Assignment 1: Issues with Criminal Justice

Article

Drug Courts and the Facilitation of Turning Points: An Expansion of Life Course Theory

Sarah Messer1, Ryan Patten2, and Kimberlee Candela3

Abstract Life course theory has been used to explain why people stop committing crime and/or deviant behavior. Life course theory scholars have demonstrated important life events, such as marriage, gaining employment, or joining the military, have led to reduced recidivism; however, drug courts might also legitimately be considered a turning point for an offender. This study utilized semi- structured interviews with former drug court participants (n ¼ 29) in an attempt to expand life course theory and demonstrate how drug courts should be considered a facilitator of ‘‘turning points’’ for previous criminal offenders. During the interviews, participants discussed how drug court helped them attain many important skills/ideas: self-esteem, improved relationships with family and children, a general educational development certificate, a driver’s license, and/or gainful employment. A gendered analysis demonstrates women found drug court to be more useful at facilitating turning points than their male peers. Additionally, recidivism rates for the participants were lower than similarly situated offenders at the state level. While further research is needed, this study begins to advance the expansion of life course theory.

Keywords drug court, life course theory, gender

Introduction

Life course theory, originally developed to account for adolescent deviance, has been expanded to

explain criminal behavior over the course of an offender’s life (Cullen, Wright, & Blevins, 2006;

Sampson & Laub, 2005). Certain life events such as marriage, military service, obtaining educational

1 California State University, Chico, CA, USA 2 College of Behavioral and Social Sciences, California State University, Chico, CA, USA

3 Far Northern Regional Center, Disability Rights California, Chico, CA, USA

Received September 10, 2015. Accepted for publication January 24, 2016.

Corresponding Author:

Ryan Patten, College of Behavioral and Social Sciences, California State University, Chico, 400 W. 1st Street, Butte Hall 701,

Chico, CA 95926, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Contemporary Drug Problems 2016, Vol. 43(1) 6-24

ª The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0091450916632545

cdx.sagepub.com

goals, gaining employment, and becoming a parent can be considered turning points in an offender’s

life, which can modify the trajectory of her life course and alter his/her propensity to engage in

criminal or antisocial behavior (Elder, 1986; Rutter, Quinton, & Hill, 1990; Sampson & Laub,

1990, 1993).

Drug courts were developed as a response to the burgeoning population of drug offenders in the

criminal justice system (Belenko, 1998; Fulkerson, Keena, & O’Brien, 2012; Hora, Schma, &

Rosenthal, 1999; Patten, Messer, & Candela, 2014). This increased demand for drug courts has

resulted in the creation of thousands of courts in the United States (Huddleston & Marlowe, 2011;

Huddleston, Marlowe, & Casebolt, 2008; Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacKenzie, 2012). As an

example, in 2010, 85% of offenders incarcerated under state or federal jurisdiction required substance use treatment (National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, 2010). Following a rehabilitation

model, many drug courts use interventions that combine treatment, intensive supervision, and regular

court appearances (Fulkerson, 2009; Fulkerson et al., 2012; Keena, Fulkerson, & Griep, 2007; Patten

et al., 2014). One outcome of drug court is the ability to alter the trajectory of the offender’s life course

and reduce his or her propensity to engage in future illegal activities.

There is a plethora of research pertaining to drug courts including their effectiveness (Fulkerson et al.,

2012; Gottfredson, Najaka, & Kearley, 2003; Mitchell et al., 2012), perspectives of past participants

(Fischer, Geiger, & Hughes, 2007; Goldkamp, White, & Robinson, 2002; Roberts & Wolfer, 2011;

Wolfer, 2006), program evaluations (Deschenes, Turner, & Greenwood, 1995; Gottfredson, Kearley,

Najaka, & Rocha, 2005; Rempel et al., 2003), and motivation for participation (Farole & Cissner, 2005;

Goldkamp et al., 2002; Patten et al., 2014). Similarly, a copious amount of scholarship exists pertaining

to life course theory and the examination of turning points in a criminal career (Cullen et al., 2006;

Moffitt, 1993; Patterson, 1993; Rutter et al., 1990; Sampson & Laub, 1990, 1993, 2003, 2005). There is,

however, virtually no literature examining drug court and the participation in drug court as a turning

point using the life course theory model. As will be explained, drug court provides powerful incentives

and punishments for its participants, facilitating a turning point to desist in a criminal lifestyle. This study

adds to existing literature on life course theory and drug courts by using interviews of former rural drug

court participants to understand the impact of drug court on their life trajectories.

A Brief Overview of Life Course Theory

Life course theory was originally developed to explain criminal behavior and deviance over the course

of a lifetime (Sampson & Laub, 1990, 1993, 2003, 2005). Sampson and Laub (1993) theorized the use

of incarceration to reduce recidivism was too narrow of a concept and should include other key

institutional settings such as family dynamics, education, employment, and geographic location. They

expanded upon the research of Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), acknowledging the impact of early

childhood behavior and self-control, but refuting the contention that future behavior as an adult has

little or no significance on criminality.

There are three main tenets of life course theory (Sampson & Laub, 1993). First, the framework

utilized by the social control aspects of family and school, although informal, can explain early

childhood and adolescent criminal or deviant behavior. Second, there is an amount of permanency

in criminal or deviant behavior from adolescence to adulthood in various aspects of life. Finally,

Sampson and Laub (1993) noted informal social ties in adulthood to family, education, and career

can explain the shift from criminal or delinquent behavior over the course of a life regardless of

childhood deviance. In other words, these forms of informal social control can be considered turning

points in the course of a life span.

Turning points. According to life course theory, an individual travels on a trajectory or pathway through life, however, situational events and informal, nongovernmental institutions like work, school, and

Messer et al. 7

family can act as turning points. These turning points can redirect the individual’s trajectory altering

his/her life course (Sampson & Laub, 1993). In order for a life event to be considered a turning point,

the length of time on a new trajectory must be long enough that it is apparent the course has changed

(Abbott, 1997; Piquero, 2008). Turning points can also be considered to be preceded by troubling or

challenging circumstances that illustrate an individual’s character (Denzin, 1989).

Events such as marriage, becoming a parent, and obtaining employment can be considered turning

points that alter an individual’s propensity to engage in criminal behavior and set him/her on a new

trajectory (Craig, Diamond, & Piquero, 2014; Doherty & Ensminger, 2013; King, Massoglia, &

MacMillan, 2007; Laub, Nagin, & Sampson, 1998; Sampson & Laub, 2003; Theobald & Farrington,

2009; Uggen, 2000; Waite & Gallagher, 2000; Warr, 1998). The attachment associated with marriage

is often attributed to a decrease in the propensity to engage in antisocial or criminal behavior because

with marriage comes social attachment to a spouse and a sense of familial obligation (Osgood & Lee,

1993). This attachment can be associated with turning away from the criminal lifestyle because there is

more to lose and more time spent with the family leaves less time to engage in antisocial or criminal

behavior (Nagin & Paternoster, 1994; Sampson & Laub, 2003).

