Table 5.
Reasons for limited or no provision of agonist medication for drug court participants
| Buprenorphine N=90 | Methadone N=88 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | Don't Know | Yes | No | Don't Know | |
| N (%)* | N (%)* | N (%)* | N (%)* | N (%)* | N (%)* | |
| Cost is prohibitive/insufficient funding | 39 (43) | 19 (20) | 32 (37) | 24 (29) | 35 (37) | 29 (34) |
| Risk of diversion | 26 (33) | 27 (28) | 37 (39) | 32 (36) | 26 (27) | 30 (37) |
| Drug court policy not to permit its use | 34 (40) | 42 (46) | 14 (14) | 49 (52) | 30 (37) | 9 (11) |
| Drug treatment provider does not recommend or provide it | 29 (33) | 41 (43) | 20 (24) | 46 (49) | 29 (33) | 13 (18) |
| Clients are detoxed before they enter supervision | 36 (42) | 44 (47) | 10 (11) | 38 (45) | 44 (48) | 6 (7) |
| Not beneficial to clients | 13 (16) | 41 (43) | 36 (41) | 20 (21) | 36 (40) | 32 (39) |
| Opposition from prosecutor | 19 (20) | 39 (44) | 32 (36) | 26 (29) | 35 (40) | 27 (31) |
| Opposition from judge | 19 (21) | 48 (50) | 23 (29) | 28 (31) | 39 (44) | 21 (25) |
| Opposition from state/county/municipal government | 5 (6) | 48 (55) | 37 (39) | 13 (12) | 42 (49) | 33 (39) |
| Lack of local providers | 30 (41) | 31 (29) | 29 (30) | 25 (35) | 48 (48) | 15 (17) |
| Opioid addiction is not a common problem among drug court clients | 15 (15) | 65 (74) | 10 (11) | 11 (11) | 69 (78) | 8 (11) |
*
all percentages weighted to account for over/underrepresentation of courts in rural, suburban, and urban regions.