Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:17 am
Time: 12:17 am
Results for juvenile drug courts
9 results foundAuthor: Mackin, Juliette R. Title: Baltimore County Juvenile Drug Court Outcome and Cost Evaluation Summary: Drug courts are designed to guide offenders identified as drug-addicted into treatment that will reduce drug dependence and improve the quality of life for them and their families. Benefits to society often take the form of reductions in crime committed by drug court participants, resulting in reduced costs to taxpayers and increased public safety. This report presents the costs associated with the Baltimore County Juvenile Drug Court programs, as well as an analysis of outcomes of participants as compared to a sample of similar individuals who received traditional court processing. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2010. 41p. Source: Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118420 Keywords: Drug Abuse TreatmentDrug OffendersJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Thompson, Kevin M. Title: An Adult Recidivism Outcome Evaluation of North Dakota's Juvenile Drug Court Summary: This report summarizes findings from an adult recidivism study of North Dakota’s Juvenile Drug Court. Two drug courts were implemented in North Dakota in May of 2000. The sites chosen included the East Central Judicial District (Fargo) and the Northeast Central Judicial District (Grand Forks). A one-year juvenile recidivism study completed in 2001 showed that drug court participants recorded significantly fewer juvenile referrals than a group of substance abusing juveniles not participating in drug court. This evaluation examines whether similar patterns surface four years later when the majority of these juveniles had reached the age of majority. Separate analyses were undertaken for the two courts because there were, and continue to be marked differences in the manner in which the two drug courts were implemented and there are modest differences between the two courts regarding the characteristics of participants. By July 31, 2004, 133 of the original juvenile drug court participants and comparison group subjects had reached the age of at least 17. The comparison group included juveniles who met criteria for admission to drug court and resembled the drug court participants in terms of court history and relevant background characteristics. The average age of these individuals by July 31, 2004 was 19.5 years. Among drug court participants (N = 90), 44 (49%) completed the objectives of drug court and graduated, 46 (51%) were dismissed from drug court for either non-compliance with program objectives or reached their 18th birthday prior to completing drug court. Subjects were tracked using three sources: (1) the North Dakota State Court Data Warehouse; (2) the Fargo Police Department computer tracking system, and (3) the state’s AS400 computer software. Multiple methods were employed in order to avoid missing cases and to allow for cross-records checking. Recidivism measures included: (1) any arrest as an adult for a Class A misdemeanor or higher; (2) any arrest as an adult for a substance use related offense; (3) any conviction as an adult for a Class A misdemeanor or higher, and (4) any conviction as an adult for a felony. The highest recidivism rate among the six groups (two courts x three groups) in the study was recorded by drug court graduates in the East Central Judicial District (EC). The lowest recidivism rate was recorded by graduates from the Northeast Central Judicial District (NEC). Overall, terminated participants had higher recidivism rates than subjects from the comparison group. The data suggest that there are two interpretations why drug court graduates in the EC court had higher recidivism in adulthood: (1) that the length of stay in the EC drug court was too brief at 7.8 months, compared to the NEC graduates where the length of stay was 11.1 months and (2) that juveniles are being admitted too late to the EC drug court. Other differences between the courts were not associated with adult recidivism. Details: Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, 2004. Source: Internet Resource. Accessed on January 15, 2012 at http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/documents/150.pdf Year: 2004 Country: United States URL: http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/documents/150.pdf Shelf Number: 123617 Keywords: Drug Court (North Dakota)Juvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile OffendersRecidivism |
Author: Latessa, Edward J. Title: Final Report: Outcome and Process Evaluation of Juvenile Drug Courts Summary: This study adds to the existing juvenile drug court literature by providing a national multi-site outcome and process evaluation of nine juvenile drug courts from across the U.S. This study assesses the relative effect of each court, as well as their combined effectiveness in reaching the overall goal of reducing recidivism and improving youths' social functioning. It also identifies, where possible, the characteristics of youth and programs associated with successful outcomes. The goals of this research are consistent with those stated in the OJJDP-approved grant proposal. There were six original goals. One additional goal was added at the request of OJJDP. The goals of this research are: 1) To determine if there is a reduction in recidivism and substance abuse associated with participation in a juvenile drug court program, relative to comparison groups. 2) To determine if there are increases in social functioning related to participating in juvenile drug court programs relative to comparison groups. 3) To identify the characteristics of successful juvenile drug court participants. 4) To determine if juvenile drug courts are operating in a manner consistent with evidence-based approaches. 5) To identify the programmatic characteristics of effective juvenile drug courts. 6) To provide policymakers with information about the effectiveness of juvenile drug courts. 