Juvenile drug courts (JDC) are intensive treatment programs established within and supervised by juvenile courts to provide specialized services for eligible drug-involved youth and their families. Cases are assigned to a juvenile drug court docket based on criteria set by local officials to carry out the goals of the drug court program (Cooper, 2001).

Drug courts emerged in the mid-1980s in response to the rising level of drug-related crime and the subsequent strain it placed on the court system. In an effort to address growing caseloads, courts employed delay reduction strategies, including specialized court dockets to expedite drug case processing. However, these strategies did not address the complex issues underlying substance abuse and did little to stem the tide of drug offenders flowing into the system, habilitate drug offenders already in the system, or reduce recidivism among released offenders. The result was a revolving door syndrome that cycled drug offenders in and out of the justice system (BJA, 2003).

Frustration with this syndrome propelled the field into a philosophical shift toward therapeutic jurisprudence. The premise of therapeutic jurisprudence is that the law is a therapeutic agent and its goals is to produce a positive therapeutic outcome. This new goal of the justice system coincided with the goals of treatment professionals and spawned a partnership where courts began working closely with a wide range of stakeholders within a problem-solving framework.

With the rapid rise and general acceptance of drug courts on the adult side, the application of drug court principles to juveniles was the next logical step. The first JDC began operations in Key West, FL in October 1993 (American University, 2001). As of December 2000, there were 131 JDCs in 46 states and the District of Columbia (American University, 2001). However, the circumstances and needs of youth and their families are different from those of adult criminal offenders. Thus, applying drug court principles to juvenile populations is not as simple as replicating the adult model. In fact, a JDC looks very different from one aimed at adults (BJA, 2003).

Specifically, a juvenile drug court is a docket within a juvenile court to which selected delinquency offenders, and in some instances, status offenders are referred for handling by a designated judge. The youth referred to this docket are identified as having problems with alcohol and/or other drugs. The JDC judge maintains close oversight of each case through frequent (often weekly) status hearings with the parties involved. The judge both leads and works as a member of a team that comprises representatives from treatment, juvenile justice, social services, school and vocational training programs, law enforcement, probation, the prosecution, and the defense. Together, the team determines how best to address the substance abuse and related problems of the youth and his or her family(BJA, 2003).

In one of the most comprehensive reviews to date of the impact of drug courts, Belenko (2001) reviewed 37 published and unpublished evaluations of drug courts (including seven JDCs). Overall, the conclusions drawn from this research find that drug courts have achieved considerable local support and have provided intensive, long-term treatment services to offenders with long histories of drug use and criminal justice contacts, previous treatment failures, and high rates of health and social problems. In addition, drug use and criminal activity are relatively reduced while participants are in the program. The conclusions, however, are less clear with regard to the long-term post-program impacts of drug courts on recidivism and other outcomes. Only four of the six studies that examined one-year post-program recidivism found a reduction, but the size of the reduction varied across courts.

The seven JDC evalaution reports included in the review were: Los Angeles County (CA), Orange County (FL), Campbell County (KY), Missoula (MT), Second Judicial District (Albuquerque) (NM), Summit County (OH), and Beckham County (OK). While the reports produce limited data on the recidivism of participants, the findings are encouraging. For instance, the evaluation of the Summit County (OH) juvenile drug court included the random assignment of eligible youth to the drug court or standard adjudication. The number of cases that had available rearrest data was small (27 experiment subjects and 13 controls) and the post-admission follow-up period was only six months, so the findings should be considered preliminary. Nevertheless, the drug court group averaged
one rearrest and the control group averaged 2.3. In addition, only 11% of the experimental group had 3 or more new charges, compared with 46% of the controls. In Orange County (FL), only 10% of the participants were rearrested during program participation; 15% of the clients were rearrested during post-program follow-up. In Los Angeles County (CA), 26% of participants had a rearrest, but 16% were rearrested during program participation. These twp latter studies did not use control groups.

A separate study (Delaware Statistical Analysis Center, 1999) examined two JDC sites in Delaware. Each of these programs targets juveniles with misdemeanor drug possession offenses. The report compares recidivism rates of participants in the JDC and a group of juveniles with equivalent criminal histories. The study found that recidivism rates for successful JDC participants were significantly better than for either the non-successful participants or the control group.

References

Search for Drug Court Programs