The Drug Court Team and Discretionary Decision-Making: A Mixed-Methods Examination of Sanctioning Responses to Continued Participant Alcohol and Other Drug Use

• Published date: 01 February 2021
• Date: 01 February 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403420904127
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403420904127

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2021, Vol. 32(1) 27 –48

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403420904127

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

The Drug Court Team and

Discretionary Decision-

Making: A Mixed-Methods

Examination of Sanctioning

Responses to Continued

Participant Alcohol and

Other Drug Use

Benjamin R. Gibbs1, Tusty ten Bensel2,

Madison K. Doyle2, and William Wakefield3

Abstract

Drug courts attempt to gain participant compliance and alcohol and other drug

(AOD) use abstinence through a strategy of moderate and progressive sanctioning,

but its discretionary application possesses the capacity for disparity across participants

and behaviors. The purpose of this study was to examine the drug court team’s

(DCT) discretionary use of sanctions in response to continued participant AOD

use. A mixed-methods approach was used for analyzing agency data (n = 1,032)

and interviews of five members of the DCT. Data were collected from an adult

felony drug court over a 6-year period (2008–2013) and use to answer the following

research question: “What participant characteristics and program performance

measures affected sanctioning outcomes?” We found that offender attributes did play

a role in the sanctioning decision, but program performance measures were stronger

predictors of sanction type.

Keywords

drug court, punishment, rehabilitation, deterrence

1Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA

2University of Arkansas at Little Rock, USA

3University of Nebraska Omaha, USA

Corresponding Author:

Benjamin R. Gibbs, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Ball State University, North Quad,

278, Muncie, IN 47306, USA.

Email: brgibbs@bsu.edu

904127CJPXXX10.1177/0887403420904127Criminal Justice Policy ReviewGibbs et al.

research-article2020

28 Criminal Justice Policy Review 32(1)

Introduction

The drug court model employs two complementary components—substance abuse

treatment and intensive supervision—to bring about client alcohol and other drug

(AOD) abstinence and reduce recidivism among offenders (National Association of

Drug Court Professionals [NADCP], 2013). The treatment component of this model

focuses on rehabilitation that closely aligns with participant needs (Birgden, 2004).

The supervision component relies on surveillance and punishment to obtain partici-

pant compliance and desistance from AOD use (Burns & Peyrot, 2003; Taxman,

2002). Drug courts use incremental and progressive punishments to deter future viola-

tions rather than program revocation for noncompliance (NADCP, 2013), which is

often viewed as a strength and an integral component of the drug court model (Zweig

et al., 2012). The punitive measures doled out by drug court team (DCT) have been

tied to program outcomes and reduction in participant recidivism (Brown et al., 2010;

Zweig et al., 2012); however, drug courts possess a capacity to apply sanctions differ-

ently across participants (Zweig et al., 2012).

Frequent drug screenings and immediate and moderate sanctioning are the primary

tools used by drug courts to coerce AOD abstinence (Carey et al., 2012). Drug testing

is seen as an opportunity to continuously assess a participant’s level of care (Chandler

et al., 2009); however, sanctions are also levied to respond to the noncompliant behav-

ior (NADCP, 2013). NADCP (2013) recognize that a reasonable amount of discretion

should be applied to address individual needs (Carey et al., 2012; Zweig et al., 2012),

despite critics advocating complete equity in sanctioning outcomes (Taxman et al.,

1999). The discretionary use of punishment and disparate sanctions may engender

feelings of unfairness, in which participants may question the legitimacy of the pro-

gram (Goldkamp, 2002; Marlowe, 2008; Taxman, 2002). These perceptions may be

amplified in instances of positive drug screens as prior research has found the harshest

sanctions are reserved for those who continue their AOD use (Guastaferro & Daigle,

2012). Despite the breadth of drug court research, no study has examined the discre-

tionary responses to positive drug screens and individual-level characteristics that may

influence the sanctioning decision.

The purpose of this study was to examine a DCT’s discretionary use of sanctions to

continued participant AOD use. We focused on responses to positive AOD screens due

to its centrality in the drug court model. There has been only one other study that has

quantitatively examined predictors of sanctioning responses (Guastaferro & Daigle,

2012) and found that positive drug tests were sanctioned more severely than other

program violations. In the current study, a mixed-methods approach was used. We

quantitatively analyzed 1,032 sanctioning events, which stemmed from positive AOD

screens, as well as offender characteristics and program performance measures on the

sanctions levied in positive AOD screens. Qualitatively, we interviewed the entire

DCT (with the exception of two judges), focusing on how sanctioning decisions were

made. Our primary research question was, “What participant characteristics and pro-

gram performance measures affected sanctioning outcomes?” We focused on the rela-

tionship between offender characteristics, type of substance used, previous violations,