Much like the partnership and social control created by marriage, becoming a parent can decrease

the likelihood of an individual to engage in delinquent or criminal behavior (Elder, 1986; Rutter et al.,

1990; Sampson & Laub, 1993, 1997). Having children adds a certain level of new, parental respon-

sibilities. Becoming a parent can lead to new opportunities to socialize (with other parents), can require

changing neighborhoods (moving to the suburbs), and can result in a shift toward more family-oriented

routines and activities (Sampson & Laub, 2003).

Strong ties to the values associated with work can also change an individual’s trajectory and allow

him/her from offending or reoffending (Graham & Bowling, 1995; Vaillant & Vaillant, 1981). The

stability provided by continuous employment has demonstrated a strong correlation with the shift away

from criminal behavior because employment acts as a form of social control (Benda, 2005; Sampson &

Laub, 2003). Additionally, work can give an individual a sense of identity and increase self-esteem

(Sampson & Laub, 1993). An individual with gainful employment also increases his/her number of

interactions with prosocial persons (Uggen, 2000; Warr, 1998). Maintaining stable employment also

promotes conformity through informal social control (Sampson & Laub, 2003; Uggen, 2000).

Turning Points in Substance Use Research

The concept of turning points in substance use, both drug and alcohol, has been examined in the

literature. The research has identified two broad classifications delineating how turning points can lead

to a reduction or cessation of substance use: self-motivations (Andersen, 2015; Blomqvist, 2002;

Doukas, 2011; Henwood, Padgett, Smith, & Tiderington, 2012; Kaskutas, 1996; Kearney & O’Sulli-

van, 2003; McIntosh & McKeganey, 2000) and the influence of others (Curran, Muthen, & Harford,

1998; Dawson, Goldstein, Ruan, & Grant, 2012; Dawson, Grant, Stinson, & Chou, 2006; Jessup et al.,

2014).

Perhaps one of the strongest internal turning points is a change in how the users view themselves.

Perception of self as a nonuser can be very powerful in promoting change (Doukas, 2011; Kearney &

O’Sullivan, 2003; McIntosh & McKeganey, 2000). Similarly, changing the personal narrative, recon-

structing self-identity, and an increased self-awareness can be influential turning points (Andersen,

2015; Henwood et al., 2012; Herbeck, Brecht, Christou, & Lovinger, 2014). Many users ‘‘tire of the

lifestyle’’ and seek to alter their past substance abusing trajectories (Best, Ghufran, Day, Ray, &

Loaring, 2008).

Chronic alcohol and drug users frequently encounter financial and job stresses that create a turning

point. Not only is the cost of alcohol and drug use a problem, but work performance can suffer

sometimes and lead to job termination, which exacerbates the cost concerns of alcohol and drug use

8 Contemporary Drug Problems 43(1)

(Satre, Chi, Mertens, & Weisner, 2012). Being fired from a job or not being able to financially afford

their old lifestyle can create a ‘‘rock bottom’’ experience which can be a turning point for many people

(Blomqvist, 2002).

Alcohol and drug users are also subject to external relationships and the influence of others. Past

research has noted the stabilizing nature of marriage and how it can lead to a decrease of substance use

(Curran et al., 1998; Dawson et al., 2006; Karlamangla, Zhou, Reuben, Greendale, & Moore, 2006).

Not only is marriage a turning point, but the sway of other significant relationships can also be highly

influential. Henwood, Padgett, Smith, and Tiderington (2012) noted the support of peers in Alcoholics

Anonymous often times served as a positive anchor for others in the group. Additionally, the desire to

be a better parent or reestablish a relationship with children is often a powerful motivator. In particular,

the loss of contact or loss of custody of a child or children can serve as a strong turning point for many

of those struggling with addiction (Dawson et al., 2012; Jessup et al., 2014).

As mentioned above, there are many potential turning points for substance users and misusers to

alter their life course trajectories. While some come to these turning points naturally, many arrive

through participation in legally required programs such as drug court. Drug court can act as a catalyst

for change and facilitate turning points through its formal and informal social control mechanisms.

A Brief Overview of Drug Courts

In 1989, the over-representation of drug offenders frequenting the criminal justice system resulted in

the creation of the first drug court in Florida (Fulkerson et al., 2012; Hora et al., 1999). Drug courts

were created as an alternative sanction for convicted drug offenders with the goal of assisting them in

maintaining their sobriety and, in turn, lowering recidivism rates (Belenko, 1998; Carey, Mackin, &

Finnigan, 2012; Listwan, Sundt, Holsinger, & Latessa, 2003). Since their foundation, drug courts have

grown exponentially, reaching more than 2,400 programs nationwide (Huddleston & Marlowe, 2011).

These programs vary in design, but most use a similar, basic design. Typically, drug court programs

offer a multitude of services and mandate at least a year of treatment before the participants are eligible

to graduate (Lindquist, Krebs, Warner, & Lattimore, 2009). These services generally include court

hearings, urinalysis drug testing, attending outpatient treatment or counseling, and frequent participa-

tion in Narcotics Anonymous or other support group meetings (Mitchell et al., 2012). Drug court

programs require participants to navigate through different stages of treatment that become progres-

sively less intensive as they progress. Typically, the drug court model utilizes graduated rewards and

sanctions to assist offenders in becoming more accountable. This strategy also encourages increased

retention rates in drug court programming (Belenko, 1998).

Drug courts differ from the adversarial nature of criminal courts. They are a collaborative effort

involving court personnel (judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and clerks), treatment staff (thera-

pists, counselors, and social workers), probation officers, and correctional staff (Burns & Peyrot, 2003;

Emerson, 1983; Judge, 1997; Nolan, 2001). Although these programs are rehabilitative in nature, it is

important to note the rigorous demands and close monitoring by the courts, which can be demonstrated

by somewhat high failure rates. Studies show nearly half of drug court participants fail programming

and are sentenced to prison (Belenko, 2001; U.S. General Accounting Office, 1997; Mitchell et al.,

2012; Patten et al., 2014).

Numerous drug court evaluations have demonstrated generally lower recidivism rates for offenders

who complete a program compared to those who do not (Fulkerson et al., 2012; Rempel et al., 2003;

Shaffer, 2011; Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2006). A national study of drug court graduates

showed a 2-year recidivism rate of 28% (Roman, Townsend, & Bhati, 2003). Similarly, Wilson, Mitchell, and MacKenzie (2006) compiled findings of over 50 drug court program evaluations which

revealed similarly situated drug offenders recidivated less frequently if they had completed drug court.

More recently, Shaffer (2011) conducted a similar study of over 80 drug courts and found recidivism

Messer et al. 9

rates of 46% for those who participated in drug court programming and 55% for those who did not. While not perfect, drug court graduates generally maintain lower recidivism rates.

While many studies analyze the effectiveness of drug courts, a critical perspective must also be

examined. Early studies of drug courts demonstrated a reduction in recidivism, however, these were

relatively short-term outcomes due to the length of follow-up periods (Turner et al., 2002). Tiger

(2011) explains the limitations of drug courts based on their jurisdictions. Drug courts measure success

based on participants’ ability to abstain from drugs, change their employment or educational statuses,

comply with mental health mandates, and not recidivate. She goes on to suggest perhaps these metrics

are not adequate. Participants must engage in community service, alter relationships with family

members, and develop prosocial community ties. This understanding of limitations builds on

Garland’s (1990) explanation of how the combination of a scientific approach and normalized prac-

tices is more telling of the bureaucratization of the penal system rather than rehabilitation. Similarly,

Kaye (2013) explains how the nature of treatment provided by therapeutic courts can often have a

prolonged punishment effect rather than a rehabilitative one. Drug court participants are sometimes

complying with mandates simply to navigate the program as presented and remove themselves from

the control of the criminal justice system as opposed to desisting in drug use.

Drug Courts, Gender, and Recidivism

Previous research on gendered differences in drug court literature is uneven. Hickert, Boyle, and

Tollefson (2009) reviewed 11 studies to determine whether gender is a predictor of completion or

retention in drug court. One showed women were more likely than men to drop out of the program,

another showed women were more likely to complete drug court than men, yet another showed men

were participating more after 6 months, and in the other 8, gender did not have statistical significance.

Similarly, Somers, Moniruzzaman, Rezansoff, and Patterson (2014) provided an examination of

400 drug court participants in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, which demonstrated no statistical

significance when exploring recidivism rates and controlling for gender. Lower recidivism rates were

linked to tenure in the program and graduation status. Benda (2005) studied 300 men and 300 women

enrolled in a drug ‘‘boot camp’’ and found after 1 year, nearly 85% of men had not recidivated, whereas about 95% of women had not recidivated. Offenders chose to participate in the program as an alternative to a state prison commitment, much like drug court participants (Benda, 2005). Ulti-

mately, the findings vary concerning whether women are more likely than men to remain in substance

use treatment programs (Greenfield et al., 2007).

Drug court does, however, appear to have the capacity to facilitate artificial turning points for its

participants. As discussed above, drug court provides participants with formal processes to help

moderate and improve life trajectories. As noted by Blomqvist (2002), there should be formal inter-

ventions directed at supporting natural change processes. This study adds to the existing literature by

examining drug court’s ability to be a turning point through the participants’ own experiences. While

previous research has examined specific contextual turning points (health, relationships, and others),

there is no research that analyzes drug court itself as a mechanism for creating or facilitating turning

points.

Method

Research for this study occurred in Foothill County in northern California. 1

While strict definitions of

rural or urban vary greatly, based on several considerations, Foothill County can be considered rural. 2

Since 1995, Foothill County has had an adult drug court, and while the site has served as a training site

for the National Drug Court Institute and the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, at its

core, the Foothill County Drug Court (FCDC) operates in a style similar to most other American drug

10 Contemporary Drug Problems 43(1)

courts. At the time this study was conducted, the drug court’s enrollment was capped at 100 partici-

pants and the targeted population was felony offenders whose motivation for criminal behavior

stemmed from drug addiction.

The FCDC is a post-conviction court, where participants enter as a condition of formal probation or

after a violation of probation from an existing criminal case. The underlying conviction need not be for

a drug or drug-related offense, but if it is established the participant has a drug or alcohol dependency,

then the individual can be referred to FCDC. Candidates typically have been on formal probation for a

substantial period of time without success before entry into FCDC.

The designed length of FCDC program is 24 months, however, individual times vary widely based on

phase or programmatic failure or success. There are four phases within the FCDC, but the steps needed to

pass differ for each individual. In general, participants are required to complete several, if not all, of the

following tasks: earn a general educational development (GED) certificate, attend drunken driving

awareness courses, attend AIDS awareness courses, pay victim restitution, pay court fees, attend 12-

step meetings, provide clean urine samples, attend individual or group drug treatment sessions, live in

residential drug treatment, maintain employment or actively seek employment, and attend individual

and/or group counseling sessions with Foothill County Behavioral Health (FCBH). Ultimately, an

individual’s progress in the program is based on the collective judgment of the prosecutor, defense,

representatives from FCBH and Foothill County Probation Department, as well as the judge.

The data for this study come from 29 interviews with former participants of the FCDC using a

convenience and snowball sample. In fall 2011, the authors obtained the addresses for 113 members of

the 2004–2005 FCDC and mailed letters inviting them to participate in an interview about their FCDC

experience. 3

The 2004–2005 cohort was selected based on previous research conducted by the authors

on the FCDC. Additionally, the authors wanted to select potential participants who had some time to

reflect on their FCDC experience and provide insight related to if their involvement in FCDC created

turning points that altered their criminal trajectories, if at all.

Of the 113 letters mailed, 47 were returned because the participant no longer resided at the known

address. Of the remaining 66 invitation letters that were not returned to sender, 6 participants contacted

the authors and consented to interviews. Through these six participants, the authors were informed of a

support group that contained many alumni of the FCDC. An additional eight participants were

acquired through the support group. The remaining 16 participants were acquired through the assis-

tance of a counselor from the FCBH. This counselor had contact information for many former FCDC

participants and provided it to the authors with advanced consent from those individuals. All inter-

viewees were compensated US$25 for their time.

The interviews transpired in spring 2012 in two cities within Foothill County. Only one participant

was interviewed at a time, so the interviewees could speak freely without others overhearing or

influencing their answers. The interviews were semi-structured and utilized an interview guide, but

the order of questions was not always adhered to, so as not to interfere with the flow of the narrative

(Fischer et al., 2007; Patton, 2001; Roberts & Wolfer, 2011). The questions asked were broad and open

ended, which allowed for a participant-directed interview and permitted the participants to reconstruct

their experiences and recall their perceptions (see Table 1 for the questions used in this study;

Vandermause, Severtsen, & Roll, 2013). The interviewers had no connection to the FCDC, or any

of its agencies, and had no prior relationship with participants prior to the interview. On average, the

interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes. All of the interviews were professionally transcribed and

the participants were guaranteed confidentiality.

After the interviews were transcribed, a content analysis was conducted to better understand the

participants’ responses and to organize their replies into appropriate groupings. The content analysis

utilized for this study followed Berg’s (2001) recommendation and involved manifest and latent

analyses of the data. First, manifest coding provided counts of cases and examples for predetermined

categories (Neuman, 2003). Second, latent coding was used to uncover the meaning of the interviews

Messer et al. 11

provided by the participants. Additionally, different rounds of coding were required, also known as

coding frames. After each participants’ responses about the general impact of drug court were coded,

any additional responses were coded as favorable, unfavorable, or neutral. Last, the vignettes were

subcategorized into smaller, overlapping groups.

The sample contained 24 FCDC graduates and 5 that were terminated. Ten of the 29 participants

were men, 4

27 of the 29 were White, and the average age was 37 years old (the youngest was 24 and the

oldest was 55). The primary drug of choice for the participants was methamphetamine (72%), pre- scription drugs (14%), alcohol (10%), and opiates (3%). The average age of first drug use was 13 years old, with the youngest at 6 and the oldest at 26. The average time spent in the FCDC was 28 months,

with the shortest being 16 months (that person was terminated) and the longest being 46 months (that

person graduated). Six of the participants (21%) were from the 2004–2005 cohort, three (10%) were from older cohorts, but the majority (20; 69%) were from more recent cohorts. The average length of time from graduating or being terminated from FCDC was 2 years and 10 months (the longest was 9

years and the shortest was 1 year). The interviewees had varying lengths of sobriety, from 3 months to

10 years, with the average length of sobriety being 3½ years (see Table 1).

