IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v370y2025ics0277953625001881.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expanding contexts of medicalization: The role of policy legacies, race, and class in the prevalence of treatment courts

Author

Listed:
  • Rainock, Meagan

Abstract

The current study seeks to examine the association between political and sociodemographic contexts and medicalization by analyzing the prevalence of treatment courts. Using a compiled dataset of 3,132 U.S. counties across all 50 states in 2020, I examine the effect of policy legacies and racial and socioeconomic makeup on the prevalence of treatment courts, which are medicalized alternatives to traditional criminal justice involvement (e.g., incarceration). Regardless of rates of mental distress, substance use, crime rates, population size, and other relevant measures, I find that counties with higher proportions of Black and college educated residents are more likely to have mental health treatment courts. I also find that counties in conservative states and in the South have fewer treatment courts, and that counties with punitive state criminal justice policies (e.g., the death penalty) report fewer treatment courts. I discuss the implications of these findings for our understanding of the social and political contexts that facilitate medicalization, as well as for the spread of treatment courts.

Suggested Citation

  • Rainock, Meagan, 2025. "Expanding contexts of medicalization: The role of policy legacies, race, and class in the prevalence of treatment courts," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 370(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:370:y:2025:i:c:s0277953625001881
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117859
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625001881
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117859?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:370:y:2025:i:c:s0277953625001881. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.