7) To determine if the 16 strategies for juvenile drug courts recommended by the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) are effective practices (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2003). The nine juvenile drug courts participating in this research study are located in: Ada County, Idaho; Clackamas County, Oregon; Jefferson County, Ohio; Lane County, Oregon; Lucas County, Ohio; Medina County, Ohio; Rhode Island (the state); San Diego County, California; and Santa Clara County, California. As discussed above, the study included both process and outcome evaluation components. Details: Cincinnati, OH: Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati, School of Criminal Justice, 2013. 421p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 4, 2013 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/241643.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/241643.pdf Shelf Number: 128931 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug OffendersJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Blair, Lesli Title: Juvenile Drug Courts: A Process, Outcome, and Impact Evaluation Summary: This bulletin provides an overview of an Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention-sponsored evaluation of drug court intervention programs, their processes, and key outcome features. The authors evaluated nine juvenile drug courts from three regions nationwide, assessing the relative effect of each court and the courts' combined effectiveness in reducing recidivism and improving youth's social functioning. Some of the authors' key findings follow below. - Seven of nine sites saw higher rates of new referrals for drug court youth when compared with youth on traditional probation, and six of nine sites saw higher rates of new adjudications for drug court youth when compared with youth on traditional probation. - Only one of nine sites evidenced significant reductions for both new referrals and new adjudications. These positive outcomes may be due to the referral agencies providing treatment on the court's behalf adhering more closely to evidence-based practices. - Many of the juvenile drug courts were not adequately assessing their clients for risk, needs, and barriers to treatment success. - Juvenile drug courts in general were not adhering to evidence-based practices. Only two of the nine courts performed well in the process evaluation that measured adherence to evidence-based correctional treatment practices, and only one court's referral agencies performed well in the process evaluation. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 2015: Accessed May 30, 2015 at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248406.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248406.pdf Shelf Number: 135806 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug TreatmentJuvenile CourtsJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Carnevale Associates, LLC Title: Findings from the Economic Analysis of JDC/RF: Policy Implications for Juvenile Drug Courts Summary: Findings from the National Cross-Site Evaluation of Juvenile Drug Courts and Reclaiming Futures (JDC/RF) indicate that costs associated with providing services in accordance with the JDC/RF integrated model are offset by substantial savings to society. The integrated model, which was created as a combination of two existing models: Juvenile Drug Courts: Strategies in Practice (JDC: SIP) & Reclaiming Futures (RF), is part of an effort by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), in partnership with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, to improve the effectiveness and efficacy of JDCs. The JDC/RF National Cross-Site Evaluation includes five sites that received funding under this initiative. This brief describes a two-part study of JDC/RF program costs, meaning the monetary value of time and resources required to operate the program, and estimated net economic benefits, meaning the monetary value of program benefits minus the program costs. Adolescent treatment program costs and associated net benefits are not studied as frequently as adult programs, despite the fact that studies of this nature for adults have become more numerous in recent years. The findings of the current study help fill this gap, lending an important contribution to the adolescent treatment research community. The study found that the five sites participating in the JDC/RF National Cross-Site Evaluation experienced net benefits to society that greatly exceeded JDC/RF program costs. These benefits were directly related to data collected before and after the JDC/RF intervention on traditional measures of JDC programmatic success such as crime, substance abuse, education, physical health, and mental health. Findings provide preliminary economic justification for the JDC/RF program. Details: Tucson: University of Arizona: Accessed February 29, 2016 at: 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 29, 2016 at: https://sirow.arizona.edu/sites/sirow.arizona.edu/files/Policy%20Brief%20%23%20Cost%20Study_FINAL_upload2_1.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://sirow.arizona.edu/sites/sirow.arizona.edu/files/Policy%20Brief%20%23%20Cost%20Study_FINAL_upload2_1.pdf Shelf Number: 137992 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CourtsJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Choo, Kyungseok Title: Juvenile Drug Courts: Policy and Practice Scan Summary: A policy and practice scan (sometimes referred to as an environmental scan) was conducted to provide data on a sample of local juvenile drug treatment courts (JDTCs) in the United States. The objectives of the scan were to collect data from a sample of JDTCs on their current operations and structures, challenges to implementation, and perceived or measurable successes. The scan was not conducted to determine whether or not JDTCs "work," but, rather, to provide descriptive research evidence to answer the question, "What is going on?" Eligibility Criteria To be included in the scan, a local JDTC was required to meet the following eligibility criteria: (1) the JDTC was established in 2004 or later (excluding JDTCs that predate the release of the current practice strategies), and (2) it was operational for at least 2 years at the time of the scan. Sampling Methods A variety of methods were used to create the sample for this scan. The methods were carried out in the following order: 1. Researchers contacted the state-level juvenile drug treatment court coordinators for each state and territory and asked them to furnish a list of JDTCs in their jurisdiction, along with contact information and any data that could help the research team assess eligibility. In those instances in which we did not receive a response from the state coordinator, we contacted the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOCs) at the state level for the information. 