The Effectiveness of Juvenile Treatment Drug Courts: A Meta-Analytic Review of Literature

Abstract

Reviewed are 31 studies that evaluated recidivism rates from juvenile drug treatment courts relative to a random-assignment or convenience comparison group. Recidivism was defined as re-referral, new charges, or re-arrest. Mean effect sizes and confidence intervals are provided for the three recidivism assessment time frames most often used by researchers (e.g., recidivism occurring ''during the drug court program''; ''during, plus post-program''; and ''post-program only''). Characteristics of youths and programs that were hypothesized to correlate with the size of effect (e.g., gender and ethnic proportions of program participants, methodological quality of studies) were examined in an attempt to account for variation in effect sizes across studies. The average premature termination rate from drug court programs, as a face-valid indicator of typical program effectiveness, is also reported. The results, based on significantly more studies than past reviews, show that juvenile drug court treatment program youths, relative to controls, had slightly more gains than short-term, pre-to-post-program assessments. Results are compared to adult drug court outcomes, and program and participant correlates of effect size are discussed. Suggestions for further research into possible improvements of programs are offered.

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

“…One of the core assumptions underlying specialty courts is that particular groups of offenders-whether they are drug offenders or domestic violence offenders-specialize in that form of behavior (Stein, Homan, & DeBerard, 2015). To be sure, it would not make much sense to anyone in the courtroom workgroup to have a burglar processed through a drug court or to have a tax evader go through a domestic violence court.…”

Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts: Policy And Practice Scan

“…Out of this therapeutic jurisprudence philosophy, JDTCs were born. The first drug treatment courts (DTCs) in the United States focused on adults opened in 1989 in Miami-Dade County (Bryan et al 2006, Powalski et al 2008, Fradella et al 2009, Ruiz et al 2009, Stein et al 2015 and eventually grew to over 1,000 DTCs by the turn of the century (U.S. Department of Justice, 2003). The number of juvenile offenders involved with alcohol and other drug use rose during the mid-1990s, around the same time early studies of DTCs begin to document success in reducing recidivism among adult participants (U.S. Department of Justice, 2003).…”

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

“…The mixed findings yielded by these studies highlight the gap in the literature regarding how JDC influences adulthood criminality (Belenko, , ; Mitchell et al, ). Stein and colleagues’ () reported that many of the studies included in their meta‐analysis stopped tracking recidivism rates once the individuals turned 18. This limitation is problematic because studies have shown that the effect sizes of JDCs tend to both increase over longer periods of time (Latimer et al, ; Lowekamp et al, ), while recidivism rates also decrease as participants age (Harrison et al, ; Sullivan et al, ).…”

“…Empirical research on the short-term effectiveness of JDCs lagged behind their rapid expansion (Butts & Roman, 2004;Lowekamp, Holsinger, & Latessa, 2005;Marlowe, 2010;Roman & DeStefano, 2004). Research has now begun to accumulate, revealing mixed results regarding short-term, recidivism effectiveness (Marlowe, 2010;Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacKenzie, 2012;Stein, Homan, & DeBerard, 2015;Sullivan, Blair, Latessa, & Sullivan, 2014;Tanner-Smith, Lipsey, & Wilson, 2016). However, there is little information on the long-term recidivism effects of JDCs (Belenko, 1998(Belenko, , 2001Belenko & Dembo, 2003;Latimer, Morton-Bourgon, & Chretien, 2006;Mitchell et al, 2012;Thompson, 2004).…”