Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts: Policy And Practice Scan

Abstract

As part of a research team on the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Initiative to Develop and Test Guidelines for Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts, WestEd conducted a policy and practice scan (also called an "environmental scan") to provide data on a small sample of local Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts (JDTCs) in the United States. This article is a synthesis of the information collected from 25 JDTCs on their current operations. The article first reviews key literature on JDTCs, followed by a description of the methodology used in this policy and practice scan. Then, the article presents findings about history, funding sources, partnerships, structures and operations, treatment options, challenges, and successes. We found little systematic performance evaluation or long‐term sustainability planning among the participating JDTCs. Finally, the article discusses the limitations of this study, implications for the new version of the JDTC guidelines, and practical recommendations for stakeholders in this field.

Implementing Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts: A Meta-aggregation of Process Evaluations

“…Many existing JDTCs currently function in a fashion more similar to this new model than the original model. A policy and practice scan completed by Choo et al (2016) showed that while existing JDTCs vary widely with respect to their attention to treatment needs beyond substance abuse, most referred to multiple treatment programs, including mental health and family services, in a manner consistent with our proposed model. Some JDTCs also coordinate with schools, such as having a school representative as part of the JDTC team, thus enabling the JDTC to address school needs as well.…”

“…Thus, it appears that JDTCs are striving to address the complex needs of the youth they serve but still focus intensely on substance use. Choo et al (2016) found, however, that most JDTCs struggled to find appropriate treatments for their clients, challenging their ability to address a broad range of mental health and other needs.…”

“…The authors of this study were tasked with evaluating JDTC process and implementation issues. Additional researchers conducted listening sessions (Gatowski et al 2016), a policy and practice scan (Choo et al 2016), and meta-analyses on the effectiveness of JDTCs (Tanner-Smith, Lipsey, et al 2016), adolescent substance use treatment (Tanner-Smith, Steinka-Fry, et al 2016), and child welfare, public health, and education programs for adolescents (Campie and Sokolsky 2016). Together these studies provided the evidence research base for the OJJDP JDTC guidelines, which ultimately comprised of seven objectives.…”

“…This figure shows that the key purpose of court-implemented behavioral contingencies is to maintain adherence to substance abuse treatment, which is presumed to reduce drug abuse, thereby reducing other problem behaviors. Common rewards include gift cards and extended curfews, whereas common sanctions include increased supervision or detention (Choo et al 2016). While we recognize that there is a lot more to a JDTC than shown in this model—including a positive relationship between the judge, other judicial staff, and the youth—the purpose of this model is to articulate the underlying logic around which all other elements or components emerge.…”

Resolving the paradox of juvenile drug courts: How matching substance abuse needs with juvenile court services reduces recidivism

“…To fully assess the effectiveness of JDCs, however, the process, or “black box,” of Juvenile Drug Court involvement, must be further considered (Hiller et al, 2010; Long & Sullivan, 2017; Choo et al, 2020). Structural components of drug court intervention can include targeting youth with specific needs, treatment activities, and the effects of during‐program outcomes, including drug/alcohol test results and program completion (Hiller et al, 2010).…”