2. The initial efforts were supplemented by examinations of the most recent directory of drug courts created by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) and through other methods, including Google searches. A total of 405 JDTCs from 44 states and Puerto Rico were identified through these methods, and 107 were identified as being eligible. Once the sample pool was established, key contacts at each eligible site - usually the coordinators - were contacted by e-mail or phone to request participation in the project. Out of the total, eligible sample pool, 25 JDTCs agreed to participate; they became our sample for the scan.2 The 25 JDTCs represented 20 states. Results History and inception. Local JDTCs were initiated in a variety of ways. The most common impetus was the interest of a juvenile court judge (or, in few instances, a court administrator) who had heard about JDTCs in other jurisdictions and wanted to institute a specialized court for juvenile substance abusers. In a few cases, the juvenile drug treatment court was a natural extension of an adult drug court that was already established in the jurisdiction. In other instances, the JDTC was expanded from existing JDTCs in nearby jurisdictions. The role of funding was acknowledged by some of the key contacts; several JDTCs had obtained grants (mostly state-level funding) to help start and implement the JDTC. A common component at inception was a steering or planning committee and a designated “leader” for the initiative. Some common challenges faced at start-up were the lack of treatment providers and transportation for youth to attend the program. In addition, a minority discussed conflicts among agencies in the partnerships, the learning curve in operating a JDTC, insufficient funding for hiring staff, and getting grant proposals written to support the effort. Local partnerships. Most key contacts for local JDTCs indicated that there had been little change in their partnerships since they were formed. When changes did occur, the most common were to add or change treatment providers. A wide variety of professionals and organizations were involved in JDTC partnerships, the most common of which were judges, court administrators, the district attorney's or prosecutor's office, local treatment providers, the probation department, and state/county social service agencies. Additional partnerships included efforts with church groups and community organizations. A few key contacts noted that law enforcement and education organizations were important but were missing from their JDTC partnerships. Treatment options. Most JDTCs offered multiple treatment programs. The majority of treatment options focused on substance abuse, whereas some treatment programs also offered mental health services and family services. The JDTCs commonly offered both group and individual counseling to clients; in addition, others offered job placement, education assistance, and life skills programs. Youth who required more intensive, inpatient detoxification or rehabilitation were commonly referred to a local facility. Generally, these facilities were within a 1- to 4-hour drive of the court, and programs lasted anywhere from a weekend to 6 months. Every drug court utilized urine analysis for drug testing; in addition, some conducted oral fluid analysis and breathalyzer tests for alcohol detection. The juvenile clients were tested frequently: generally, two to three times a week at random times. Structure and operation. The typical structure of a JDTC consisted of three major parts: intensive judicial supervision, treatment services, and community-based organizational support. The core members of the intensive judicial supervision typically were an assigned judge, a prosecuting attorney, a public defender, and a probation officer. Almost all of the JDTCs contracted with external providers for treatment services (i.e., substance abuse treatment, drug tests, and individual/group/family counseling services). Many also included a representative from a school district and representatives from local community-based organizations. JDTC coordinators played a significant role in maintaining the coordinated and collaborative work of all partnering agencies and organizations. Most JDTCs had a clearly delineated referral process and explicitly outlined eligibility and program requirements in their policy manuals and client handbooks. The validation calls revealed, however, that many JDTCs struggled to provide services that were age appropriate, gender sensitive, and culturally and linguistically competent. For example, courts were challenged to provide adequate services to older youth (17 years or older) as well as to younger youth (under 13 years old). Many also indicated that they did not have much experience with female clients or non-English speaking clients (although some did provide interpreters). All JDTCs in our sample used incentives and sanctions to encourage clients to comply with program requirements. The most frequently cited incentives were gift cards and extended curfews. A common sanction was increased supervision, such as GPS monitoring or detention. Some JDTCs included mental health treatment, although they still considered their primary function to be substance abuse treatment. Performance evaluation and monitoring. Local JDTCs varied in their capacity to collect data for evaluation and monitoring performance. Only about one-third of the JDTCs included in our sample indicated that they collect data for