As social workers, we are called to make well-informed decisions about the spaces we serve, especially those who choose to work within or alongside the criminal legal system. It is imperative to consider: Who are we helping? Is the role I am performing truly benefiting the population I wish to serve? Through my time within the field of Forensic Social Work, I question whether or not drug court programs are beneficial to people with drug charges who may struggle with substance use. I challenge those of us who wish to serve in these spaces because, traditionally, the program itself is often limited to those it believes will be most successful, rather than the individuals who may benefit from it the most. In my experience, drug court programs have been known to be riddled with exclusivity due to their strict eligibility requirements, exclusionary practices based on gender and race, and legal consequences for those who fail to complete the program. We must identify the systems that underpin this speciality court, and challenge the notion that speciality courts are inherently good.
In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared a “War on Drugs” and called substance abuse “public enemy number one” (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2025). This profound declaration of a theoretical war on so-called illicit substances aimed to enforce harsher penalties for possession and distribution of such substances and eventually led to the creation of organizations like the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). By 1981, President Ronald Reagan expanded upon the “War on Drugs” and sought to enforce harsher punishments and heighten criminalization of nonviolent drug offenses (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2025). Subsequently, Congress passed a bill in 1986 entitled the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which was specifically in response to the increased use of cocaine, specifically, crack cocaine. This act enforced harsher mandatory minimums and contributed to the over policing of black and brown bodies. Thus, these policies created by the Nixon and Reagan Administrations ultimately contributed to the furthering of mass incarceration and the over-policing of communities of color.
As the number of people arrested for nonviolent drug offenses increased, the government sought to establish specialty courts for the increasing number of individuals in jail and prison for drug-related crimes (GAO, 2005). This led to the creation of specialty courts, such as drug courts, which were established and funded by the federal government as a programmatic alternative for individuals with drug-related charges. The ultimate goal of drug court is to provide justice-involved folks the opportunity to make positive behavioral changes in their substance use by entering into treatment or participating in court supervision as an alternative to serving time in jail or prison (GAO, 2005).
Sevigny, Pollack, and Reuter (2013) state that meta-analyses conducted over the years confirm that drug courts reduce recidivism by 8 to 14 percent in comparison to other interventions offered within the criminal justice system. While they may reduce recidivism, drug courts traditionally have restrictive eligibility requirements that tend to disqualify high-risk offenders (Sevigny, Pollack & Reuter, 2013). During evaluations for drug court programs, defendants’ eligibility is determined by both clinical and legal criteria. However, an individual may not even be considered to meet criteria for drug court based on the nature of their current
criminal charges (e.g., offenders with violent offenses are likely to be disqualified for participation). Depending on the locality’s jurisdiction, other reasons a participant can be denied participation include lack of motivation, severe mental or medical health conditions, gang involvement, and demonstrated readiness for treatment. Considering these strict eligibility requirements, drug courts ultimately evaluate who would be a good fit based on overall perceptions of who would be most successful in the program, rather than on clinical objectivity about who would benefit the most.
Because of the exclusive nature of drug courts, it should not come as a surprise that individuals of color are less likely to complete drug court programs in comparison to their counterparts (Koetzle & Listwan, 2018). Studies have shown that in a comparison of race and education level, White individuals with high school diplomas or GEDs were more likely to complete the drug court program in contrast to their Black counterparts, who withdrew from school (Koetzle & Listwan, 2018). Minority individuals are seen to be less likely to be successful in drug court programs, which may be a cause for their underrepresentation in the data. Another reason for this lack of representation could be the criminal legal system's overall punitive nature, which may contribute to minority populations’ reluctance to participate in these programs due to fear or mistrust (Koetzle & Listwan, 2018).
Additionally, there are gaps within drug court graduation rates along gender lines. Salisbury and Parisi (2022) indicate that while drug courts provide the identical drug court treatment to both women and men, regardless of gender, data suggest that women are severely
underrepresented in drug court graduation rates. Czarnecki (2019) states, “39 percent of female participants in drug courts graduate, compared to the overall graduation rate of 58 percent.” Women tend to have higher rates of trauma, victimization, mental health concerns, and socioeconomic deprivation compared to men. Unless drug courts develop programs to address these differences, the disparities will persist (Salisbury & Parisi, 2022). In response to the data, Salisbury and Parisi (2022) have called for the implementation of gender-responsive drug court treatment models, due to the traditional system displaying lower success rates for women. It is worth noting that there is little evidence regarding the efficacy of drug courts amongst individuals outside of the gender binary terms of male and female (i.e., transgender and non-binary individuals), and further research is needed to understand this issue more comprehensively.
