Webinar Series Highlights Racial Disparities in Drug Court Diversion

Recent changes in the understanding of addiction have contributed to greater adoption of treatment‑based responses in drug policy, including the development of drug courts as alternatives for individuals charged with lower‑level, non‑violent offenses. Drug courts are often recognized for benefits such as cost effectiveness and reduced recidivism, though prior research documents variation in access, participation, and sentencing outcomes across demographic groups, including race and ethnicity.

In 2022, a team of researchers at The Ohio State University and Cornell University received a grant from the National Institute of Justice’s W.E.B. Du Bois Fellowship for Research on Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Justice System, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice (Award No.15PNIJ-21-GG-04708-NIJB) to examine racial disparities in drug court diversion. The Du Bois Fellowship supports investigator-initiated research for early career scholars that advances knowledge on the intersections of race, crime, and the administration of justice. The project explores how individuals access drug court programs and how legal system processes influence access to treatment-based alternatives to incarceration. Using a multi-phase, mixed-methods design, the project analyzes case-level data alongside stakeholder perspectives to identify how charging decisions, sentencing practices, eligibility criteria, and referral processes shape drug court access and completion with a focus on how this differs across racial, ethnic, and sex demographic groups. This research can inform data-driven improvements to justice system processes, treatment-focused interventions, and the allocation of resources in drug court programs.

Last month, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, The Ohio State University John Glenn College of Public Affairs, and Cornell University Brooks School of Public Policy Department of Sociology hosted a three-part webinar series highlighting the results of this research.

Descriptions and recordings of each of the webinars are available now —

The first webinar in the series, “Pathways into Drug Court: Stakeholder Perspectives on Race, Admission, and Engagement,” examines how drug court stakeholders understand the factors shaping access to and early experiences in drug court, with particular attention to criminal processing and admission decisions. Drawing on ethnographic observations in 22 drug courts across 18 counties and interviews with 52 stakeholders, the webinar explores how institutional structures, discretionary practices, and participant experiences intersect with race to influence who enters drug court and under what conditions. Findings suggest that stakeholders most often attribute differences in admission and early engagement to systemic and procedural factors, including eligibility criteria, referral processes, and prior experiences with the legal system, factors they noted may operate differently across racial groups. Stakeholders also discussed how trust in court‑based interventions, capacity to engage with treatment expectations, and cultural norms and stigma around help‑seeking may shape early program trajectories. Stakeholders described a range of potential strategies to support access and engagement, including outreach within the court, education for justice system actors and community members, and increased use of data in decision‑making processes. Overall, the findings underscore the importance of examining early stages of drug court involvement and highlight how institutional processes and stakeholder roles jointly influence participation and engagement across diverse populations.

The second webinar, “Racial Disparities in Criminal Sentencing and Drug Court Eligibility,” examines whether racial disparities in criminal justice processing ultimately restrict Black defendants’ access to drug courts through commonly used exclusionary criteria. Using approximately 350,000 misdemeanor and felony case data from Franklin County, Ohio, spanning 2006-2020, the researchers examined racial disparities across multiple case processing decision points and tested whether Black defendants are more likely than similarly situated white defendants to be convicted of offenses commonly used as drug court exclusion criteria when charged with these offenses. The researchers found evidence that, even after controlling for legally relevant variables, disparities in charging and convictions place Black defendants at a greater likelihood of having criminal records that may later become the basis for drug court exclusion.

Specialty court docket participation lowers recidivism, substance use, and unemployment, yet recent studies document disparities in who can access and complete treatment alternatives to incarceration. Much less understood, however, is whether the establishment of specialty dockets shapes the chances and severity of punishment for substance use in ways that differ across demographic groups. The final event in the series, “Specialty Docket Expansion and Changes in Misdemeanor Drug Case Processing Across Race and Sex,” drew on over 300,000 misdemeanor cases in Franklin County, Ohio Municipal Court between 2001 and 2019 to explore associations between the implementation of five specialty dockets and changes in misdemeanor drug sentencing outcomes by race and sex. Researchers identified two distinct eras of misdemeanor punishment for substance use cases. Amid the first era, specialty docket expansion coincided with rising overdose mortality in white communities, and punishment for substance use was less likely to occur and less severe. During the second era, as synthetic opioids transformed drug markets and overdose deaths became more widespread, punishment grew harsher, and the timing, type, and severity of this punitive reorientation toward sentencing for drug offenses varied by race and sex.

About the Study

Next Steps

Building on these findings, the research team is currently finalizing a comprehensive report for the National Institute of Justice and developing tailored briefs for each participating court to highlight local insights and practical strategies. Looking ahead, the team plans to expand this work by incorporating perspectives from drug court participants and additional stakeholder groups.

Acknowledgments

This work reflects the collaborative efforts of a dedicated research team, including principal investigators, study staff, and contributors across all phases of the project. The team is especially grateful to those members who led data collection, analysis, and the development of this webinar to share findings with broader audiences. They include —

Dr. Sadé Lindsay, Co-Principal Investigator, Jeb E. Brooks School of Public Policy and Department of Sociology, Cornell University
Dr. Alex Fraga, Co-Principal Investigator, Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, The Ohio State University
Dr. Tasha Perdue, Co-Principal Investigator, John Glenn College of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University
Lydia Applin, PhD Candidate, John Glenn College of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University
Additti Munshi, PhD Candidate, College of Social Work, The Ohio State University
Dexter Ridgway, Research Associate, Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, The Ohio State University
Rebecca Xie, PhD Candidate, John Glenn College of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University

Thank You to Our Partners

The research team extends its sincere appreciation to the courts and stakeholders who participated in this research. Their time, insights, and openness were essential to this study and continue to inform efforts to improve access to drug courts. Through more than 120 hours of observations and interviews, these partners provided invaluable perspectives on both the challenges and opportunities within drug court systems.

- - -

The team looks forward to continuing this work and supporting efforts to strengthen equitable access to drug courts across Ohio and beyond.