A multisite description of juvenile drug courts: program models and during-program outcomes

The Impact of Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts on Substance Use, Mental Health, and Recidivism: Results from a Multisite Experimental Evaluation

Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts (JDTC) emerged in the mid-1990s as a potential solution to concern about substance use among youth in the juvenile justice system (JJS). Despite substantial research, findings on the JDTC effectiveness for reducing recidivism and substance use remain inconsistent, hampered by methodological problems. In 2016, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention published research-based JDTC Guidelines for best practices, and funded technical assistance for implementation and a multisite national outcomes study among JDTCs implementing the Guidelines. Ten sites were originally selected for this study, with a JDTC and Traditional Juvenile Court (TJC) participating. In two sites, moderate- to high-risk youth were randomized to JDTC or TJC, and in eight sites, a regression discontinuity design assigned moderate- to high-risk youth to JDTC, and other youth to TJC. Findings from four sites with sufficient cases and follow-up rates indicated that JDTCs reduced cannabis use, increased access to mental health services, and reduced recidivism. However, the effects were small to moderate, with positive impacts mainly observed among high-risk youth. The impacts of JDTCs may have been attenuated because Guidelines implementation was inconsistent across courts, and some TJCs implemented elements of the Guidelines, blurring the distinction between JDTCs and TJCs.

The impact of Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts (JDTC) implementing Federal Evidence-Based Guidelines on recidivism and substance use: multisite Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) and Regression Discontinuity (RDD) Designs

BACKGROUND

Juvenile drug treatment courts (JDTC) have struggled to define themselves since their inception in 1995. Early courts followed a format similar to adult drug courts, but these did not address the unique needs of juveniles, which led to the creation of 16 Strategies by a consensus panel of practitioners and researchers. But, like the first JDTCs, research with courts following these strategies failed to provide convincing evidence that this "model" was associated with significant reductions in recidivism or drug use. More recently, a new set of evidence-based guidelines were developed through meta-analyses commissioned by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP, 2016).

METHOD

OJJDP provided funding for a rigorous multi-site evaluation of the guidelines. This study protocol paper for the Juvenile Drug Treatment Court (JDTC) Guidelines Cross-Site Evaluation presents research designs for the comparison of youth outcomes from 10 JDTCs compared with 10 Traditional Juvenile Courts (TJCs) in the same jurisdictions. Two sites opted into a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and eight sites chose to follow a regression discontinuity design (RDD). Youth data are captured at baseline, and at 6- and 12-month follow-ups using an interview comprised of several standardized assessments. The youths' official records also are abstracted for recidivism and substance use information. The degree to which the evidence-based guidelines are implemented at each site is assessed via an in-depth court self-assessment collected at baseline and again 2 years later and via structured site visits conducted once during implementation.

DISCUSSION

As a field-based trial, using both RCT and RDD designs, findings will provide important, policy-relevant information regarding the implementation of the OJJDP evidence-based guidelines, including the degree to which JDTCs adopted and/or modified these practices, their relative impact on recidivism and substance use, as well as the degree to which JDTCs differ from TJCs. Specific inferences may be drawn about whether following or not following specific guidelines differentially impact youth outcomes, yielding recommendations about the translation of this information from research-to-practice for potentiating the broader adoption of these guidelines by JDTCs nationwide.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

This was not an NIH supported trial. The funder, OJJDP/NIJ, instead required publishing the design with even more information at https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/juvenile-drug-treatment-court-jdtc-guidelines-cross-site-evaluation .

Sex differences in the effects of physical and sexual abuse on the odds of past 30-day opioid misuse among Florida justice-involved children

AIM

Opioid misuse is a severe threat to justice-involved children and adolescents. Identifying risk factors and sex differences is critical to design accurate risk assessments and person-centered interventions. Stress theory and research posit that abuse may be linked to opioid misuse, and the consequences may be harsher for females. The study tests the hypothesis that physical and sexual abuse will individually and cumulatively increase the risk for opioid misuse, and females will have a higher risk than males.

