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.

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

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://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 …