A Juvenile Drug Court Model in Southern Arizona: Substance Abuse, Delinquency, and Sexual Risk Outcomes by Gender and Race/Ethnicity

Abstract

Alcohol and drug use related crimes continue to be processed in juvenile courts at high rates. One approach for addressing substance related issues has been the implementation of juvenile drug courts. Juvenile drug courts were established given the wide-spread success of adult drug courts. However, juvenile drug courts require different components as compared to adult models. This article provides a description of a juvenile drug court in Southern Arizona and examines treatment outcomes by gender and race=ethnicity. Youth participating in the drug court evidenced positive changes in substance related issues, delinquency and juvenile justice involvement, and sexual risk behaviors. Differential effects were evidenced between boys and girls and white andThe authors wish to acknowledge the project staff and others who helped with the preparation of this article including Jutta Butler, Deborah Hargadon, Randy Muck, Shiori Yamamoto. Also, we wish to acknowledge all the youth and families who gave of their time and experiences to participate in the project.

A Systematic Review of Literature Relating to Problem-Solving Youth Courts

“…Research designs used in the studies included group comparison with random allocation to conditions (Henggeler et al, 2006); group comparison with matched samples (Applegate & Santana, 2000;Mooney, unpublished;O'Connell, Nestlerode, & Miller, 1999;Rodriguez & Webb, 2004;Searle & Spier, 2006); group comparison without matched samples (Byrnes & Parsons, 1999, Gilmore, Rodriguez, & Webb, 2005Polakowski, Hartley, & Bates, 2008;Shaw & Robinson, 1998;Weisz et al, 2002); comparison of a single sample at different periods (Behnken, Arredondo, & Packman, 2009); retrospective group comparison (Sloan, Smylka, & Rush, 2004); follow-up studies with no comparison group (Carswell, 2004;Eardley et al, 2004;Ruiz, Stevens, Fuhriman, Bogart, & Korchmaros, 2009); regression analysis (Halliday-Boykins et al, 2010); financial cost analysis (McCollister, French, Sheidow, Henggeler, & HallidayBoykins, 2007;Vick, 2006); focus groups or interviews (Bryan, Hiller, & Leukefeld, 2006;Eardley et al, 2004;Gilmore et al, 2005;Paik, 2009;Searle & Spier, 2006;Whiteacre, 2004); ethnography (Paik, 2009); and a case study (Arredondo et al, 2001). (Sloan & Smylka, 2003;Weisz et al, 2002); and social or psychological assessments or screening tools (Carswell, 2004;Gilmore et al, 2005;Mooney, unpublished;...…”

“…(Sloan & Smylka, 2003;Weisz et al, 2002); and social or psychological assessments or screening tools (Carswell, 2004;Gilmore et al, 2005;Mooney, unpublished;Ruiz et al, 2009). Qualitative data was collected through stakeholder interviews or focus groups (Bryan et al, 2006;Eardley et al, 2004;Gilmore et al, 2005;Paik, 2009;Searle & Spier, 2006;Whiteacre, 2004) and observations of court processes (Carswell, 2004;Eardley et al, 2004;Paik, 2009;Whiteacre, 2004).…”

“…Many studies had follow-up periods of up to 12 months (Byrnes & Parsons, 1999;Carswell, 2004;Eardley et al, 2004;Halliday-Boykins et al, 2010;Henggeler et al, 2006;McCollister et al, 2007;Mooney, unpublished;O'Connell et al, 1999;Ruiz et al, 2009;Shaw & Robinson, 1998;Weisz et al, 2002;Whiteacre, 2004). One study reported on a juvenile drug court in its first 14 months of operation (Applegate & Santana, 2000), while another considered data across 18 months (Eardley et al, 2004).…”

“…One study reported on a juvenile drug court in its first 14 months of operation (Applegate & Santana, 2000), while another considered data across 18 months (Eardley et al, 2004). Still another study had a follow-up period of two years (Sloan et al, 2004) and two further studies reported on three-year evaluations (Rodriguez & Webb, 2004;Vick, 2006 Rodriguez & Webb, 2004;Ruiz et al, 2009;Searle & Spier, 2006;Shaw & Robinson, 1998;Weisz et al, 2002). Many of these reported that the courts had positive impacts on criminal behaviour (Applegate & Santana, 2000;Behnken et al, 2009;Bryan et al, 2006;Carswell, 2004;Eardley et al, 2004;Henggeler et al, 2006;O'Connell et al, 1999;Rodriguez & Webb, 2004;Ruiz et al, 2009;Vick, 2006) while some suggested positive effects on substance abuse (Eardley et al, 2004;Halliday-Boykins et al, 2010;Henggeler et al, 2006;Ruiz et al, 2009) or social and psychological functioning, including social integration (Applegate & Santana, 2000;Eardley et al, 2004).…”

“…Still another study had a follow-up period of two years (Sloan et al, 2004) and two further studies reported on three-year evaluations (Rodriguez & Webb, 2004;Vick, 2006 Rodriguez & Webb, 2004;Ruiz et al, 2009;Searle & Spier, 2006;Shaw & Robinson, 1998;Weisz et al, 2002). Many of these reported that the courts had positive impacts on criminal behaviour (Applegate & Santana, 2000;Behnken et al, 2009;Bryan et al, 2006;Carswell, 2004;Eardley et al, 2004;Henggeler et al, 2006;O'Connell et al, 1999;Rodriguez & Webb, 2004;Ruiz et al, 2009;Vick, 2006) while some suggested positive effects on substance abuse (Eardley et al, 2004;Halliday-Boykins et al, 2010;Henggeler et al, 2006;Ruiz et al, 2009) or social and psychological functioning, including social integration (Applegate & Santana, 2000;Eardley et al, 2004). However, other studies were either inconclusive or suggested that problem-solving youth courts were either ineffective or no better than other programmes at reducing recidivism (Gilmore et al, 2005;Mooney, unpublished;Searle & Spier, 2006;Sloan et al, 2004) or substance abuse (Gilmore et al, 2005;Rodriguez & Webb, 2004 (Ruiz et al, 2009); client retention to the drug court programme (Applegate & Santana, 2000); satisfaction with proceedings (Weisz et al, 2002); attitudes towards authority, including perceptions of fairness and respect …”