A Detailed Cost Evaluation of a Juvenile Drug Court that Follows the Juvenile Drug Court Model (16 Strategies)

• Author: Theresa Herrera Allen,Tamara Perkins,Mark S. Waller,Shannon M. Carey
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12009
• Published date: 01 September 2013
• Date: 01 September 2013

A Detailed Cost Evaluation of a Juvenile Drug

Court that Follows the Juvenile Drug Court

Model (16 Strategies)

By Shannon M. Carey, Theresa Herrera Allen, Tamara Perkins, and Mark S. Waller

ABSTRACT

Although juvenile drug courts (JDCs) have now been in operation for 17 years,

there is still no definitive appraisal as to this model’s cost effectiveness and in

particular, no detailed cost analysis of a JDC program following the 16 strategies

until this one. The cost data presented in this paper build on the process and outcome

evaluations performed on the Clackamas County Juvenile Drug Court (CCJDC). The

criminal justice costs incurred by participants in drug court are compared with the

costs incurred by eligible non-participants.

Shannon M. Carey, Ph.D., Executive VicePresident and Senior Research Associate at NPC Research,

has worked in the areas of criminal justice and substance abuse treatment for 15 years, particularly in the area

of drug courts and cost analyses. Dr. Carey has been involved in performing process, outcome, and/or cost

evaluations in over 120 adult, juvenile, family, reentry, and DWI drug courts across the United States. She

recently completed a statewide analysis in 27 Oregon Drug Courts, and a project looking at best practices

within the 10 Key Components using evaluation results in 101 adult drug courts nationally.Dr. Carey earned

her Ph.D. in Systems Science and Applied Psychology from Portland State University.

Theresa Herrera Allen, Ph.D., Researcher at NPC Research, has worked in the area of criminal justice

research for over 15 years. She has worked on evaluations of drug courts, substance abuse treatment and

prevention programs, suicide prevention in American Indian communities, college access programs in high

schools, ex-offender reintegration programs, tobacco prevention and education programs, and child abuse pre-

vention programs. Dr.Herrera Allen earned her Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Southern California.

Tamara Perkins, Ph.D., Research Associate at NPC Research, has served as the Project Director for

multiple studies, including the evaluation of Native American substance abuse treatment programs with

wraparound services to support families in recovery, a set of after school programs run by Camp Fire

Columbia for youth aged 6 through 14, a Native American youth suicide prevention program serving the

nine federally-recognized tribes in Oregon, a teen pregnancy prevention project, an elder abuse prevention

program, and a statewide family treatment drug court evaluation project in Ohio. Dr. Perkins received her

Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of California, San Diego.

Mark S. Waller,BA, Cost Analyst/Research Specialist at NPC Research, specializes in the gathering

and management of cost and utilization data, cost analysis, the coordination of research efforts, and grants

management. He has worked in the areas of youth mentoring and gang prevention, early literacy programs,

environmental projects, and drug court evaluations. His current work includes process, cost, and outcome

evaluations for drug courts in Florida, New York, and Oregon. Mr. Waller earned his Bachelor of Arts in

Geography from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

bs_bs_banner

Juvenile and Family Court Journal 64, no. 4 (Fall) 1

© 2013 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

CCJDC participants had far more positive outcomes than those who did not

participate in the program. In the two years after drug court entry, CCJDC partici-

pants cost the taxpayers $961 less per participant than similar individuals who did not

attend the drug court program.

A DETAILED COST EVALUATION OF A JUVENILE DRUG

COURT THAT FOLLOWS THE JUVENILE DRUG COURT

MODEL (16 STRATEGIES)

Over the past two decades, the United States has seen a trend toward changing

criminal justice policy to guide nonviolent drug offenders into treatment rather than

incarceration. One major effort to accomplish this shift has been through the steady

implementation of drug court programs. Drug courts use the criminal justice system’s

coercive authority to offer treatment to addicts in lieu of incarceration.

In a typical drug court program, participants are closely supervised by a judge

who is supported by a team of agency representatives who operate outside of their

traditional roles, including addiction treatment providers, prosecutors, defense attor-

neys, law enforcement officers, and parole and probation officers who work together to

provide needed services to drug court participants. Generally, there is a high level of

supervision and a standardized treatment program for all participants within a

particular court (including phases that each participant must pass through by

meeting specified goals). Supervision and treatment include regular and frequent drug

testing.

Adult drug courts have been shown to reduce recidivism (GAO, 2005) and taxpayer

costs due to positive outcomes for drug court participants (Carey & Finigan, 2004; Carey,

Finigan, Waller, Lucas, & Crumpton, 2005; Carey & Waller, 2011). Some drug courts

have even been shown to cost less to operate than processing offenders through business-

as-usual (Carey & Finigan, 2004; Carey et al., 2005). However, the small body of research

on JDCs has been inconclusive.

JUVENILE DRUG COURT OUTCOME AND COST STUDIES

JDCs arose out of a need similar to that which led to the creation of adult drug courts;

to deal effectively with criminally justice-involved individuals who were also substance

users. With the popularity of adult drug courts and a need to link services for delinquent

youth more effectively, the problem-solving court model was an obvious alternative to

traditional juvenile rehabilitation efforts. The first JDC was implemented in Visalia,

California in 1995 and as of mid-2010, over 450 JDCs operated nationwide (Huddleston

& Marlowe, 2011). While there are many similarities between the adult and JDC models,

youth have unique developmental needs that have been taken into consideration under the

JDC model. Whereas the drug court model is guided by the 10 Key Components, a work

2 | JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL / Fall 2013