Implementing Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts: A Meta-aggregation of Process Evaluations

• DOI: 10.1177/0022427819826630
• Author: Catherine S. Kimbrell,Ajima Olaghere,David B. Wilson
• Published date: 01 July 2019
• Date: 01 July 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Implementing

Juvenile Drug

Treatment Courts:

A Meta-aggregation

of Process Evaluations

David B. Wilson

1

, Ajima Olaghere

2

,

and Catherine S. Kimbrell

1

Abstract

Juvenile drug treatment courts (JDTCs) continue to be popular. However,

results of a recent meta-analysis raised doubts regarding their effectiveness

over traditional juvenile justice system processing. The objective of this

study was to systematically review the qualitative and quantitative evidence

related to the inner workings of JDTCs to identify ways to improve out-

comes. We conducted an extensive systematic search for process and

implementation studies, resulting in 59 studies that met eligibility criteria.

We used meta-aggregation methods to extract 477 study findings and cate-

gorized the findings thematically. We report on a subset of findings within

four thematic categories containing the largest number of methodologically

credible findings: (1) family members as stakeholders in the JDTC process,

(2) standards for ensuring accountability and youth compliance with court

expectations, such as the consistent application of behavioral contingencies,

1

George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

2

Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:

David B. Wilson, Department of Criminology, Law and Society, George Mason University,

4400 University Drive, MS 4F4, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA.

Email: dwilsonb@gmu.edu

Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency

2019, Vol. 56(4) 605-645

ªThe Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0022427819826630

journals.sagepub.com/home/jrc

(3) the availability of community and school services, and (4) the various

needs of JDTC clients, such as mental health treatment. Based on these

findings, we suggest a modified causal change model for JDTCs that extends

the theoretical framework for JDTCs to incorporate improving youth psy-

chosocial functioning as an important outcome. Implications for the role of

JDTCs within the juvenile justice system are discussed.

Keywords

juvenile drug treatment courts, meta-aggregation, systematic review,

process and implementation issues

Rehabilitation programs within the juvenile and criminal justice systems are

almost always complex, having multiple interrelated components. For

example, a group-based cognitive–behavioral program for offenders will

typically have a set of structured lesson plans and homework assignments,

each lesson and homework representing a unique component of the pro-

gram. Beyond these specific program features, there are nonspecific com-

ponents as well that may have therapeutic value, such as the informal

interactions between the instructor and each student. This complexity cre-

ates multiple potential points of implementation failure, as well as many

different possible causal mechanisms that contribute to effectiveness. This

creates a challenge: An ineffective finding from a program evaluation is

ambiguous to interpret, as it may reflect program implementation failure,

theoretical misspecification, or actual ineffectiveness of the program model

(ignoring for the moment potential issues with statistical power).

Program evaluations are commonly paired with process evaluations to

monitor program implementation. Process evaluations help establish a feed-

back loop for the program being evaluated to assess implementation prac-

tices and facilitate iterative improvement. However, by looking across a

collection of process evaluations of a common program type, it may be

possible to gain insights into the real-world constraints and challenges in

delivering a particular program that has wide applicability. Furthermore,

themes identified across process evaluations may provide a basis for mod-

ifying the theoretical framework that explains how various interrelated

components bring about the desired outcomes.

Below we present the findings from a meta-aggregation of process and

implementation studies of juvenile drug treatment courts (JDTCs). We

illustrate how these studies can be used as a basis for a modified theory

606 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 56(4)

of the causal mechanisms for JDTCs based on the real-world experiences of

these programs. Process and implementation evaluations of other criminal

justice interventions may also hold useful information for getting inside the

“black box” of a program to theorize how such programs function in prac-

tice and how that may differ from the animating theoretical framework for

the program.

JDTCs are a complex intervention with multiple int errelated compo-

nents. Furthermore, a large body of process and implementation literature

exists for these programs, allowing us to test whether a synthesis of these

studies can inform practice and policy in this area.

JDTCs have experienced widespread growth since the implementation

of the first drug court in 1989 (Belenko and Logan 2003). As of 2018, there

were 320 JDTCs throughout the United States and its territories (National

Drug Court Resource Center 2018). Similar to adult drug courts, JDTCs

emerged in the mid-1990s as a solution to the influx of substance-using

youth into the juvenile justice system (National Drug Court Institute

[NDCI] and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

2003). These JDTCs are designed to prevent substance-involved youth

arrested for a delinquent act from becoming more heavily involved in sub-

stance use and other delinquent behaviors. The JDTC model is an example

of the broader therapeutic jurisprudence approach to problem-solving

courts that involves integrating knowledge of mental health and behavioral

change into the implementation of the law (Fay-Ramirez 2015) and, more

generally, focuses on the human and psychological impacts of legal pro-

cesses on individuals (Wexler 2000). Specifically, problem-solving courts

such as JDTCs use judicial actors as therapeutic change agents (Redlich and

Han 2014; Winick 2002). Principles of therapeutic jurisprudence include

the integration of services, ongoing judicial intervention, close monitoring

of behavior, multidisciplinary involvement, and collaboration with

community-based and governmental organizations, enhancing emp ower-

ment, respecting autonomy, promoting dialogue, motivational interviewing,

and behavioral contracting (Redlich and Han 2014; Wiener et al. 2010;

Winick 2002).

The framework of therapeutic jurisprudence can provide the theoretical

basis for predicting the effectiveness of problem-solving courts (see Fay-

Ramirez 2015; Hora, Schma, and Rosenthal 1998; Senjo and Leip 2001;

Wiener et al. 2010; Winick 2002). Within the context of JDTCs, the key

causal mechanism of behavior change is the use of a behavioral contingency

management system that uses rewards and sanctions to enhance substance

abuse treatment engagement and abstinence from substance use. Thus, the

Wilson et al. 607