performance monitoring, and even fewer have participated in an evaluation of any kind. Those who consistently collect data varied in the breadth, depth, and utility of the data. Most data-collecting JDTCs in our sample collected only basic data required for periodic monitoring at the state level (e.g., demographics of youth referred to the court, counts for graduation and termination, services received, and recidivism), but they indicated that these data were not sufficient for local program monitoring. A few of the JDTCs collected additional data through Web-based systems used to track clients and provide real-time monitoring. Most JDTCs, however, lacked comprehensive and accessible systems to track data for local monitoring and evaluation purposes. Successes. Local JDTCs defined success in a variety of ways. Some defined it as measurable change or impact for youth who participate (e.g., program graduation and reduced substance abuse, continued education, sustained employment, and reduction in recidivism). Others identified “soft” indicators, such as staff dedication and long-term connections with youth, staff, and others such as probation officers. In addition, a few key contacts at local JDTCs identified certain attitudinal and behavioral changes, such as better relationships with parents/guardians and personal functioning, as being indicative of success even though these factors are not captured by data systems. At least one JDTC identified broader public health outcomes, such as reduced early pregnancies, as another indicator of success. Nearly all perceived their court as successful; however, very few could provide any data on documented successes of their local JDTC. Challenges to implementation. Key contacts at local JDTCs identified a wide variety of challenges to implementation. The most commonly cited challenge was lack of funding, especially for supporting incentives for youth in the program and enabling sufficient staffing. Other common challenges to implementation included developing effective treatment for youth with serious addiction or other complex problems; engaging families in the program and in providing a supportive home environment for their children; insufficient treatment options, including mental health and family counseling; training for staff and treatment providers; poor collaboration and communication among certain stakeholders in the JDTC; key gaps with agencies such as the district attorney; transportation for youth to attend JDTC activities, particularly in rural areas; and the role of the youth’s defense attorney, which can conflict with the aims of the JDTC. Sustainability. None of the JDTCs had a formal sustainability plan. Many suggested factors that would facilitate sustainability, such as having a “program champion” (i.e., someone who believes that the program is necessary and useful regardless of the statistics); securing judicial, prosecutorial, school and community buy-in (at least one JDTC used social media and a website to promote the program); having a committed leader, team, and advisory board; and demonstrating the value of the program through data and research. A few JDTCs talked about using a sales tax or Medicaid to help provide support for youth services. In at least one state, a compliance agency was created to track and certify all of the drug courts; this has helped with sustainability as the tracking process revealed how funds were being spent. Current practice standards/Guidelines development. Most key contacts at JDTCs were aware, in general, of the 2004 JDTC practice standards. In some cases, the 16 strategies were noted in the local JDTC (or state-level) policy and procedures manual. In a few instances, the 16 standards were intentionally used to guide the creation of the JDTC. Others took the standards into account for performance monitoring. Most key contacts—especially those focused on collaboration, teamwork, judicial involvement, and community partnerships—supported the 16 standards. As one key contact stated, “Just having the guidelines there and stated clearly is helpful...they’re a great resource.” Family engagement was considered critical; however, some JDTCs were struggling to involve parents or guardians in their child’s treatment. A few JDTCs mentioned a need for help with meeting standards around providing developmentally appropriate and multiculturally competent treatment. Several JDTCs cited challenges related to providing incentives (sometimes because of funding issues) and sanctions. With respect to future work related to the guidelines development process, one key contact recommended reaching out to the statewide drug court associations and asking them to review and disseminate the new guidelines. Another advocated including the use of an instrument such as the Youth Level of Service Case Management Inventory as a standard for facilitating data-driven offender assessment and treatment decisions. Conclusions A policy and practice scan was conducted with 25 local JDTCs that were established in 2004 or later and that have been operational since 2013 (for at least 2 years). Data were collected from available documentation and validation calls with key contacts at the local JDTC. Data were organized by a semi-structured protocol to provide information on history, treatment options, local partnerships, operations, performance monitoring and evaluation, successes, challenges, sustainability, and guidelines. Although the JDTCs varied widely on many dimensions, they also shared many similar attributes. Implications for Guidelines Key contacts at JDTCs generally were aware of the existence of the current practice standards, and they supported the standards. Some JDTCs made an effort to follow them as outlined, yet a few of them struggled with implementing standards such as developmentally appropriate treatment and incentives and sanctions. Key contacts did not identify any guidelines to add or remove; they believed that the current guidelines were fairly comprehensive. Most of the JDTCs, however, lacked the funding to implement the guidelines as well as they would like. The shortage of funding undermines the goals of providing incentives and sanctions and comprehensive drug testing. Details: Woburn, MA: WestEd Justice and Prevention Research Center, 2016. 