E A R C H  A R T I C L E S 

ENGAGE!  |  i u p u i  b i c e n t e n n i a l  e d i t i o n 28



urgent attention, but the rate should be moni-
tored on a yearly basis to assess the trend over 
time.  Nationally, the majority of drug courts have 
a graduation rate between 50% and 75%, so the 
St. Joseph County (Indiana) drug court is in that 
range (Marlowe, Hardin, & Fox, 2016).  Also, 
it is important to note that a lower graduation 
rate does not mean a particular drug court is less 
effective.  Some drug courts, for instance, with 
lower graduation rates may accept participants 
with high criminogenic risk factors (e.g. criminal 
histories, severe substance use disorders, un-
employment, etc.) and it is expected that these 
programs will have a lower graduation rate than 
drug courts that only accept low risk participants.  
Furthermore, the opioid epidemic has had devas-
tating consequences on individuals, families, and 
communities and social service and healthcare 
systems have often responded to the epidemic 
retroactively, at no fault to them, the systems 
simply could not predict the magnitude of the 
problem.  Presumably, drug courts may have also 
shown a similar pattern where many programs 
were unprepared for the opioid epidemic and 
logically this would have a negative impact on 
graduate rates.

Which drug court participants are 
most likely to recidivate? 

Statistics were used to determine if significant 
differences existed in recidivism outcomes. The 
analyses revealed that two variables were signifi-
cantly associated with recidivism. First, and not 
surprisingly, participants who were terminated 
from drug court were more likely to recidivate 
(52%) than graduates (21%)10. Second, non-White 
participants were more likely to recidivate (49%) 
than White participants (33%)11. This finding is 

surprising, considering non-White participants 
were more likely to graduate than White partici-
pants (62% and 47%, respectively) and graduating 
drug court seems to decrease the risk of recidi-
vism. Perhaps non-White participants experience 
more post-drug court risk factors (e.g. peers who 
use drugs, limited recovery support system, pov-
erty, etc.) than White participants that negatively 
impact their ability to sustain their recovery, but 
only future research will help determine whether 
this is true or not. In the 2016 program evalua-
tion, 53% of non-White participants recidivated; 
therefore, there has been a four percent decrease 
in the recidivism rate for this population.

Other notable findings were that women and men 
recidivated at similar rates and the recidivism rate 
among the drug of choice variable was relatively 
equal. Specifically, 31% of the women and 40% of 
the men recidivated12. In regard to drug of choice, 
34% of the participants who identified heroin or 
other opioids as their drug of choice recidivated, 
compared to a 39% recidivism rate for partici-
pants who identified non-opioids as their drug of 
choice13. As mentioned previously, for the partic-
ipants who identified heroin or other opioid as 
their drug of choice (n = 91), about 50% (n = 45) 
received a medication-assisted treatment (MAT) 
while in drug court. When comparing those who 
received a MAT (n = 45) versus those who did 
not (n = 46), the recidivism rates were relatively 
the same. Specifically, 33% of those who did not 
receive a MAT recidivated, compared to a 36% re-
cidivism rate for those who received a MAT 14. Ad-
ditionally, for the entire drug court sample, their 
Indiana Risk Assessment System (IRAS) scores 
decreased from 21 at the start of the program to 
17 by the end of the program.

10 (X² = 17.67, p < 0.01)

11 (X² = 2.97, p < 0.10)

12 (X² = 1.20, p = 0.27)

13 (X² = 0.48, p = 0.49)

14  (X² = 0.09, p = 0.77)

G A L L A G H E R  |  D R U G  C O U R T 

29 VO L .  1 ,  I S S U E  2



Is drug court or probation more 
effective at reducing criminal  
recidivism? 

The recidivism rate of drug court participants was 
compared to that of probationers.  As noted in 
Figure 3, drug court participants were less likely to 
recidivate than probationers (36% and 44%, respec-
tively).  This eight percent difference in recidivism 
rates highlights the effectiveness of the St. Joseph 
County (Indiana) drug court.  Participants of drug 
court recidivate less than probationers, and this 
equates to many benefits to the county, such as cost 
savings by having to prosecute less criminal cases, 
presumably less drug use and drug-related crime in 
the county, and the many benefits that come from 
recovery (e.g. improved quality of life, higher em-
ployment rates, healthier lifestyles, to name a few).  
It is also important to highlight that, although the 
graduation rate for the St. Joseph County (Indiana) 
drug court decreased from 2016 to 2019 (please 
see Figure 1), the recidivism rates from 2016 to 
2019 stayed relatively the same (34% and 36%, 
respectively), suggesting that even those who were 
terminated from drug court benefited from the pro-

gram, in regard to reducing the risk of recidivating.  
Additionally, when comparing the 2013 findings for 
drug court to the current findings, there has been 
an 11% decrease in recidivism in the past six years.  
Specifically, in 2013, the recidivism rate was 47% 
and in 2019, the recidivism rate is 36%.

discussion 
Findings from this CER 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 this finding is consistent 
with meta-analytic reviews of drug courts' impact 
on recidivism (Mitchell et al., 2012; Shaffer, 2011) 
and results from evaluations of single drug courts 
(Brown, 2011).  In this study specifically, only 36% 
of drug court participants recidivated, whereas the 
recidivism rate for probationers was 44%.  This 
eight percent difference in recidivism rates high-
lights the effectiveness of the drug court, and a low-
er recidivism rate equates to many benefits to St. 

FIGURE 3 

DRUG COURT AND PROBATION RECIDIVISM RATES 

COMPARING THE 2013, 2016, AND 2019 PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 

Drug 
Court 
2013

Drug 
Court 
2016

Drug 
Court 
2019

Did not recidivate

Recidivated

Probation 
2013

Probation 
2016

Probation 
2019

80%

60%

40%

20%

53%

69%
66% 64%

56%

44%

34% 36%

44%

56%

47%

31%

0%

C O M M U N I T Y - E N G A G E D  
R E S E A R C H  A R T I C L E S 

ENGAGE!  |  i u p u i  b i c e n t e n n i a l  e d i t i o n 30



Joseph County (Indiana), such as cost savings by 
having to prosecute less criminal cases, presumably 
less drug use and drug-related crime in the county, 
and the many benefits that come from recovery 
(e.g. improved quality of life, higher employment 
rates, healthier lifestyles, to name a few).   

Recovery Coaches, Future CER, 
and the First 30 Days in Drug Court 

Participants who have a violation within the first 
30 days of drug court are consistently less likely to 
graduate than their counterparts who do not have a 
violation during this timeframe.  This finding is true 
for the 2013 and 2016 program evaluations (Gal-
lagher, 2013, Gallagher et al., 2016) and for this 
2019 study, suggesting that the first month of the 
program is a critical time in determining whether a 
participant will complete the program or not.  The 
drug court currently has recovery coaches, an inter-
vention they did not have during the 2013 and 2016 
program evaluations.  As a result, it is recommend-
ed that high-risk participants (based on IRAS scores 
and other assessment tools) be provided with a 
recovery coach immediately upon admission to the 
program.  Recovery coaches can connect high-risk 
participants to the community by assisting them 
in accessing recovery support groups, providing 
transportation to and from treatment, helping them 
apply for, gain, and sustain employment, and en-
courage other protective factors that may decrease 
the risk of having a violation within the first 30 days 
of the program.  Additionally, future research is 
needed in this area to assess the specific challenges 
that some participants face in the first month of 
the program.  It is recommended that for the 2022 
program evaluation, qualitative research methods 
be used, such as focus groups or individual inter-
views, to learn participants’ thoughts, opinions, 
and experiences related to the first month of drug 
court.  Drug court participants are key stakeholders 
in CER and they may provide a behind-the-scenes 
perspective on the program that cannot be captured 
quantitatively.   

MAT and Community-Based  
Recovery Support Groups 

In light of a national opioid epidemic, it is prom-
ising that 45% of the participants who identified 
heroin or other opioids as their drug of choice 
graduated.  In comparison, in the 2016 program 
evaluation, only 30% of participants who identi-
fied heroin or other opioids as their drug of choice 
graduated (Gallagher et al., 2018).  Furthermore, 
of the drug court participants who identified her-
oin or other opioid as their drug of choice, about 
half received a MAT while in the program, most 
commonly naltrexone (e.g. Vivitrol) followed by 
buprenorphine (e.g. Suboxone).   

Despite evidence that MAT is an effective approach 
in treating opioid use disorders (National Institute 
on Drug Abuse, 2016), research has suggested that 
some drug courts may underutilize or not allow 
participants to take MAT, sometimes because 
stakeholders had negative views toward MAT 
and did not consider MAT to be consistent with 
their abstinence-based philosophy of treatment 
(Friedmann et al., 2012; Matusow et al., 2013).  
The findings from this study, however, highlight 
that the St. Joseph County (Indiana) drug court 
is prepared to best treat opioid use disorders, and 
one of the strategies they have used is collaborating 
with community partners.  For instance, the drug 
court team received training on MAT in order to 
accurately and effectively incorporate the inter-
vention into their programming, they invited an 
addictionologist and medical social worker who 
specializes in MAT to join the drug court team, they 
had researchers facilitate focus groups with partic-
ipants who have opioid use disorders to learn their 
experiences in the program (Gallagher, Marlowe, & 
Minasian, 2019a), and they referred participants to 
treatment providers who have expertise in treating 
heroin and other opioids.   

It is common for drug courts to encourage, or 
require, their participants to attend communi-
ty-based recovery support groups, such as Alcohol-

G A L L A G H E R  |  D R U G  C O U R T 

31 VO L .  1 ,  I S S U E  2



ics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous 
(NA).  This community support can be helpful to 
some, but recent qualitative research has suggested 
that some NA meetings may not be welcoming to 
individuals who receive MAT, and even worse, some 
participants reported being stigmatized and judged 
for using MAT (Gallagher et al., 2019a).  Actually, 
a recent report from Narcotics Anonymous World 
Services, Inc. (2016) acknowledged that some NA 
meetings may be less welcoming to individuals 
receiving MAT and individuals receiving MAT may 
not be allowed to fully engage in the NA process.  
Therefore, drug courts must be selective in deciding 
which community-based recovery support groups 
they refer their participants to.  If groups that are 
welcoming of MAT are not available in the local 
community, then drug courts should collaborate 
with community partners to develop their own re-
covery support groups to create a non-judgmental, 
compassionate, and stigma-free environment that 
promotes well-being and recovery.   

Increasing the Representation of 
Racial and Ethnic Minorities in 
Drug Court 

Since 2013, the drug court has experienced a 
significant decrease of racial and ethnic minority 
(non-White) participants in the program.  Based 
on the demographics of St. Joseph County (Indi-
ana), the primary populations that seem to not be 
equally represented in the drug court are African 
Americans, followed by Hispanics.  In 2013, 49% 
of the participants were non-White. However, 
this number decreased to 35% in the 2016 pro-
gram evaluation and 21% in this 2019 study.  It 
is recommended that the drug court increase the 
number of non-White participants in the program.  
Doing so may improve outcomes for African 
Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities.  
For instance, in 2013, when nearly half of the drug 
court was non-White participants, there were no 
racial disparities in outcomes, meaning White and 
non-White participants had similar graduation 

and recidivism rates.  However, in 2016 and in 
this study, non-White participants did not seem to 
be equally represented in drug court and they were 
more likely to recidivate than White participants.   

It is important to note that understanding why ra-
cial disparities exist in some drug courts is a com-
plex phenomenon that requires a comprehensive 
solution.  At this point, the recommendation is to 
increase the number of non-White participants in 
drug court.  To do that, there are two suggestions.  
First, drug court stakeholders should market the 
program to defense attorneys, particularly the 
attorneys who commonly represent non-White 
participants.  This marketing may increase the 
number of referrals the drug court receives from 
non-White participants.  Second, the drug court 
should review their eligibility criteria to determine 
whether any criterion may inadvertently exclude 
non-White participants.  According to Gallagher 
(2019b), criteria that seem to commonly exclude 
some non-White participants are having prior 
felony convictions, suspected gang involvement, 
ability to pay program fees (e.g. treatment, drug 
tests), perceived level of motivation for change, 
or perhaps denying someone drug court because 
they had previously participated in the program.    

Disseminating Drug Court  
Knowledge to the Community 

An essential component of CER is to disseminate 
the knowledge gained from studies to the com-
munity.  From an academic standpoint, the norm 
in disseminating research findings is to publish 
articles in peer-reviewed journals and do presenta-
tions at national conference.  These methods, how-
ever, are not practical in educating communities.  
The knowledge gained from the CER of the St. Jo-
seph County (Indiana) drug court was successfully 
shared with the community in three ways.  First, 
the researcher for the drug court facilitated multi-
ple professional trainings and free public presenta-
tions to educate a range of people the role of drug 
court in their community.  Additionally, a local 

C O M M U N I T Y - E N G A G E D  
R E S E A R C H  A R T I C L E S 

ENGAGE!  |  i u p u i  b i c e n t e n n i a l  e d i t i o n 32



university organized a community forum on the 
opioid epidemic and four drug court stakeholders 
were invited to be part of the panel presentation, 
including the drug court judge, researcher, social 
worker, and prosecutor.  This was an opportunity 
to highlight how drug courts can be an effective 
approach in addressing the opioid epidemic.   

Second, graduate students who were specializing in 
addiction and mental health treatment completed 
internships at drug court to assist with the CER and 
to provide them with an opportunity to observe 
drug court programming.  Also, some undergrad-
uate and graduate social work students completed 
service-learning projects in drug court, such as 
having students observe a traditional court hearing 
and drug court session and compare and contrast 
the experiences (Gallagher, 2015).  These types of 
education (e.g. internships, service-learning) are im-
portant because students will graduate and practice 
in our communities, and they will now be able to 
share their knowledge on drug courts with others.   

Third, the local news has supported drug court.  
ABC 57 news in South Bend, IN aired a story on 
how St. Joseph County (Indiana) has been a model 
in addressing the opioid epidemic, and one inter-
vention discussed in the story was how the drug 
court was successfully using MAT to help those 
who have opioid use disorders (ABC 57 News, 
2019).  Additionally, WSBT news in Mishawka, IN 
aired a similar story where the drug court judge 
and researcher discussed how the drug court used 
science and evidence-based interventions, such 
as MAT, to support participants in their process 
of healing and recovery (WSBT News, 2019).  
Recently, the researcher for the drug court was 
interviewed by the inSocialWork podcast series 
where he completed a two-part podcast.  In the 
first podcast, he discussed key components of the 
drug court model and highlighted research demon-
strating their effectiveness (Gallagher, 2019c).  In 
the second podcast, he shared his research find-
ings related to the factors that may contribute to 
racial disparities in drug court graduation rates 

and articulated best practices in working with 
African American drug court participants (Galla-
gher, 2020).  Local news stories and podcasts are, 
perhaps, the most efficient and effective method 
in disseminating knowledge to comminuties in 
an easily accessible and clear manner, without 
professional jargon.  Plus, the information can be 
accessed on television, websites, and social media, 
which surely increases the number of community 
members who are learning about drug court.   

Limitations and Suggestions for 
Future Research 

This CER has several limitations, and it is recom-
mended that future research address these limita-
tions to continue adding to the knowledge base on 
the role of drug courts in communities.  In this study, 
recidivism was only measured in St. Joseph County 
(Indiana).  Therefore, if an individual recidivated in 
another county or state, that information was not 
captured.  When available, recidivism data should 
be tracked statewide or even nationally, if possible.  
Next, the probation group was matched to the drug 
court group by two criteria, arrest/offense type and 
IRAS score.  Probationers had an arrest/offense that 
was eligible for drug court but they did probation 
instead and both groups had a starting IRAS score 
of 21.  These two criteria are important in match-
ing the two groups, especially IRAS scores because 
criminogenic risk factors are consistently predictors 
of criminal justice outcomes (e.g. recidivism).  Future 
research should enhance the matching process by 
also matching key demographics, such as gender, 
ethnicity, age, and criminal history (Brown, 2011).  
Last, to further promote community engagement, 
future research should use qualitative methods to 
explore community members’ thoughts and opinions 
on the role of drug court in their community.  Focus 
groups, for example, would be an effective method 
to assess community perception and understanding 
of drug court, and those findings could be compared 
and contrasted with drug court participants’ expe-
riences in the program and stakeholders’ views on 
drug courts impact on the community.   

G A L L A G H E R  |  D R U G  C O U R T 

33 VO L .  1 ,  I S S U E  2



References

ABC 57 News. (2019, February). 
New article outlines St. Joseph 
County as model for fighting 
opioid epidemic [News broad-
cast]. In Local News. South Bend, 
IN: ABC 57 News. Available to 
view at:https://abc57.com/
news/new-article-outlines-st-jo-
seph-county-as-model-for-fight-
ing-opioid-epidemic

Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. 
(2006). Evidence-based public 
policy options to reduce future 
prison construction, criminal 
justice costs, and crime rates.  
Federal Sentencing Reporter, 19, 
275-290. 

Brown, R. T. (2010). Systematic 
review of the impact of adult 
drug-treatment courts. Transla-
tional Research, 155, 263–274. 

Brown, R. (2011). Drug court 
effectiveness: A matched cohort 
study in the Dane County drug 
treatment court. Journal of Of-
fender Rehabilitation, 50, 191-201.  

Friedmann, P. D., Hoskinson, R., 
Jr., Gordon, M., Schwartz, R., 
Kinlock, T., Knight, K., . . . Frisman, 
L. K. (2012). Medication-assist-
ed treatment in criminal justice 
agencies affiliated with the Crimi-
nal Justice-Drug Abuse Treatment 
Studies (CJ-DATS): Availability, 
barriers, and intentions. Sub-
stance Abuse, 33, 9–18.

Gallagher, J. R. (2013). Program 
evaluation of the St. Joseph Coun-
ty (South Bend), Indiana drug 
court. South Bend, IN: Indiana 
University South Bend, School of 
Social Work.  

Gallagher, J. R., Ivory, E., Carlton, 
J., & Woodward Miller, J. (2014). 
The impact of an Indiana (United 
States) drug court on criminal 
recidivism. Advances in Social 
Work, 15, 507-521.  

Gallagher, J. R. (2015). Promoting 
drug court education in schools of 
social work: Ideas in action. Social 
Work Education: The International 
Journal, 34, 428-436.

Gallagher, J. R., Wahler, E. A., & 
Lefebvre, E. R. (2016). Program 
evaluation of the St. Joseph Coun-
ty (Indiana) drug court. South 
Bend, IN: Indiana University South 
Bend, School of Social Work.

Gallagher, J. R., Wahler, E. A., 
Lefebvre, E., Paiano, T., Carlton, 
J., & Woodward Miller, J. (2018). 
Improving graduation rates in 
drug court through employment 
and schooling opportunities and 
medication-assisted treatment 
(MAT). Journal of Social Service 
Research, 44, 343-349.

Gallagher, J. R., Marlowe, D. B., & 
Minasian, R. M. (2019a). Partic-
ipant perspectives on  medica-
tion-assisted treatment for opioid 
use disorders in drug court. 
Journal for Advancing Justice, 2, 
39-54. 

Gallagher, J. R. (2019b). Issue 
brief: Racial and ethnic disparities 
(RED) in treatment courts. Wash-
ington, DC: American University, 
Justice Programs Office, School 
of Public Affairs.  

Gallagher, J. R. (2019c, Decem-
ber). Episode 276 – Dr. John Gal-
lagher: It’s all about relationships: 
Drug courts – what are they and 
how do they work? (part 1 of 2) 
[Audio podcast]. In inSocialWork 
Podcast Series. Buffalo, NY: Uni-
versity at Buffalo School of Social 
Work. Available to view at: https://
www.insocialwork.org/episode.
asp?ep=276

Gallagher, J. R. (2020, January). 
Episode 278 – Dr. John Gallagher: 
It’s all about relationships: Drug 
courts – what are they and how 
do they work? (part 2 of 2) [Audio 
podcast]. In inSocialWork Podcast 
Series. Buffalo, NY: University at 
Buffalo School of Social Work. 
Available to view at: https://
www.insocialwork.org/episode.
asp?ep=278

Goldkamp, J. S. (1994). Miami's 
treatment drug court for felony 
defendants: Some implications of 
assessment findings. The Prison 
Journal, 74, 110-166. 

Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., 
& Latessa, E. J. (2005). Are drug 
courts effective? A meta-analytic 
review. Journal of Community 
Corrections, 15, 5–28. 

Marlowe, D. B., Hardin, C. D., & 
Fox, C. L. (2016, June). Painting 
the current picture: Anational 
report on drug courts and other 
problem-solving courts in the 
United States. Alexandria, VA: 
National Drug Court Institute. 

Matusow, H., Dickman, S. L., Rich, 
J. D., Fong, C., Dumont, D. M., Har-
din, C., . . . Rosenblum,  A. (2013). 
Medication assisted treatment in 
US drug courts: Results from a 
nationwide survey of availability, 
barriers and attitudes. Journal of 
Substance Abuse Treatment, 44, 
473–480.

Miethe, T. D., Lu, H., & Reese, E. 
(2000). Reintegrative shaming 
and recidivism risks in drug court: 
Explanations for some unexpect-
ed findings. Crime & Delinquency, 
46, 522-541. 

Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, 
A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2012). 
Assessing the effectiveness of 
drug courts on recidivism: A me-
ta-analytic review of traditional 
and non-traditional drug courts. 
Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 
60-71.

Narcotics Anonymous World 
Services, Inc. (2016). Narcotics 
Anonymous and persons receiving 
medication-assisted treatment. 
Chatsworth, CA: Author.

National Association of Drug 
Court Professionals. (2019). Jus-
tice for all. Retrieved from https://
www.nadcp.org

National Institute on Drug Abuse. 
(2016). Effective treatments for 
opioid addiction. Rockville, MD: 
Author.

Nolan, J. L. (2001). Reinventing 
justice: The American drug court 
movement. Princeton, NJ: Prince-
ton University Press. 

Schneider, R. D., Bloom, H., & 
Hereema, M. (2007). Mental 
health courts: Decriminalizing 
the mentally ill. Toronto, Canada: 
Irwin Law. 

Shaffer, D. K. (2011). Looking in-
side the black box of drug courts: 
A meta-analytic review. Justice 
Quarterly, 28, 493-521.

Slinger, E., & Roesch, R. (2010). 
Problem-solving courts in Cana-
da: A review and a call for empir-
ically-based evaluation methods. 
International Journal of Law and 
Psychiatry, 33, 258-264. 

U.S. Government Accountability 
Office. (2005). Adult drug courts: 
Evidence indicates recidivism 
reductions and mixed results for 
other outcomes (No. GAO-05-
219). Washington, DC: Author. 

Wexler, D. B., & Winick, B. J. 
(1996). Law in a therapeutic key: 
Developments in therapeutic juris-
prudence. Durham, NC: Carolina 
Academic Press. 

Wilson, D. B., Mitchell, O., & MacK-
enzie, D. L. (2006). A systematic 
review of drug court effects on 
recidivism. Journal of Experimen-
tal Criminology, 2, 459-487. 

WSBT News. (2019, February). 
Work in St. Joseph County to fight 
opioid epidemic getting interna-
tional coverage [News broadcast]. 
In Local News. Mishawaka, IN: 
WSBT News. Available to view 
at: https://wsbt.com/news/
local/work-in-st-joseph-coun-
ty-to-fight-opioid-epidemic-get-
ting-international-coverage

C O M M U N I T Y - E N G A G E D  
R E S E A R C H  A R T I C L E S 

ENGAGE!  |  i u p u i  b i c e n t e n n i a l  e d i t i o n 34


