An Assessment of Juvenile Drug Courts’ Knowledge of Evidence‐Based Practices, Data Collection, and the Use of AA/NA

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12055
• Date: 01 March 2016
• Author: Logan A. Yelderman
• Published date: 01 March 2016

An Assessment of Juvenile Drug Courts’

Knowledge of Evidence-Based Practices, Data

Collection, and the Use of AA/NA

By Logan A. Yelderman

ABSTRACT

The use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) has become a core component of

juvenile drug courts (JDCs). This research, using a sample of JDCs listed with the

National Association of Drug Court Professionals, tests two current assumptions in

the field: 1) many JDCs do not use or are unaware of their use of EBPs and 2) JDCs

tend to overuse sober support groups (e.g., AA/NA), which are thought to be inap-

propriate for youth. Results suggest that nearly all JDCs, in the sample, reported

using EBPs; however, only about a quarter of them collected treatment data and

knew the outcomes of the data. Also, only about half of the JDCs use sober support

groups (predominantly AA/NA), and nearly all of the sober support groups were tai-

lored toward youth. Overall, these findings suggest that the current assumptions in

the field do not accurately reflect the practices reported by these JDCs. Implications

are discussed.

Key words: juvenile drug courts, evidence-based practices, sober support groups, Alcoholics

Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous.

The treatment of youth in the criminal justice system has been debated over the

past several decades (Elrod & Ryder, 2011; Finley, 2007). The juvenile justice system

was created specifically to address criminal justice issues related to youth, which differ

from adults, and it was originally developed to be a rehabilitative process (Cooper,

2002). However, the juvenile justice system has since wavered between rehabilitation

and punishment orientation (Hinton, Sims, Adams, & West, 2007). One specific rehabil-

itative extension of the juvenile justice system is the juvenile drug court (JDC). These

Logan A. Yelderman is a research assistant at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges in Reno, NV.

Funding acknowledgement: The current data was collected under grant 2010-DC-BX-K125, which

was awarded to the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges by the Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs. This funding supported the FY10 Juvenile Drug Courts Training and Technical

Assistance Program and was received in September of 2010. All research was conducted under this grant.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Juvenile and Family Court Journal 67, No. 1

©2016 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

33

courts hear special dockets regarding youth who commit certain categories of

delinquency either due to substance use or combined with substance use (Cooper, 2002).

The purpose of JDCs is to assist youth through substance abuse treatment, community

integration, punishment and supervision, and support (Sloan & Smykla, 2003).

Following the adult drug court model, many JDCs adopted similar structures and

programs. However, the adult aspects of the drug court model were later considered to

be inadequate at addressing the needs of the youth (Cooper, 2002; National Drug Court

Institute [NDCI] & National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges [NCJFCJ],

2003). According to van Wormer and Lutz (2011), youth required different, more devel-

opmentally targeted, treatment than adults. Although evidence is mixed, overall, JDCs

have the ability to reduce recidivism (i.e., delinquent acts while in JDC program and

after JDC program), substance use, and behavioral problems (e.g., violence, risky sexual

behavior, and mental health symptoms) compared to general juvenile justice youth, out-

patient treatment youth, and youth involved in family court (Henggeler, 2007; Ives,

Chan, Modisette, & Dennis, 2010; Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacKenzie, 2012; Stein,

Homan, & DeBernard, 2015).

Success of JDCs has been attributed to different factors of both the court program

and the youth being served (Marlowe, 2010; Sloan, III & Smykla, 2003; van Wormer &

Lutze, 2010). These aspects include parental support (Alarid, Montemayor, & Danhaus,

2012), parental attendance at status hearings (Salvatore, Henderson, Hiller, White, &

Samuelson, 2010), addressing risk factors of antisocial behavior (Schaeffer, Henggeler,

Chapman, Halliday-Boykins, Cunningham, Randall, & Shapiro, 2010), and fidelity to

an established JDC model, inter alia (Belenko & Logan, 2003; Carey, van Wormer, &

Mackin, 2014; NDCI & NCJFCJ, 2003). Recently, the juvenile drug court and juvenile

delinquency fields have emphasized the use of evidence-based practices (EBPs), specifi-

cally, evidence-based treatments.

Evidence-Based Practices

Evidence-based practices are specific practices or treatments that have experimental

outcome data supporting the effectiveness of the intervention in which the outcomes are

observable through measurement and replicable through repeated research (Fratello,

Kapur, & Chasen, 2013). In the literature, EBPs have broadly included treatments,

screening tools, intake assessment tools, and other practices; however, for the purposes of

this article, EBPs will refer exclusively to evidence-based treatments.

Several juvenile and family focused EBPs have shown to reduce juvenile delin-

quency and increase pro-social behaviors (Greenwood, 2008; Henggeler & Sheidow,

2012). Evidence-based practices have also been associated with reductions in adolescent

substance use and improved behavior (Waldron, Slesnick, Brody, Turner, & Peterson,

2001; Waldron & Turner, 2008). However, the success of EBPs is dependent upon the

appropriateness of implementation and fidelity to monitoring treatment outcomes (inter

alia; Madson & Campbell, 2006). Understanding these aspects allows interventions to be

tailored and adjusted to meet the needs of the individual youth (Borum, 2003). Based on

34 | JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL