Learning More From Evaluation of Justice Interventions: Further Consideration of Theoretical Mechanisms in Juvenile Drug Courts

Abstract

It is essential to learn as much as possible from justice interventions—even those that do not appear to be successful. Data came from a sample of youths participating in drug courts in nine sites across the United States and a comparison group of probationers ( N = 1,372). Measures were drawn from case records. Path models with direct and indirect effects were analyzed. Aspects of the juvenile drug court process appear to heighten the likelihood of youth failure in the program and recidivism. The ratio of incentives to sanctions was protective as drug court youth who experienced more of the former had a reduced likelihood of recidivism. The article concludes that it is important to examine mechanisms that impact the success of justice interventions.

Taking Stock of Drug Courts: Do They Work?

“…In a similar study that focused on juvenile drug courts in particular, Long and Sullivan (2017) found that referrals to substance abuse treatment was inversely related to recidivism, andcongruent with prior literature (Gendreau, 1996) that a higher ratio of incentives or treatment services to sanctions was similarly linked with lower reoffending. In terms of sanctions, they found that drug screens were positively related to recidivism (Long & Sullivan, 2017).…”

“…In a similar study that focused on juvenile drug courts in particular, Long and Sullivan (2017) found that referrals to substance abuse treatment was inversely related to recidivism, andcongruent with prior literature (Gendreau, 1996) that a higher ratio of incentives or treatment services to sanctions was similarly linked with lower reoffending. In terms of sanctions, they found that drug screens were positively related to recidivism (Long & Sullivan, 2017). Taken together, their findings are similar to those of Goldkamp et al (2002) in that they underscore the important role of treatment factors in fostering positive behaviors and how deterrence-based measures can have unintended consequences.…”

A Criminological Fly in the Ointment: Specialty Courts and the Generality of Deviance

“…Beginning with drug courts, there is no doubt that the proliferation of a wide range of specialty courts constitutes a "movement" (Mitchell, 2011, p. 844). Early on, the idea of a specialized court was to combine an individualized treatment regimen-most often in a community (rather than institutional) setting-in an effort to address a specific criminogenic problem (Long & Sullivan, 2017). In the case of drug courts, it is important to note that their creation and use spread rapidly, even in the face of scant evidence of their effectiveness (Harrell, 2003; see also Shaffer, 2011;Wilson, Olaghere, & Kimbrell, 2019).…”

Sustained Outcomes? an Exploratory Study of Juvenile Drug Courts and Long‐Term Recidivism

“…For example, they found that increased frequency of drug testing increased the likelihood of being terminated from the program and resulted in future arrests. Their study also discovered that a programs’ use of a higher reward to sanction ratio was associated with more successful outcomes and fewer arrests (Long & Sullivan, ). In addition, Mei and colleagues () found that in comparison to adult drug courts, juvenile drug courts tend to have lower levels of model adherence, along with less access to evidence‐based treatments.…”

“…A third interpretation suggests further scrutiny of the mechanisms employed in juvenile drug court. Long and Sullivan () pointed out that certain processes within the drug court tend to produce negative outcomes, while other program elements produce more successful outcomes. For example, they found that increased frequency of drug testing increased the likelihood of being terminated from the program and resulted in future arrests.…”