Juvenile Drug Courts: Understanding the Importance of Dimensional Variability

• Published date: 01 September 2003
• Author: John J. Sloan,John Ortiz Smykla
• Date: 01 September 2003
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403403253720
• Subject Matter: Journal Article

10.1177/0887403403253720ARTICLECRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003Sloan, Smykla / JUVENILE DRUG COURTS

Juvenile Drug Courts:

Understanding the Importance

of Dimensional Variability

John J. Sloan, III

University of Alabama at Birmingham

John Ortiz Smykla

University of South Alabama

Juveniledrug courtshaveemergedas “innovative”responses tojuvenile drugoffend-

ers, but comparatively little is known about their operations. Using Goldkamp’s

typology of adult drug courts and secondary analyses of Cooper and Bartlett’s data

from a national-level survey of juvenile drug courts, this article firstdescribes these

courts and then analyzes the variability in keydimensions of juvenile drug courts that

were operating in the United States on January1, 1998. Results showed that juvenile

drugcourtshave greatvariation acrosstheir keydimensions (e.g.,target populations,

target problems, court processing focus, and candidate screening and evaluation).

The authors raise questions about future research that might ignore the variance

across the key dimensions of juvenile drug courts that were uncovered.

Keywords: juveniledrug courts;specializedjuvenile courts;juvenile drugoffenders

Between 1997 and 1999, juvenile arrests for drug abuse violations declined

by10%(Snyder, 2000). Althoughthe number of juvenilecourt delinquency

cases involving drug abuseviolations did not decline during this period, the

rate of increase slowed. In 1997, for example, juvenile courts handled an

estimated 182,400 delinquency cases involving drug abuse violations, an

increase of 125% over 1988, an increase of 105% over 1993, but only an

increase of 4% over 1996 (Puzzanchera et al., 2000).

Explanations for these recent trends in juvenile drug abuse violations

vary. For example, the reduction may have been due to regression to more

normal levels of drug offending. It is entirely possible that the sharp

increaseswereonly short term,andthe reductions simplyreflectedmodera-

tion of unreasonably high offense levels having nowhere to go but down.

339

Criminal Justice Policy Review, Volume 14, Number 3, September 2003 339-360

DOI: 10.1177/0887403403253720

© 2003 Sage Publications

Others might argue, however, that the reductions were the result of arrest

celerity, new programs aimed at juvenile offenders, school resource offi-

cers, anti-drug media campaigns, get-tough attitudes on drug abuse viola-

tors, an increase in drug abusing juveniles waivedto criminal court, and the

development of juvenile drug courts. Whateverthe explanation, systematic

analysis is lacking.

Juvenile Drug Courts

Recognizing that the juvenile court was founded on an ideal of care,

treatment, and helping (e.g., Ainsworth, 1991; Mack, 1909; Platt, 1977),

why are juvenile drug courts needed? In other words, if the care and treat-

ment promised by the juvenile court is already present, why develop a spe-

cialized court that is also treatment based?

Juvenile drug courts arose in response to an increase in the number of

juvenile drug offenders coming to juvenile court. They can thus be viewed

as a tool created to help stem the tide of juvenile drug abuse cases that arose

during the 1990s. These courts also offer an innovative way to handle juve-

nile court dockets and, as such, constitute a case management tool. Finally,

juvenile drug courts recognize that enforcement of, and sanctions attached

to, court-ordered drug treatment are keys to program success.

More generally, juvenile drug courts are the latest in a long line of spe-

cialized, problem-solving courts that emerged in the U.S. justice system

duringthe1980s and 1990sandthat included domesticviolencecourts, gun

courts, adult drug courts, mental health courts, teen courts, and, more

recently, reentry courts that manage the transition of offenders from prison

to the community. Rottman and Casey (1999) refer to this problem-solving

orientationas“therapeutic jurisprudence,”an attempt to“combinea ‘rights’

perspective—focusing on justice, rights, and equality issues—with an

‘ethic of care’ perspective—focusing on care, interdependence, and

response to need” (p. 13). Whether they are called problem-solving courts

or therapeutic jurisprudence programs, the assumption behind them is that

attending to the needs and circumstances of individuals involved in a dis-

pute, as well as the specific legal issues before the court, will lead to more

effective dispositions.

Drug courts reshape the professional roles of judges and lawyers work-

ing in them. Judges, used to working in relative solitude, become part of a

collaborative decision-making team that includes treatment providers,

court personnel, and attorneys. Prosecutors and defense counsel learn to

coordinate their efforts to achieve a participant’s recovery from alcohol or

340 CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003