What Happens When Defendants Don’t Enter Treatment Court? CRCP Researchers Share New Insights

Their presentation, “What happened to those cases? Disposition outcomes for defendants who did not enter treatment court,” focused on a question that has received little attention in criminal justice research, what are the legal outcomes for people who do not enter these alternative programs?

Organized around five themes, the presentation shed light on treatment court admissions and highlighted why understanding admission processes is essential to building a more effective justice system.

Why Treatment Court Admissions Matter

Post-plea treatment courts are designed to divert individuals from incarceration into structured treatment or supervision programs. Successful completion can lead to reduced sentences, dismissed charges, or record expungement. Dr. Vaske and Ms. McCarter emphasized that not everyone gets access to these benefits and that has serious consequences. They identified reasons why admission into these programs and understanding admission processes matter.

1. Justice and fairness — Admitted individuals can avoid incarceration; those excluded may face more punitive outcomes and may not benefit from legal remedies such as dismissal or expunction of charges upon successful program completion.
2. Access to resources — Treatment courts offer coordinated services and dedicated support teams not typically available in standard court processes.
3. Accountability concerns — Treatment courts provide greater supervision to high-risk individuals which can deter escalation to further misconduct.
4. Selection bias — Positive court outcomes may reflect who is selected, rather than the treatment itself.

How Treatment Court Admission Works

Dr. Vaske and Ms. McCarter shared that admission to treatment court is not straightforward and includes multiple decision-makers – or “gatekeepers”. Potential participants must pass a screening process that includes legal eligibility, risk and need eligibility, judicial assessment, and participant acceptance.

• Prosecutors often serve as the first and an influential gatekeeper. 
• Coordinators or clinicians assess clinical needs and risk levels.
• Judges may occasionally weigh in on whether an individual is an appropriate candidate.
• The individual must decide whether to participate or to take a different plea. 

While the process appears linear, the researchers found that in practice it varies. A prior review of eight Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs) revealed 13 distinct referral paths, showing inconsistent admission procedures across jurisdictions.

Who Gets Left Out – and Why

Between 34 and 63 percent of individuals referred to treatment court are not admitted, according to the national data and the presenters’ own research. Dr. Vaske and Ms. McCarter highlighted reasons for non-admission:

• Low clinical need (20 – 30%)
• Severity of instant offense or prior criminal record (15 – 25%)
• Participant opts out (11 – 25%)
• Gatekeeper discretion (11 – 17.5%)

The data also showed that some groups (e.g., African American individuals and men) were less likely to be admitted, potentially due to legal and extralegal factors. 

Why Some Decline to Join

Not all exclusions come from the system – some participants choose not to participate in treatment court. Drawing on prior research, Dr. Vaske and Ms. McCarter found that common reasons include, that many participants felt treatment court programs were too long or demanding. Some believed they were asked to do more than people in regular court. Others believed that serving a sentence would take less time and effort. Veterans in particular cited program length. In addition, they felt unready for change or preferred standard probation (or what they saw as a better deal outside of court through less invasive alternatives).

What Happens to Those Who Don’t Enter a Treatment Court?

Interestingly, Dr. Vaske and Ms. McCarter found that 56% of referrals did not enter the court. Of the referrals not admitted to treatment court programs, the outcomes varied:

• 42% received standard probation, less intensive than treatment court. 
• 40% received an active jail or prison sentence.
• 14% had all charges dismissed.

Dr. Vaske and Ms. McCarter noted that prosecutor objection was the most common reason for non-admission, and in nearly half of those cases (49%), the individual received an active sentence. The rest of those denied access due to prosecutor objection were sentenced to less intensive probation (36%) or had their charges dismissed (15%). In contrast, those who chose to opt out were more likely to receive probation. 

The researchers emphasized that who gets into treatment court – and who doesn’t – can significantly shape legal outcomes. Their findings call for increased transparency in referral and admission process and more consistency in how decisions are made. With more than half of referred individuals never entering these programs, understanding and addressing the reasons behind non-admission is vital to building more effective access to alternative justice pathways.

Unearthing Hope

Check out John Boman’s collaborative, cross-disciplinary work to tackle the opioid crisis and uncover new, life-saving solutions in Ohio communities is highlighted in American Magazine Unearthing Hope. His original research article appears in PLoS One.