METHODS

A statewide sample of 79,960 justice-involved children in Florida were examined. Opioid misuse, illicit and non-medical use, was measured by urine analysis or self-disclosure within the past-30 days. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were employed. Marginal effects were estimated to investigate the interaction between abuse and sex.

RESULTS

Over 2000 youth met the criteria for opioid misuse. One-third of female opioid users experienced both physical and sexual abuse. Compared to those with no history of physical or sexual abuse, those who were physically abused had 43% higher odds of opioid misuse, those who were sexually abuse had 78% higher odds, and those who experienced both had twice as high odds of opioid misuse. The individual and combined effects of these abuse types were higher for females. For example, female youth who were sexually abused had 2.7-times higher odds of opioid misuse than males who were sexually abused.

CONCLUSION

Intervention efforts can be improved by integrating physical and sexual abuse into risk assessments and tailoring assessments by sex.

Collaboration: A Mechanism of Drug Court Model Adherence

Drug courts solve problems, namely, reducing drug use and recidivism. The current research attempts to answer the question of how to ensure program fidelity and therefore optimize the efficacy of drug courts. Justice professionals and scholars have recognized that there are multiple internal and external threats that could undermine the drug court operation. At this point, the mechanism(s) by which threaten factors affect drug court program fidelity has been neither theoretically modeled nor empirically tested. In the present study, using a national sample and the Structural Regression Analysis (SRA), we found collaboration and judicial decision making are the most important factors for maintaining drug court program fidelity. This is because collaboration and judicial decision making can mediate the threats and challenges from many quarters, including the lack of information sharing and evaluation, treatment, operational support, and community and political support.

A randomized clinical trial of family therapy in juvenile drug court

The objective of this article is to examine the effectiveness of 2 theoretically different treatments delivered in juvenile drug court--family therapy represented by multidimensional family therapy (MDFT) and group-based treatment represented by adolescent group therapy (AGT)--on offending and substance use. Intent-to-treat sample included 112 youth enrolled in juvenile drug court (primarily male [88%], and Hispanic [59%] or African American [35%]), average age 16.1 years, randomly assigned to either family therapy (n = 55) or group therapy (n = 57). Participants were assessed at baseline and 6, 12, 18 and 24 months following baseline. During the drug court phase, youth in both treatments showed significant reduction in delinquency (average d = .51), externalizing symptoms (average d = 2.32), rearrests (average d = 1.22), and substance use (average d = 4.42). During the 24-month follow-up, family therapy evidenced greater maintenance of treatment gains than group-based treatment for externalizing symptoms (d = 0.39), commission of serious crimes (d = .38), and felony arrests (d = .96). There was no significant difference between the treatments with respect to substance use or misdemeanor arrests. The results suggest that family therapy enhances juvenile drug court outcomes beyond what can be achieved with a nonfamily based treatment, especially with respect to what is arguably the primary objective of juvenile drug courts: reducing criminal behavior and rearrests. More research is needed on the effectiveness of juvenile drug courts generally and on whether treatment type and family involvement influence outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRY NAME

Clinical Trials.gov, Identified NCT01668303.

Staff Perspectives on Juvenile Drug Court Operations: A Multi-Site Qualitative Study

Substance use is pervasive among youth, particularly among those involved in the juvenile justice system. Juvenile drug courts (JDCs) are a promising approach for delinquent youth with substance abuse issues. However, research regarding JDCs has shown inconsistent effects, and little is known about the specific components associated with positive outcomes. The current study examines data from interviews of JDC judges and team member focus groups in six JDCs from two contiguous southeastern states to identify stakeholders' perceptions about what places youth at risk for involvement in JDC and the factors that may contribute to successful outcomes. In addition, we examine these stakeholders' perceptions of the strengths and challenges facing their JDCs. Our findings highlight the importance of parents and specific strategies implemented by JDCs in influencing the outcomes of youth in JDCs and the importance of interagency collaboration and access to treatment and community resources for the overall success of JDCs.