Staff Perspectives on Juvenile Drug Court Operations

• Author: Jaymes Fairfax-Columbo,David Festinger,Steven Belenko,Michael R. McCart,Amy A. Mericle
• Published date: 01 September 2014
• Date: 01 September 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403413486342
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2014, Vol. 25(5) 614 –636

© 2013 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0887403413486342

cjp.sagepub.com

Article

Staff Perspectives on Juvenile

Drug Court Operations: A

Multi-Site Qualitative Study

Amy A. Mericle1, Steven Belenko1,2, David Festinger1,

Jaymes Fairfax-Columbo1, and Michael R. McCart3

Abstract

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.

Keywords

drug courts, juvenile justice, young offenders, parental responsibility

Substance use is a pervasive problem among youth in the United States. By the 12th

grade, nearly 50% have used some type of illicit substance during the course of their

lifetime, 40% have used these substances within the past year, and 25% have used

1Treatment Research Institute, Philadelphia, PA, USA

2Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

3Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Steven Belenko, Department of Criminal Justice, Temple University, Gladfelter Hall, 5th floor, 1115

Polett Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA.

Email: sbelenko@temple.edu

486342CJP25510.1177/0887403413486342Criminal Justice Policy ReviewMericle et al.

research-article2013

Mericle et al. 615

them within the past month (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2012).

Drug use is even more common among youth in the juvenile justice system. Four out

of five (78%) of children and teens in the juvenile justice system show evidence of

being under the influence during the commission of their offenses, and over half test

positive for substances at the time of their arrest. Furthermore, upwards of 40% of

delinquent youth exhibit clinically significant symptoms of drug abuse upon entry into

the juvenile justice system (National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at

Columbia University, 2004).

High rates of adolescent drug use have caused substantial concern and led to devel-

opment of interventions to address the problem. Following the model set by adult drug

court programs in the criminal justice system (National Association of Drug Court

Professionals, 1997), juvenile drug courts (JDCs) have emerged as one popular treat-

ment alternative for delinquent youth with substance abuse issues. The first JDC

opened in Visalia, California in 1995; 476 JDCs have since been opened in the United

States, representing approximately 19% of the total number of substance abuse problem-

solving courts in the United States (Huddleston & Marlowe, 2011).

JDCs are specialized dockets to which select drug-involved delinquents are referred.

JDCs are overseen by a judge who heads a team of juvenile justice, law enforcement,

mental health, social service, school, vocational training, prosecution, defense, proba-

tion, and treatment professionals. Participation is voluntary, and typical juvenile drug

court involvement lasts approximately 1 year (National Drug Court Institute &

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2003). JDCs are rehabilitative

as opposed to punitive in nature, and as such drug treatment and behavior modification

are key interventions. Other integral components of JDCs include drug screening and

frequent status hearings in front of the judge, who in turn administers sanctions and

incentives in accordance with juveniles’ progress and program compliance (Crumpton

et al., 2006; Hills, Shufelt, & Cocozza, 2009).

In contrast to the extensive empirical data on the adult drug court model, research

on JDCs is more limited. Fewer studies have examined JDCs in general, and even

fewer have rigorously examined the effectiveness of JDCs on outcomes such as drug

use and delinquency. Of the studies that do exist, findings are mixed. Meta-analyses

suggest that JDCs only marginally decrease delinquency (Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006;

Shaffer, 2006; Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2006). These findings are corrobo-

rated by the most recent systematic review of JDC effectiveness published by the

Campbell Crime and Justice Group (Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacKenzie, 2012)

which found that JDCs did significantly reduce drug use but they had no effect on

drug-related crime and only modest effect on delinquency more generally.

However, some recent and more controlled studies suggest that JDCs may have a

much greater impact. For instance, Henggeler and colleagues (2006) found that JDC

participants reported significantly less alcohol, marijuana, and polydrug use than did a

comparison group of juveniles in family court. They also found that JDC participants

reported significantly less involvement in delinquent activity than did their family

court counterparts, though this result did not hold when considering arrest records. In

a study of four JDCs in Utah, Hickert and colleagues (2010) found that, at 30 months