94p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 20, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250442.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250442.pdf Shelf Number: 146693 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug TreatmentJuvenile Drug CourtsProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Wilson, David B. Title: Developing Juvenile Drug Court Practices on Process Standards: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis Summary: Objectives. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence on implementation barriers and facilitators, and other process issues related to juvenile drug courts, refered to herein as juvenile drug treatment courts (JDTCs), including systemwide contextual factors. This review focused on program factors directly relevant to the success of a JDC such as program fidelity, demographics of subjects, program elements, and JDC structure, as well as other potential moderators of effectiveness. Search methods. We searched the following databases and Internet resources for eligible studies: American Society of Criminology conference proceedings, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences conference proceedings, Campbell Library, Chestnut Health Systems website, CINAHL, Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Library, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, ERIC, Google Scholar, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, International Clinical Trials Registry, JMATE conference proceedings, National Drug Court Institute website, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, NIH RePORTER, NPC Research website, ProQuest Criminal Justice, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses: Full Text, ProQuest Education, ProQuest Family Health, ProQuest Health & Medical Complete, ProQuest Health Management, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health, ProQuest Psychology, ProQuest Science, ProQuest Social Science, ProQuest Sociology, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, PubMed (drug treatment studies only), RAND Drug Policy Research Center website, Sociological Abstracts, The Drug Court Clearinghouse via American University’s Justice Programs Office website, University of Cincinnati School of Criminal Justice website, and the Urban Institute website. We examined the references found in research reviews, meta-analyses, and eligible studies. The search strategy was tailored to each database or website with the goal of identifying all relevant process and implementation studies of JDCs. The search process identified 7,261 titles and abstracts that were initially screened for potential relevance. This resulted in 572 titles and abstracts that were examined more carefully by two independent coders. This process produced 286 documents that were retrieved and for which the full text was examined to determine final eligibility, resulting in 59 eligible and coded studies. Eligibility. Both qualitative and quantitative evidence were eligible. A study must have examined a JDC and provided quantitative or qualitative evidence regarding JDC process issues. Purely theoretical discussions of JDC operations and other editorial or thought pieces were not included. A study that collected data within a JDC but did not evaluate something related to the functioning of the JDC was not included, such as a study using JDC clients to examine peer influence on drug use. Also excluded were process evaluations restricted to determining a JDC's adherence to the National Drug Court Institute and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges' "16 strategies" without an assessment of barriers or facilitators of implementing these strategies, or the value of them. Systematic review methods. Meta-aggregation was the method used for this systematic review, as outlined by the Cochrane Collaboration. This approach involved the extraction of study findings (i.e., a text summary or direct quote), the assessment of the quality of the evidence supporting the finding, and the categorization of the findings into conceptual groups. These conceptual groups were then subjected to thematic analysis using standard qualitative data analytic techniques to arrive at an interpretative summary of each grouping of findings. A credibility of evidence assessment (questionable, low, moderate, and high) was assigned to each interpretive summary statement, which reflected the highest quality assessment achieved by at least two findings that contributed to an interpretive statement. Findings. The 477 findings extracted from the 59 studies were aggregated into 14 broad conceptual categories that reflected different aspects of the juvenile drug court system. Forty interpretive statements were developed across these categories, which reflect a broad range of process issues. Most of these statements were rated as moderate (n = 10) or high (n = 21) in terms of credibility of evidence reflecting a moderately strong connection between the study finding and the quantitative or qualitative evidence. The bulk of these statements focused on family members as stakeholders in the JDC process; standards for ensuring accountability, such as the consistent application of behavioral contingencies; and various needs of JDC participants, such as mental health treatment. Conclusions. The findings demonstrate the complexities of implementing the conceptually simple JDC model. Youth and their families arrive at a juvenile drug court with a range of needs that extend beyond the youth’s substance use and involvement in other delinquent behavior, including mental health needs, a history of trauma, and learning disabilities. Families may be prepared to effectively partner with the court to facilitate a youth’s engagement in treatment services and comply with court expectations. However, families may experience obstacles to this partnership, such as parental substance abuse, or they may actively work against the JDC process. Furthermore, JDCs exist within a broader institutional and social context and rely on services available within the community and on support from various stakeholders. The quality and effectiveness of these services (e.g., substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment) will directly affect outcomes for youth and their families. Details: Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, 2016. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250441.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250441.pdf Shelf Number: 144845 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug CourtsDrug Treatment ProgramsJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile Drug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Harris, Brett Title: Engage, Involve, Empower: Family Engagement in Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts Summary: Research has shown that family engagement during a youth's time in the juvenile justice system helps to improve outcomes across behavioral health, education, and delinquency. To inform this technical assistance brief, which explores the application of this knowledge in the juvenile drug treatment court context, NCMHJJ conducted a nationwide survey of professionals at juvenile drug treatment courts, juvenile mental health courts, and hybrid juvenile treatment courts to learn about attitudes and practices related to family engagement. Survey results helped shape the comprehensive set of family engagement recommendations offered by the brief, as well as a self-evaluation tool. The following are also included: Key findings of the survey; Essential information on substance use and addiction among young people; and Descriptions of two juvenile drug treatment courts that demonstrate a strong commitment to family engagement. Details: Delmar, NY: National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, 2017. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2017 at: https://www.ncmhjj.com/resources/engage-involve-empower-family-engagement-juvenile-drug-courts/ Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncmhjj.com/resources/engage-involve-empower-family-engagement-juvenile-drug-courts/ Shelf Number: 141246 Keywords: FamiliesJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile Drug OffendersJuvenile Drug TreatmentProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Tanner-Smith, Emily E. Title: Meta-Analysis of Research on the Effectiveness of Juvenile Drug Courts Summary: Objectives. This systematic review and meta-analysis quantitatively synthesized findings from the most current evidence base of juvenile drug court effectiveness research. The objectives of the meta-analysis were to examine the effects of juvenile drug courts on general recidivism, drug recidivism, and drug use outcomes; and to explore variability in these effects across characteristics of the juvenile participants and drug courts. To address these objectives, we synthesized results from randomized and controlled quasi-experimental design studies that reported on the effects of juvenile drug courts located in the United States. Search methods. We conducted a comprehensive and systematic literature search to identify all relevant studies (published or unpublished) that met our pre-specified eligibility criteria, and the literature search is current through December 2014. We searched several electronic databases, supplemented with searches of websites, research registers, reference lists, and hand-searches of key journals and conference proceedings. Data collection and analysis. Standard systematic review practices were used for data collection and analysis. Titles, abstracts, and full-text reports were screened independently by two researchers. A third author resolved any disagreements about eligibility for inclusion. Studies eligible for inclusion were independently coded by two researchers, with a third author resolving any coding disagreements. All data extraction followed a standardized coding protocol, with data entered directly into a FileMaker Pro database. Inverse variance weighted random-effects meta-analysis models were used to estimate overall mean effect sizes, and mixed-effect meta-regression models were used to explore variability in effects across various study characteristics. Contour-enhanced funnel plots were used to assess for publication bias. Results. An extensive literature search located 46 eligible experimental or quasi-experimental evaluations of juvenile drug courts. The quantitative synthesis of effect sizes provided no evidence that juvenile drug courts were more or less effective than traditional court processing in terms of general recidivism, drug recidivism, and drug use outcomes. There was no evidence of an effect on these outcomes during the juvenile drug court program period and in the post-program period. The juvenile drug court evaluations were generally of poor methodological quality. Very few studies employed random assignment, and substantial baseline differences were found between drug court and comparison groups on baseline risk and demographics. Restricting the meta-analysis to studies using the most rigorous designs (randomized and matched quasi-experimental design) provided no evidence of effectiveness on general recidivism, drug recidivism, or drug use outcomes. Finally, there was no evidence that any of the measured participant characteristics or drug court features were associated with drug court effects. Conclusions. There is no evidence that juvenile drug courts are more or less effective than traditional court processing in terms of reducing juveniles' recidivism and drug use, but there is also no evidence of harm. The quality of the body of evidence is very low, however, so we have little confidence in these null findings. Details: Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Peabody Research Institute, 2016. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250439.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250439.pdf Shelf Number: 146442 Keywords: Drug Abuse TreatmentDrug CourtsJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile Drug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |