Sustained Outcomes? an Exploratory Study of Juvenile Drug Courts and Long‐Term Recidivism

• Published date: 01 March 2020
• Author: Kevin Thompson,Linsey Belisle
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12161
• Date: 01 March 2020

Sustained Outcomes?

an Exploratory Study of Juvenile Drug Courts

and Long-Term Recidivism

By Linsey Belisle and Kevin Thompson

ABSTRACT

This exploratory study examined juvenile drug courts’ effect on adulthood

recidivism. Utilizing a twelve-year average follow up time, adult recidivism rates

were compared between previous juvenile drug court participants and a comparison

group of juveniles who participated in traditional probation. Linear regression

models indicated limited recidivism effects of drug court on arrests or convictions

into adulthood. The findings suggest that gender and race may play a rol e in how

justice-involved juveniles interact and experience juvenile drug court, highlighting

the need for gender-responsive and culturally responsive policies, practices, and

programs within juvenile drug courts. Recommendations are made regarding

future research areas and ways to potentially improve long-term juvenile drug

court outcomes.

Key words: juvenile drug court, drug treatment, recidivism.

INTRODUCTION

In 2018, approximately 1.08 million juveniles in the United States between the

ages of 12 and 17 met the criteria for a substance use disorder

1

(Substance Abuse and

Linsey Belisle is a doctoral student in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of

Nevada, Las Vegas. She earned her master’s degree in Criminal Justice at North Dakota State University.

Her research interests include corrections, correctional rehabilitation, gender-responsive practices, policies,

and programs, substance use, and harm reduction practices.

Kevin Thompson is Professor of Criminal Justice at North Dakota State University. He received his

Ph.D. from the University of Arizona. His research interests focus on the impact of juvenile drug courts,

high risk drinking among college students, and theory testing.

1

Approximately 401,000 juveniles met the DSM-IV criteria for an alcohol use disorder, and

681,000 juveniles met the DSM-IV criteria for an illicit drug use disorder (see SAMHSA, 2019).

Juvenile and Family Court Journal 71, No. 1

©2020 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

63

Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2019). Due to the established rela-

tionship between crime and substance use, the high number of juveniles with substance

use disorders is a concern for public safety and the juvenile justice system (Bennett,

Holloway & Farrington, 2008). Juvenile substance use has been linked to an increase in

delinquent behaviors (Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber & White, 1999) and elevates the like-

lihood of involvement with the criminal justice system (Butts & Roman 2004;

SAMHSA, 2014). It is estimated that about half of justice-involved juveniles have some

type of substance use disorder, and 21% have at least two or more substance use disorders

(McClelland, Elkington, Teplin, & Abram, 2004; National Institute on Drug Abuse

[NIDA], 2014). In an attempt to break the cycle of juvenile substance use and crime,

juvenile drug courts were created.

The first juvenile drug court (JDC) began operation in 1995, and current estimates

suggest that there are approximately 336 JDCs in the U.S. (National Drug Court

Resource Center [NDCRC], 2019). Juvenile drug courts are specialized treatment courts

that operate within the juvenile justice system to address juvenile substance use as well

as delinquent behaviors (Butts & Roman, 2004). The focus of JDCs is to administer

intensive treatment alongside a collaboration of services to justice-involved youth who

struggle with substance use (Butts & Roman, 2004; Cooper, 2001).

Empirical research on the short-term effectiveness of JDCs lagged behind their

rapid expansion (Butts & Roman, 2004; Lowekamp, Holsinger, & Latessa, 2005;

Marlowe, 2010; Roman & DeStefano, 2004). Research has now begun to accumulate,

revealing mixed results regarding short-term, recidivism effectiveness (Marlowe, 2010;

Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacKenzie, 2012; Stein, Homan, & DeBerard, 2015;

Sullivan, Blair, Latessa, & Sullivan, 2014; Tanner-Smith, Lipsey, & Wilson, 2016). How-

ever, there is little information on the long-term recidivism effects of JDCs (Belenko,

1998, 2001; Belenko & Dembo, 2003; Latimer, Morton-Bourgon, & Chretien, 2006;

Mitchell et al., 2012; Thompson, 2004). This study attempts to rectify that shortcoming

by tracking juvenile drug court participants’ criminalrecords well into young adulthood.

REVIEW OF JUVENILE DRUG COURT RECIDIVISM EFFECTS

Juvenile drug courts across the country share a similar mission; to function as a spe-

cialized court within the juvenile justice system and provide justice-involved juveniles

who have a substance use problem with a comprehensive collaboration of services/treat-

ment to address their needs, eliminate substance use, and increase their overall self-

efficacy (Butts & Roman, 2004; Cooper, 2001, 2002). Key elements of JDCs include: (1)

early identification of eligible juveniles; (2) a drug court team comprised of a probation

officer, prosecutor and defense attorney, school representative, treatment provider, judge,

and in some jurisdictions, a school resource officer; (3) substance use treatment and any

other treatments necessary to address additional needs; (4) continuous judicial monitor-

ing; (5) the use of a sanctions and rewards model; (6) and lastly, reduction or dissmisal of

the juvenile offense(s) upon program completion (Copper, 2001, 2002; National Associ-

ation of Drug Court Professionals [NADCP], 1997).

64 | JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL