Substance Abuse and Drug Courts

• Author: Vincent J. Webb,Amna Saddik Gilmore,Nancy Rodriguez
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204005278803
• Published date: 01 October 2005
• Date: 01 October 2005
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/1541204005278803
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
Gilmore et al. / SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND DRUG COURTS
SUBSTANCE ABUSE
AND DRUG COURTS
The Role of Social Bonds
in Juvenile Drug Courts
Amna Saddik Gilmore
Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department
Nancy Rodriguez
Vincent J. Webb
Arizona State University
By drawing on social control theory, this study examines the effect of juvenile drug court
treatment on the desistence of delinquent behavior in Maricopa County, Arizona. Bonds
to family members, school, and peers are included in the analyses to assess how they in-
fluence offenders’ treatment progress (i.e., delinquency and drug use) and program
completion. Special analytical focus is placed on the additive and interactive effects
such bonds have on juvenile drug court success. Results indicate social bonds (e.g., par-
ents’ substance abuse, siblings’ substance abuse, peers’ substance abuse, and gang
membership) play a significant role in the desistance of delinquent behavior and pro-
gram completion. Based on these findings, the effect of juvenile court programs on de-
linquency and drug use will largely depend on their ability to address offenders’ weak
social bonds.
Keywords: substance abuse; juvenile; drug court; social bonds
In an attempt to address the drug problem, specialized drug courts have been estab-
lished to divert offenders from regular case processing to treatment programs. Juvenile drug
courts involve intensive monitoring of juveniles along with comprehensive individual and
family counseling. Although there are more than 140 juvenile drug courts in existence, only
a handful of published studies have examined the effect of drug courts on delinquency
(Applegate & Santana, 2000; Miller, Scocas, & O’Connell, 1998; O’Connell, Nestlerode, &
Miller, 1999; Rodriguez & Webb, 2004; Shaw & Robinson, 1998). Further, results from
these studies have been mixed. Initial studies of juvenile drug court programs revealed that
drug court participation had a significant effect in reducing recidivism (Miller et al., 1998;
Authors’ Note: The authors would like to thank the staff of the Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department
for their cooperation throughout this study. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nancy
Rodriguez, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 37100, Phoenix, AZ 85069-7100; e-mail: nancy.rodriguez@
asu.edu.
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, Vol. 3 No. 4, October 2005 287-315
DOI: 10.1177/1541204005278803
© 2005 Sage Publications
287

---

288 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
O’Connell et al., 1999; Shaw & Robinson, 1998), whereas more recent findings show a re-
duction in criminal activity but an increase in drug use (Rodriguez & Webb, 2004). Most
prior studies of juvenile drug courts have been program evaluations characterized by no
theoretical explanations of delinquency. Although various theories of delinquency provide
suitable frameworks for the examination of drug use and delinquency, social control theory
(i.e., the role of social bonds including family, school, and peers) provides an especially
useful framework for the study of drug courts given the incorporation and intense monitor-
ing of offenders’ family, school performance, and peer relations.
This study draws on social control theory and relies on official juvenile court data and
narratives from probation case files to examine the effect of drug court treatment on the
desistence of delinquent behavior in Maricopa County, Arizona. Social bond indicators
such as changes in guardianship, school attachment, employment status, and delinquent
peers are included in these analyses to assess how they influence offenders’ treatment prog-
ress and drug court outcomes. This study examines the effectiveness of drug court treatment
versus standard probation and the relative effect of familial, educational, and social
indicators in juvenile offenders’ drug court treatment.
Drug Use and the Role of Social Bonds
Studies of juvenile drug use have found that individual, educational, familial, and
peer factors are important correlates of juvenile substance abuse (Bursik & Grasmick,
1993; Cattarello, 2000; Dembo et al., 2000; Erickson, Crosnoe, & Dornbusch-Sanford,
2000; Friedman, Terras, & Glassman, 2000; Kurz & Moore, 1994; Nagin & Smith, 1990;
Peeples & Loeber, 1994; Ploeger, 1997; Sampson, 1987; Sampson & Laub, 1994). For ex-
ample, family structure and family involvement have been shown to be significant predic-
tors of juvenile drug use (Friedman et al., 2000; Gil, Vega, & Biafora, 1998; Leonore, 1999;
Sokol-Katz, Dunham, & Zimmerman, 1997). Substance abuse by juveniles has also been
attributed to delinquent peers (Cattarello, 2000; Garnier & Stein, 2002; Nagin & Smith,
1990). Interestingly, Jang (2002) found that the relationship among social indicators (e.g.,
family, peers, and school), individual attitudes (i.e., drug-related attitudes), and drug use
vary at different ages, demonstrating the dynamic nature of drug use among juvenile
offenders.
Control theory asserts that juveniles with bonds to family, schools, and peers are less
prone to delinquency given the informal and external control that such attachments provide
for offenders (Hirschi, 1969). Further, the strength of social bonds and their ability to influ-
ence behavior are directly related. For example, strong conventional bonds between parents
and children may enable parents to convey appropriate, law-abiding behavior to children.
One important characteristic of social bonds is that they develop and change over time, thus
providing varying levels of control over juveniles and adults (Laub, Nagin, & Sampson,
1998).Theeffectoffamily-relatedbondsondelinquencyhasbeensubstantiallyaddressedin
prior studies (Friedman et al., 2000; Kurz & Moore, 1994; Laub & Sampson, 1993; Nagin
& Smith, 1990; Nye, 1958; Sokol-Katz et al., 1997; Toby, 1974). Studies have found that
higher levels of parental monitoring decrease the likelihood of onset of drug use and reduce
the level of use among current users (Steinberg, Fletcher, & Darling, 1994). Officially doc-
umented and perceived drug use by family members has also been shown to influence juve-
niles’ drug use. Dembo et al. (2000) found that substance abuse by family members was sig-

---

Gilmore et al. / SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND DRUG COURTS 289
nificantly correlated with juveniles’ drug use, whereas Friedman, Terras, and Glassman
(2000) found that a perceived alcohol problem by mothers was the strongest predictor of
children’s drug use.
Peer-related bonds have been shown to directly and indirectly influence drug use and
delinquency (Cattarello, 2000; Erickson et al., 2000; Garnier & Stein, 2002; Nagin &
Smith, 1990). Ayers et al. (1999) found that increased contacts with nondelinquent peers
and involvement in activities with nondelinquent peers have direct effects on the desistance
of delinquency. Garnier and Stein (2002) found that drug use and delinquency are primarily
a function of similar behavior exhibited by peers. Studies have addressed the possible medi-
ating effects of peer relations on delinquency and drug use, which show that maturity level,
along with delinquent peers, have an interactive effect on drug use (Felson & Haynie,
2002).School-related bonds have been shown to be linked to juvenile drug use and delin-
quency for some time (Frazer & Norman, 1988; McCluskey, Krohn, Lizotte, & Rodriguez,
2002; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2002). Research reveals that low
educational levels, lag between age and school grade, and minimal attachments to school
are significant predictors of drug use (Allison et al., 1999) and delinquency (Ayers et al.,
1999; Dembo, Schmeidler, Nini-Gough, & Manning, 1998). Recent findings from the Na-
tional Household Survey indicate that juveniles who were not actually involved in juvenile
activities (e.g., school clubs, student government, and school band) in the past year were
more likely to engage in illicit drug use than were juveniles who took part in such activities
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2002).
Employment status has also been recognized as an important social bond in studies of
delinquency. Interestingly, examinations of the relationship between employment and
crime and delinquency have produced conflicting findings. Although studies have shown
that employment is a significant factor in desistance (Horney, Osgood, & Marshall, 1995;
Laub & Sampson, 2001; Shover, 1996; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
2002), self-report data from juveniles have indicated a positive relationship between em-
ployment and delinquency and drug use (Ploeger, 1997). Uggen (2000) contends that em-
ployment status may be a more important predictor of desistance among older offenders
than among younger offenders.
Juvenile Drug Courts and Their Effect
on Delinquency and Drug Use
Juvenile drug courts present one of the most comprehensive approaches to treating
substance abuse. They emphasize a wide spectrum of treatment modalities including educa-
tional services, mental health services, family therapy, mentoring, prosocial activities, vo-
cational training, and family support systems. Juvenile drug courts attempt to address the
life circumstance of offenders at home, at school, and in relationships with their peers. Key
elements of juvenile drug courts include the establishment of a drug court team (i.e., judge,
prosecutor, defense attorney, treatment...