Findings

Even though drug court might be less of a voluntary choice than college, military service, or marriage,

drug court still inspired many of the participants to abandon their criminal behavior. The participants

Table 1. Interview Questions.

1. What was your reaction when you were first assigned to drug court? a. Did you feel ready to be done using? How so?

2. Describe your first few months in the court. 3. Which parts of drug court was most helpful to you? Explain. 4. What parts of drug court didn’t help or even got in your way? Explain. 5. Personal change/growth:

a. Describe your life before and after drug court. b. In what ways did your life change, if any, after drug court? c. Did your participation in drug court make you feel differently about yourself?

i. If yes, why do you think your participation in drug court made you feel differently about yourself? Please describe.

d. Did drug court provide you with different ways to handle stress? i. If yes, how?

6. Sobriety: a. How is maintain sobriety going? b. Do you go to 12-step meetings? How regularly? Why? c. What do you do to maintain sobriety? d. Do you currently access resources that you learned about in drug court? Which ones? How are they helpful?

7. Children: a. Describe your current relationship with your children (if applicable). b. Did you and your children go through dependency court at all?

i. If yes, how did that experience affect your relationship? c. Did drug court have an influence in your relationship with your kids?

i. If yes, why do you think your relationships changed? 8. Key relationships in your life (spouse/parents/siblings):

a. How did your relationships with family and loved ones change, before and after drug court, if at all? i. If yes, why do you think your relationships changed? ii. How do you feel about those changes?

9. Other than what has been discussed, what else would you like to tell us about your experience in drug court?

12 Contemporary Drug Problems 43(1)

consistently discussed how different components of their drug court experience facilitated different

turning points. While engaged in the drug court process, the participants noted many seemingly small

life improvements, such as the acquisition of a driver’s license, to larger advances, such as a new found

sense of self. Additionally, the impact of drug court in facilitating turning points was not consistent

among men and women. More often, women discussed the beneficial nature of their drug court

participation compared to their male counterparts (see Table 2).

Self-improvement. Like many drug courts around the nation, the FCDC makes many self-improvement goals, such as obtaining a general equivalency degree (GED), a driver’s license, or a job, compulsory

for its participants. Seven of 29 (24%) participants earned their GED, 15 of 29 gained their drivers’ license (52%), and 16 of 29 (55%) became employed either during or after their drug court experience.

Without drug court I wouldn’t have gotten my GED, I wouldn’t be working, and I wouldn’t have a work

ethic . . . I’m just better off with the drug court. (29-year-old female, graduated FCDC)

Another participant also reflected how drug court provided job training skills, which resulted in

obtaining employment:

While I was in drug court there was a class that we had to go to twice a week if you don’t already have a job

. . . and they help you with learning how to apply [for a job] and what to do and how to dress and all that and

I got two jobs during drug court. (34-year-old female, failed FCDC)

Family. As noted in the literature (Rehm et al., 1996; Hibell et al., 2000), habitual drug use often strains and/or ruins many relationships with family. Most of the participants talked about how their partic-

ipation in drug court positively influenced their relationships with family. Twenty of the 29 (69%) interviewees cited their participation in drug court as beneficial in reconnection with family members.

I had destroyed and abandoned every relationship that was ever important to me, and by the time I had

completed drug court I had a really good relationship with my mother. (45-year-old female, graduated

FCDC)

Another participant reflected on his improved family connections:

Going to drug court showed that I meant what I said when I wanted to quit, and [my family is] more and

more happy every day. My mom is less stressed and my grandmother is especially [less stressed]. (46-year-

old male, graduated FCDC)

Table 2. The Gender Influence of Drug Court Turning Points.

Earned a General Education

Development (GED) Certificate

Earned a Driver’s License

Acquired a Job

Experienced a More Positive

Relationship With Their Family

Experienced a More Positive

Relationship With Their Children

Experienced an Increase in Self-Respect

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f %

Male 2 29 8 36 4 27 6 43 5 31 5 38 9 45 1 11 2 22 8 40 5 25 5 56 Female 5 71 14 64 11 73 8 57 11 69 8 62 11 55 8 89 7 78 12 60 15 75 4 44

Messer et al. 13

Parenting. As also indicated in the literature, drug use frequently ruins the bonds between a parent and a child (Burstein, Stanger, & Dumenci 2012; Harmer, Sanderson, & Mertin, 1999; Keller, Cummings,

Davies, & Mitchell, 2008). Of the 23 participants who had children, 9 (39%) of the participants specifically mentioned how drug court helped them reconcile with their children and become better,

more present parents.

Before drug court [my kids] didn’t want me to be around them, they didn’t want to talk to me, and since I

got on drug court and they could see that I was making an effort to change my life. Now we talk on the

phone, or we go out to have lunch. (39-year-old female, graduated FCDC)

A female participant also explained how the drug court experience allowed her to become more

included in the lives of her children:

I’m involved with my kids now. I’m there for them . . . Before drug court I was always drunk so I couldn’t

really be involved. Now, they do sports, I go and I do things at school with them, I do their homework with

them . . . I’m just more available. (48-year-old female, graduated FCDC)

Sense of self. Perhaps most importantly, through the drug court process, many of the participants gained self-esteem and a new sense of self. Overall, 20 of the 29 (69%) participants discussed how drug court gave them a renewed and positive perspective on themselves.

I used to be ugly from the inside out. I thought I was going to be a drug addict forever. I didn’t really care

about my image. I think drug court has changed that [image] for me. Now, I want to be respected and I want

to be trusted. Back then I didn’t care if you trusted me at all.’’ (34-year-old female, graduated FCDC)

A male participant recalled how drug court created a new life perspective:

Before drug court, if you asked [the behavioral health counselor] she would have told you I had a little

attitude . . . that I didn’t care about nothin’, and I didn’t want to work on myself . . . But that all changed

quickly because drug court was a positive experience. It changed me completely. [Drug court] changed my

life and taught me how to live. (25-year-old male, graduated FCDC)

Discussion

As discussed in the life course literature, turning points are often preceded by challenging conditions

and turning points must be long enough for a new trajectory to be established (Abbott, 1997; Sampson

& Laub, 2003). Drug court meets these conditions, and as found in the literature, drug court partici-

pants are less likely to recidivate than nonparticipants (Belenko, 2001; Gottfredson et al., 2003; Wilson

et al., 2006). Additionally, through the 24-month process, drug court creates new life skills that may

positively alter the trajectory of the participant. While the participants always had the ability to have

positive relationships and self-worth in the past, it is clear many did not. Drug court allows many of the

personal and interpersonal relationships the time to bloom and grow. As conveyed by the many

participants of this study, drug court helped facilitate turning points in their lives. In particular, female

participants of the study more frequently noted that drug court facilitated turning points compared to

their male counterparts. Roberts and Wolfer (2011) also found women drug court participants expe-

rienced increased self-image and improved relationships with loved ones.

As a condition of the FCDC, and most other drug courts, participants are required to make progress

toward earning a GED, acquiring or reacquiring their driver’s license, and apply for or obtain a job

(Huddleston, 2005). Failure to meet these objectives or make substantial progress toward meeting

14 Contemporary Drug Problems 43(1)

these goals equates to failing the program and often a trip to state prison. If not for drug court, it is

unlikely the participants would have achieved these goals. These self-improvement goals themselves

can lead to larger turning points at a later date further altering the criminal trajectory. Earning a GED

opens up more job opportunities. A driver’s license allows one greater access to job opportunities and

having gainful employment may increase prosocial behavior, social control, and greater life stability

(Graham & Bowling, 1995; Sampson & Laub, 2003; Shover, 1996; Uggen, 2000; Vaillant & Vaillant,

1981). The participants of this study consistently noted how drug court forced them into acquiring

these self-improvement skills. With these new talents acquired through drug court, many participants

were able to enhance their prosocial behaviors, even those who failed drug court. As noted in the life

course theory literature, getting married, having kids, or acquiring a job do not automatically eliminate

recidivism for all, but many do find these changes to reduce recidivism and increase prosocial beha-

viors (Sampson & Laub, 2003)

While the self-improvement component of drug court might be the most coerced, as participants are

required to obtain or attempt to acquire GEDs, drivers’ licenses, and search for jobs, it should be noted

that in all three categories, women were more likely to achieve these goals than their male counter-

parts. According to the National Women’s Law Center (2007), nationally, the drop-out rate for high

school girls is 25% and 26% in California. Perhaps more women entering FCDC did not have a high school diploma or GED. Similarly, according to the California Department of Motor Vehicles (2013),

female arrests for driving under the influence (DUI) have more than doubled since 1989. Perhaps more

women entering FCDC had been convicted of a DUI and lost their drivers’ license. As noted in Table 3,

women were also more likely to mention that drug court helped make possible improved relationships

with children, family, and increased their self-worth. A woman with a new motivation to help support

family and children as well as having a new outlook on life might also be more interested in acquiring

the tools (a GED, a driver’s license, and a job) to help make those goals a reality.

As is understandable, a history of drug use often frays familial relationships (Curran et al., 1998;

Dawson et al., 2006). While drug court does not mandate participants to revitalize these relationships,

many family associations are improved through the drug court processes. Drug court provides the

participants with a firm, tangible, and trusted affirmation of their desire to eliminate drugs from their

lives. As witnessed in the participants’ vignettes above, drug court provided the opportunity to pursue a

turning point to mend family connections. By participating in drug court, instead of relying on a

promise, the offenders are able to demonstrate through their actions they are interested in pursuing

a life without drug use. Without the backdrop of drug court to help solidify the participants’ actions, it

is possible many families would be unlikely to reengage with their loved ones due to past disappoint-

ments associated with ‘‘all talk and no action.’’

Of the six themes to arise from the data, drug court facilitating better relationships with the

participants’ families was the only category where, proportionately, men found greater benefit than

women. Perhaps part of the explanation of this finding is the male participants, on average, had 17 years

of drug use compared to 13 years for female participants. Four additional years of use provides more

opportunities for distressed relationships, which also leaves more chances to improve beleaguered

associations. Simply put, compared to the women of the sample, the men may have had worse

preexisting relationships with their families, therefore, drug court facilitated a greater opportunity to

improve those connections.

Similar to drug use harming family relationships, relationships between drug using adults and their

children are also damaged as well (Dawson et al., 2012; Jessup et al., 2014). In this study, the

participants emphasized drug court allowed them to reconnect with their children. As discussed by

the offenders, the participation in drug court was often the catalyst for the rekindling of a parent/child

connection. For many of the participants, rebuilding bonds with their children was deeply satisfying

and contributed to a sense of accomplishment. Many of the offenders expressed a feeling of failure in

regard to parenting and the sense of shame associated with that failure. Through their participation in

Messer et al. 15

T a b

le 3 .

P ar

ti ci

p an

t D

e m

o gr

ap h ic

s.

G ra

d u at

e d

F C

D C

S e x

R ac

e

A ge

o f th

e In

te rv

ie w

e e

(i n

Y e ar

s) D

ru g

o f

C h o ic

e

A ge

o f F ir

st D

ru g

U se

(i n

Y e ar

s)

L e n gt

h o f T

e n u re

in F C

D C

(i n

M o n th

s)

L e n gt

h o f T

im e

S in

ce C

o m

p le

ti o n /

te rm

in at

io n

in F C

D C

(i n

M o n th

s)

L e n gt

h o f M

o st

R e ce

n t

S ti n t

o f

S o b ri

e ty

(i n

M o n th

s)

Y e s

N o

M F

W h it e

N o n -W

h it e

H ig

h L o w

� x M

e th

O th

e r

H ig

h L o w

� x H

ig h

L o w

� x H

ig h

L o w

� x H

ig h

L o w

� x

f 2 4

5 1 0

1 9

2 7

2 5 5

2 4

3 7

2 1

8 2 6

6 1 3

4 6

1 6

2 8

1 0 7

1 2

3 4

1 2 0

3 4 2

% 8 3

1 7

3 4

6 6

9 3

7 7 2

2 8

N o te

. F C

D C ¼

F o o th

ill C

o u n ty

D ru

g C

o u rt

.

16

drug court, with its mandated policies and procedures, many offenders were able to slowly reengage in

the lives of their children.

In regard to drug court facilitating turning points, the greatest disparity between male and female

participants was the subject of improved relationships with children. Of the nine participants who

discussed drug court facilitating a better-quality association, seven were women (see Table 3). In this

study, 80% of men and 84% of women had children, so both groups had relatively the same chance to have healthier relationships with their children. Closer inspection of the data reveals 58% of female participants have children living in the home, compared to only 30% of male participants. The increase in interactions between child and parent when the parent is sober might also lead to a revitalization of the

relationship. Perhaps children witnessing the validity of the parental sobriety attempt led to an increase of

trust between the two parties. In all seven of the interviews provided by the women, they talked at length

about being able to ‘‘be there’’ for their children. Sobriety, facilitated by drug court, allowed the women

the chance to be a responsible parent again, which in turn improved the relationship with their children.

Overall, a majority of participants explained how drug court was able to positively enhance their

self-image. As seen in Table 1, the average age of first drug use was 14 years old, and almost all

participants had been abusing drugs for years, if not decades, and as a result many described them-

selves as ‘‘disgusting,’’ ‘‘worthless,’’ or ‘‘hopeless.’’ The participants had consistently disappointed

themselves, children, family, supervisors, and others for so long they felt they could never recover.

Involvement in drug court programming required the participants to recommit to a drug free lifestyle,

thus creating a turning point and facilitating the feeling of a new sense of self.

This finding also revealed a dramatic difference between male and female participants. A full three

quarters (75%) of the female respondents addressed how drug court facilitated a turning point in their self-worth. Based on the previous data, this finding is perhaps more easily explained. In addition to

gaining sobriety, women were more likely to earn GEDs, acquire drivers’ licenses, secure employ-

ment, and reestablish relationships with their children. An increased self-worth is a logical extension of

accomplishing these goals.

While some, if not many, might be coerced into enrolling into drug court, that does not necessarily

minimize drug court’s ability to facilitate turning points. These interviews occurred years after the

participants’ involvement in drug court, so the coercive factor, if it was ever present, is balanced by

hindsight. Furthermore, drug court might mandate attending meetings, GED acquisition, and counsel-

ing sessions; however, drug court does not require improved familial relationships, better parenting, or

increased self-worth.

Conclusion

This study adds drug court as a new event to expand life course theory. Life course theory has been

used by several scholars to try and explain the desistance of criminal activity (Elder, 1986; Rutter et al.,

1990; Sampson & Laub, 1990, 1993). Typically, these scholars have discussed the major events in

one’s life, such as marriage, employment, and parenthood as turning points away from a criminal

lifestyle (Cullen et al., 2006; Elder, 1986; Rutter et al., 1990; Sampson & Laub, 1990, 1993, 2003,

2005). Missing from this discussion is the, perhaps artificial, turning point facilitated by one’s par-

ticipation in drug court. The term artificial is used because drug court is usually a mandated option for

the offender or, if not mandated, generally a preferred option over an immediate state prison sentence

(Patten et al., 2014). Comparatively, marriage, employment, and parenthood are decisions made with

free will. This study demonstrates regardless of how one arrives at these events, drug court can viably

be considered a turning point facilitator.

Similarly, for an event to be considered a turning point, the occasion should be preceded by

troubling or challenging circumstances that illustrate an individual’s character and the length of time

on a new trajectory must be long enough that it is apparent the course has changed (Abbott, 1997;

Messer et al. 17

Denzin, 1989). Drug court fits both of those criteria. By its definition, drug court is preceded by

troubling and challenging circumstances that have exemplified one’s character. Additionally, research

has also demonstrated that participants of drug court experience lower recidivism than those who do

not (Belenko, 2001; Gottfredson et al., 2003; Shaffer, 2011; Wilson et al., 2006). As an example to

highlight this fact, a previous evaluation of the 2004–2005 FCDC cohort revealed offenders were

rearrested 24% of the time within 5 years of their drug court participation. Additionally, 11 of the 29 participants of this study (38%) were rearrested within 4 years of their involvement in this research.5

While a recidivism rate of 38% might seem high, to provide some context, the 3-year recidivism rate for drug offenders released from California State Prisons was almost two thirds higher at 63% (Cali- fornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2011). Additionally, other turning points

research has demonstrated recidivism rates of 54% for those moving to new neighborhoods (Kirk, 2012) and recidivism rates of over 20% for those finding employment (Uggen & Staff, 2001), so a recidivism rate of 38% in this study is not unusual. Furthermore, past research has also reaffirmed that drug court participants have lower recidivism rates compared to nondrug court participants (Shaffer,

Hartman, & Listwan, 2009; Shannon, Jackson, Perkins, & Neal, 2014). Ultimately, drug court cannot

make an offender alter his or her behavior, but drug court can facilitate turning points if the offender

chooses to capitalize on the opportunities provided.

The offenders’ own words bolster the idea drug court helps facilitate turning points. Through their

participation in drug court, many were able to earn a GED, acquire or reacquire their driver’s licenses,

and obtain gainful employment. Often times, in the eyes of family members and children, participation

in drug court also legitimated the offenders’ attempts to become clean and sober. The rigors of drug

court urinalysis, counseling, and other forms of social control demonstrated to others a desire to shed

the substance use and past criminal behavior. Even if drug court was a mandated option for the

offenders, ultimately their participation in drug court often led to constructive lives afterward.

For many participants, drug court delivered the beginning of a new chance at life. As an example,

the average length of sobriety for offenders in this study after drug court was 44 months. For indi-

viduals with a lifetime of drug use, 44 months of sobriety was once considered unattainable. The

vignettes of participants reinforce the new trajectory of their lives due to their involvement in drug

court. Participants talk of ‘‘getting their lives back,’’ ‘‘finding themselves,’’ and ‘‘changing their lives’’

all through engaging in drug court.

There are some limitations with this study. Only participants of one drug court were sampled and

many of those involved in the study had successfully completed drug court. The sample was compiled

through a mix of convenience and snowball sampling. Given the transiency of the drug court population,

this limitation is understandable and does not negate or minimize the findings. While 83% of the participants had graduated from drug court, several of the unsuccessful offenders still noted how drug

court was a positive experience, but their drug addiction was too powerful to fully appreciate the services

being offered by drug court. Other studies have also shown noncompleting drug court participants found

their drug court experience to be satisfactory (Fulkerson et al., 2012) and their participation in drug court

boosted familial relationships (Francis & Abel, 2014), so concerns of a biased sample are muted.

Furthermore, marriage, employment, becoming a parent, and/or any other turning points in life course

theory does not necessarily eliminate criminality or recidivism for all (Kirk, 2012; Sampson & Laub,

2003; Uggen & Staff, 2001). The fact that some participants reoffend does not exclude drug court from

being considered a turning point facilitator. Future research can examine the drug court/turning point

concept with larger samples or samples from urban areas to substantiate or refute addition to the theory.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the FCDC workgroup for all of their assistance. This manuscript was greatly

improved due to the helpful insight and dedication of the editorial staff and three anonymous

reviewers.

18 Contemporary Drug Problems 43(1)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or

publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or

publication of this article: The authors received financial support for the research from the Office of

Research and Sponsored Projects and from the Dean of the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences

at California State University, Chico.

Notes

1. Foothill County is a pseudonym.

2. Foothill County is a member of the Rural County Representatives of California and a member of the California

State Rural Health Association. In addition, Foothill County is one of the top walnut and almond producing

counties in California.

3. To respect the participants’ personal privacy, the letters were addressed by the Foothill County Probation

Department (FCPD) and mailed using their envelopes, but the letters themselves were typed on California State

University, Chico, letterhead.

4. Even though 66% of this sample are female, on average, over the last 10 years, the typical women’s population

of the FCDC has been about 60%, so concerns about oversampling women are minimized.

5. Recidivism was measured as an arrest in Foothill County.

References

Abbott, A. (1997). On the concept of turning point. Comparative Social Research, 16, 85–105.

Andersen, D. (2015). Stories of change in drug treatment: A narrative analysis of ‘‘whats’’ and ‘‘hows’’ in

institutional storytelling. Sociology of Health & Illness, 37, 668–682.

Belenko, S. (1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review, 1,

1–27.

Belenko, S. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review: 2001 update. New York, NY: National Center on

Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.

Benda, B. B. (2005). Gender differences in life-course theory of recidivism: A survival analysis. International

Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 325–342.

Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

Best, D. W., Ghufran, S., Day, E., Ray, R., & Loaring, J. (2008). Breaking the habit: A retrospective

analysis of desistance factors among formerly problematic heroin users. Drug and Alcohol Review, 27,

619–624.

Blomqvist, J. (2002). Recovery with and without treatment: A comparison of resolutions of alcohol and drug

problems. Addiction Research & Theory, 10, 119–158.

Burns, S. L., & Peyrot, M. (2003). Tough love: Nurturing and coercing responsibility and recovery in California

drug courts. Social Problems, 50, 416–438.

Burnstein, M., Stanger, C., & Dumenci, L. (2012). Relations between parent psychopathology, family function-

ing, and adolescent problems in substance-abusing families: Disaggregating the effects of parent gender. Child

Psychiatry and Human Development, 43, 631–647.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2011). 2011 adult institutions outcome evaluation

report. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Department of Motor Vehicles. (2013). Annual report of the California DUI management information

system. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Motor Vehicles.

Messer et al. 19

Carey, S. M., Mackin, J. R., & Finnigan, M. W. (2012). What works? The ten key components of drug court:

Research-based best practices. Drug Court Review, 8, 6–42.

Craig, J. M., Diamond, B., & Piquero, A. R. (2014). Marriage as an intervention in the lives of criminal offenders.

In J. A. Humphrey & P. Cordella (Eds.), Effective interventions in the lives of criminal offenders (chapter 2)

(pp. 81–98). New York, NY: Springer.

Cullen, F. T., Wright, J. P., & Blevins, K. R. (2006). Taking stock: The status of criminological theory. New

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Curran, P. J., Muthen, B. O., & Harford, T. C. (1998). The influence of changes in marital status on developmental

trajectories of alcohol use in young adults. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59, 647–658.

Dawson, D. A., Goldstein, R. B., Ruan, W. J., & Grant, B. F. (2012). Correlates of recovery from alcohol

dependence: A prospective study over a 3-year follow-up interval. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental

Research, 36, 1268–1277.

Dawson, D. A., Grant, B. F., Stinson, F. S., & Chou, P. S. (2006). Maturing out of alcohol dependence: The impact

of transitional life events. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67, 195–203.

Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Deschenes, E. P., Turner, S., & Greenwood, P. W. (1995). Drug court or probation? An experimental evaluation of

Maricopa County’s Drug Court. Justice System Journal, 18, 55–73.

Doherty, E. E., & Ensminger, M. E. (2013). Marriage and offending among a cohort of disadvantaged African

Americans. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50, 104–131.

Doukas, N. (2011). Perceived barriers to identity transformation for people who are prescribed methadone.

Addiction Research and Theory, 19, 408–415.

Elder, G. H. (1986). Military times and turning points in men’s lives. Developmental Psychology, 22,

233–245.

Emerson, R. M. (1983). Holistic effects in social control decision-making. Law & Society Review, 17,

425–455.

Farole, D. J., & Cissner, A. B. (2005). Seeing eye to eye? Participant and staff perspectives on drug court. New

York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

Fischer, M., Geiger, B., & Hughes, M. E. (2007). Female recidivists speak about their experience in drug court

while engaging in appreciative inquiry. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Crimin-

ology, 51, 703–722.

Francis, T. R., & Abel, E. M. (2014). Redefining success: A qualitative investigation of therapeutic outcomes for

noncompleting drug court clients. Journal of Social Science Research, 40, 325–338.

Fulkerson, A. (2009). The drug treatment court as a form of restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 12,

253–267.

Fulkerson, A., Keena, L. D., & O’Brien, E. (2012). Understanding success and nonsuccess in the drug court.

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 20, 1–20.

Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and modern society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Goldkamp, J. S., White, M. D., & Robinson, J. B. (2002). An honest chance: Perspectives on drug courts. Federal

Sentencing Reporter, 6, 369–372.

Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Gottfredson, D. C., Kearley, B., Najaka, S. S., & Rocha, C. M. (2005). The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court:

3-year outcome study. Evaluation Review, 29, 42–64.

Gottfredson, D. C., Najaka, S. S., & Kearley, B. (2003). Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a

randomized trial. Criminology & Public Policy, 2, 171–196.

Graham, J., & Bowling, B. (1995). Young people and crime. Research study 145. London, England: Home

Office.

Greenfield, S. F., Brooks, A. J., Gordon, S. M., Green, C. A., Gropp, F., McHugh, R. K., . . . Miele, G. M. (2007).

Substance abuse treatment entry, retention, and outcome in women: A review of the literature. Drug Alcohol

Dependency, 86, 1–21.

20 Contemporary Drug Problems 43(1)

Harmer, A. L., Sanderson, J., & Mertin, P. (1999). Influence of negative childhood experiences on psychological

functioning, social support, and parenting for mothers recovering from addiction. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23,

421–433.

Henwood, B. F., Padgett, D. K., Smith, B. T., & Tiderington, E. (2012). Substance abuse recovery after experi-

encing homelessness and mental illness: Case studies of change over time. Journal of Dual Diagnosis, 8,

238–246.

Herbeck, D. M., Brecht, M. L., Christou, D., & Lovinger, K. (2014). A qualitative study of methamphetamine

users’ perspectives on barriers and facilitators of drug abstinence. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 46,

215–225.

Hibell, B., Andersson, B., Ahlstrom, S., Balakivera, O., Bjarnason, T., Kokkevi, A., & Morgan, M. (2000).

Alcohol and other drug use among students in 30 European countries. Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish

National Institute of Public Health.

Hickert, A. O., Boyle, S. W., & Tollefson, D. R. (2009). Factors that predict drug court completion and dropout:

Findings from an evaluation of Salt Lake County’s adult felony drug court. Journal of Social Service Research,

35, 149–162.

Hora, P. F., Schma, W. G., & Rosenthal, J. 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.

University of Notre Dame, 74, 439.

Huddleston, W. (2005). Drug courts: An effective strategy for communities facing methamphetamine. Washing-

ton, DC: Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Huddleston, W., & Marlowe, D. 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.

Huddleston, W., Marlowe, D. B., & Casebolt, R. (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.

Jessup, M. A., Ross, T. B., Jones, A. L., Satre, D. D., Weisner, C. M., Chi, F. W., & Mertens, J. R. (2014).

Significant life events and their impact on alcohol and drug use: A qualitative study. Journal of Psychoactive

Drugs, 46, 450–459.

Judge, M. (1997). Critical issues for defenders in the design and operation of a drug court. Indigent Defense,

November/December, 1–8.

Karlamangla, A., Zhou, K., Reuben, D., Greendale, G., & Moore, A. (2006). Longitudinal trajectories of heavy

drinking in adults in the United States of America. Addiction, 101, 91–99.

Kaskutas, L. A. (1996). Pathways to self-help among women for sobriety. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol

Abuse, 22, 259–280.

Kaye, K. (2013). Rehabilitating ‘the drugs’ lifestyle: Criminal justice, social control, and the cultivation of

agency. Ethnography, 14, 207–232.

Kearney, M. H., & O’Sullivan, J. (2003). Identity shifts as turning points in health behavior change. Western

Journal of Nursing Research, 25, 134–152.

Keller, P. S., Cummings, E. M., Davies, P. T., & Mitchell, P. M. (2008). Longitudinal relations between parental

drinking problems, family functioning, and child adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 195–212.

Keena, L. D., Fulkerson, A., & Griep, M. (2007). Volunteers in a drug treatment court restorative justice program.

International Journal of Restorative Justice, 3, 21–39.

King, R. D., Massoglia, M., & MacMillan, R. (2007). The context of marriage and crime: Gender, the propensity

to marry, and offending in early adulthood. Criminology, 45, 33–65.

Kirk, D. S. (2012). Residential change as a turning point in the life course of crime: Desistance or temporary

cessation? Criminology, 50, 329–357.

Laub, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good marriages

and the desistance process. American Sociological Review, 63, 225–238.

Messer et al. 21

Lindquist, C. H., Krebs, C. P., Warner, T. D., & Lattimore, P. K. (2009). An exploration of treatment and

supervision intensity among drug court and non-drug court participants. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation,

48, 167–193.

Listwan, S. J., Sundt, J. L., Holsinger, A. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2003). The effect of drug court programming on

recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 389–411.

McIntosh, J., & McKeganey, N. (2000). Addicts’ narratives of recovery from drug use: Constructing a non-addict

identity. Social Science & Medicine, 50, 1501–1510.

Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., & MacKenzie, D. 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.

Moffitt, E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxon-

omy. Psychological Review 100, 674–701.

Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1994). Personal capital and social control: The deterrence implications of a theory

of individual differences in criminal offending. Criminology, 32, 581–606.

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (2010). Behind bars II: Substance abuse and America’s

prison population. New York, NY: The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia

University.

National Women’s Law Center. (2007). When girls don’t graduate we all fail: A call to improve high school

graduation rates for girls. Washington, DC: National Women’s Law Center.

Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn

and Bacon.

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

Press.

Osgood, D. W., & Lee, H. (1993). Leisure activities, age, and adult roles across the lifespan. Society and Leisure,

16, 181–208.

Patten, R., Messer, S., & Candela, K. (2014). ‘‘I don’t see myself as prison material’’: Motivations for entering a

rural drug court. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59, 1188–1202.

Patterson, G. R. (1993). Orderly change in a stable world: The antisocial trait as a Chimera. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 61, 911–919.

Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Piquero, A. R. (2008). Taking stock of developmental trajectories of criminal activity over the life course. In

A. Liberman (Ed.), The long view of crime: A synthesis of longitudinal research (chapter 3) (pp. 23–78).

New York, NY: Springer.

Rehm, J., Ashley, M. J., Room, R., Single, E., Bondy, S., Ferrence, R., & Giesbrecht, N. (1996). On the emerging

paradigm of drinking patterns and their social and health consequences. Addiction, 91, 1615–1621.

Rempel, M., Fox-Kralstein, D., Cissner, A., Cohen, R., Labriola, M., Farole, D., . . . Magnani, M. (2003). The New

York State adult drug court evaluation: Policies, participants, and impacts. New York, NY: Center for Court

Innovation.

Roberts, J. C., & Wolfer, L. (2011). Female drug offenders reflect on their experiences with a county drug court

program. Qualitative Report, 16, 84–102.

Roman, J., Townsend, W., & Bhati, A. S. (2003). Recidivism rates for drug court graduates: Nationally based

estimates. Washington, DC: Caliber Associates, The Urban Institute.

Rutter, M. D., Quinton, D., & Hill, J. (1990). Adult outcomes and institution-reared children: Males and females

compared. In L. N. Robins & M. Rutter (Eds.), Straight and devious pathways from childhood to adulthood

(pp. 135–137). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1990). Crime and deviance over the life course: The salience of adult social bonds.

American Sociological Review, 55, 609–627.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

22 Contemporary Drug Problems 43(1)

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of

delinquency. In Terence P. Thornberry (Ed.), Developmental theories of crime and delinquency (pp.

131–161). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2005). A life-course view of the development of crime. Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 602, 12–45.

Satre, D. D., Chi, F. W., Mertens, J. R., & Weisner, C. M. (2012). Effects of age and life transitions on alcohol and

drug treatment outcome over nine years. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73, 459–468.

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

493–521.

Shaffer, D. K., Hartman, J. L., & Listwan, S. J. (2009). Drug abusing women in the community: The impact of

drug court involvement on recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 39, 803–828.

Shannon, L. M., Jackson, A., Perkins, E., & Neal, C. (2014). Examining gender differences in substance use,

participant characteristics, and treatment outcomes among individuals in drug court. Journal of Offender

Rehabilitation, 53(6), 455–477.

Shover, N. (1996). Great pretenders: Pursuits and careers of persistent thieves. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Somers, J. M., Moniruzzaman, A., Rezansoff, S. N., & Patterson, M. (2014). Examining the impact of

case management in Vancouver’s downtown community court: A quasi-experimental design. PLOS

ONE, 9, 1–8.

Theobald, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). Effects of getting married on offending: Results from a prospective

longitudinal survey of males: European Journal of Criminology, 6, 496–516.

Tiger, R. (2011). Drug courts and the logic of coerced treatment. Sociological Forum, 26, 169–182.

Turner, S, Longshore, D., Wenzel, S., Deschenes, E., Greenwood, P., Fain, T., . . . McBride, D. (2002). A decade

of drug treatment court research. Substance Use & Misuse, 37, 1489–1527.

Uggen, C. (2000). Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration model of age, employment,

and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 65, 529–546.

Uggen, C., & Staff, J. (2001). Work as a turning point for criminal offenders. Corrections Management Quarterly,

5, 1–16.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Drug courts: Overview of growth, characteristics, and results. Washing-

ton, DC: Author.

Vaillant, G. E., & Vaillant, C. O. (1981). Natural history of male psychological health: Work as a predictor of

positive mental health. American Journal of Psychiatry, 138, 1433–1440.

Vandermause, R., Severtsen, B., & Roll, J. (2013). Re-creating a vision of motherhood: Therapeutic drug court

and the narrative. Qualitative Social Work, 12, 620–636.

Waite, L. J., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage: Why married people are happier, healthier, and

better off financially. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Warr, M. (1998). Life-course transitions and desistance from crime. Criminology, 36, 183–216.

Wilson, D. B., Mitchell, O., & Mackenzie, D. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism.

Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459–487.

Wolfer, L. (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.

Author Biographies

Sarah Messer is currently pursuing her Masters in Public Administration in the Political Science Department at

California State University, Chico. Her research interests include drug courts, community corrections, the impact

of AB 109 on county departments, and sexual assault outreach and education on college campuses. She has

previously co-authored research on rural drug courts and offender motivation to participate.

Messer et al. 23

Ryan Patten is the associate dean for the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences at the California State

University, Chico. His research focuses on drug courts, community corrections home visits, game wardens, and

the impacts of AB 109 legislation on California county criminal justice agencies. He is also a co-author of Hunting

for ‘‘Dirtbags’’: Why Cops Over-Police the Poor and Racial Minorities (Northeastern University Press). He

earned his PhD in criminal justice from Washington State University.

Kimberlee Candela works as a client rights advocate for Disability Rights California in the Far Northern

Regional Center. After earning her Juris Doctorate from Hastings College of the Law, she clerked at the California

Supreme Court and then served as a trial lawyer in the Alameda County Public Defender’s Office for a dozen

years. She is also a former instructor in the Political Science Department of California State University, Chico.

24 Contemporary Drug Problems 43(1)

Copyright of Contemporary Drug Problems is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.