Failure to complete drug court also has associated legal consequences. Research indicates that many participants are terminated from the program for noncompliance with program requirements (Sevigny, Pollack, & Reuter, 2013). In my own personal experience as a Pretrial and Probation Officer, these failures include leaving residential treatment before completing the program or relapsing in substance use. According to Sevigny, Pollack, and Reuter (2013), failure to comply with drug court caused offenders in Baltimore, Maryland, to be subjected to serving longer jail sentences for noncompliance than they would have for their original sentence.
Overall, the drug court program as a whole was intended to right a wrong done by the federal government for the mass-incarceration of non-violent drug offenses. It was designed to serve as a multidisciplinary approach to provide treatment to those whose engagement with the criminal justice system is a result of their substance use. However, the program limits its services to those it deems appropriate individuals. Therefore, how can a program that practices exclusion based on criminal history, gender, and race be seen as beneficial? Whom does it benefit? If a program is only in place to help those who fall into specific criteria, how can we be sure these spaces are not plagued with racism, sexism, and various other -isms we aim to denounce from our practice? Moreover, I want to clarify: I encourage those of us who feel called to serve in drug court to continue doing so; however, keep in mind who you are serving and why. Furthermore, how you, as a social worker, can challenge systems that engage in othering and exclusionary practices that could benefit a client. As social workers, we should challenge one another to evaluate our work, the system we work within, whether specific spaces hinder or support vulnerable populations, and how we can use our practice to challenge oppression.
1. “Crack cocaine” has historically been pushed into low-income communities and has caused racial disparities in who can access purer forms of cocaine. https://collaborativehistory.gse.upenn.edu/stories/era-drug-destruction-heroin-crack-cocaine
2. Depending on the jurisdiction, the criteria for Drug Court may differ, however, most programs do not permit violent offenses into the program. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105272#:~:text=Stakeholders%20in%20GAO's%20focus%20groups,violent%20offenses%20in%20their%20programs
References
Czarnecki, S. (2019, August 7). The right to graduate Treatment Court: Justice programs office. Justice Programs Office | Blog from the Justice Programs Office. https://jpo.blogs.american.edu/2019/08/06/the-right-to-graduate-treatment-court-how-gender-specific-treatment-plans-are-necessary-to-address-graduation-disparities/#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20women%20account%20for,space%20feeling%20unsafe.%5Biv%5D
Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2005). Adult Drug Courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes. Adult Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes | U.S. GAO.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-05-219
Government Accountability Office (GAO), McNeil, T., Lyles, Jr., F., & Taylor, K. (2023). Adult Drug court programs: Factors related to eligibility and acceptance of offers to participate in DOJ funded adult drug courts. In Government Accountability Office (GAO-23-105272). Retrieved November 24, 2025, from https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105272
Koetzle, D., & Listwan, S. J. (2018). Drug courts and the criminal justice system. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Puckett, J. L., & Jacobson, R. (n.d.). An Era of Drug Destruction: From Heroin to Crack Cocaine [Review of An Era of Drug Destruction: From Heroin to Crack Cocaine]. West Philadelphia Collaborative History. Retrieved November 24, 2025, from https://collaborativehistory.gse.upenn.edu/stories/era-drug-destruction-heroin-crack-cocaine
Salisbury, E., & Parisi, A. (2022) Gender Matters: Bringing gender-responsive strategies to women in drug courts. Drug Court Review Fall 2022 NDCRC. DOI: dcr.ndcrc.org
Sevigny, E. L., Pollack, H. A., & Reuter, P. (2013). Can Drug Courts Help to Reduce Prison and Jail Populations? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 647, 190–212. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23479101
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2025, September 22). War on Drugs. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/war-on-drugs