I

I. Survey Overview

A. Focus of this Report

This report has been prepared by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) Drug Court Program Office (DCPO) Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project (DCCTAP) at American University to provide a synopsis of the current "state of the art" of juvenile and family drug court activity. The Profile reflects responses to a survey of juvenile and family drug courts that were operating as of January 1998 and updates a 1996 report that was prepared to document juvenile and family drug court activity that was just beginning at that time. The 1998 updated report is designed to provide a snapshot of the operational characteristics of juvenile and family drug courts that are currently operating and a synopsis of the policy and other implementation issues that have been commonly encountered. The sections that follow describe: the characteristics of current juvenile and family drug court programs; the populations they are serving; the case processing procedures they are using; the treatment and rehabilitation services they are delivering to both the juveniles and their families; the policy and operational issues they are addressing as they plan, implement, and fine-tune their various programs; and the advice they offer to colleagues in other jurisdictions contemplating similar programs.

In all, 35 programs were surveyed to prepare this report: 30 juvenile drug courts and six family drug courts. Several of these programs were too new to provide extensive operational information (Jersey City, San Francisco, Phoenix, Fort Lauderdale, for example) but are included with whatever preliminary information is available; follow-up information will be obtained on their activities as their operational experience evolves. All of the jurisdictions from which information was requested were identified by DCCTAP staff during the course of providing technical assistance and information to jurisdictions involved in drug court activities in support of the OJP Drug Court Programs Office's technical assistance mission.

Note: Not all respondents were able to answer all of the information requested, primarily because: they may not have had a sufficient period of operation to permit response; the nature of their activities was not relevant to the information requested; or the information was not readily available. In each section, only those jurisdictions providing relevant information on the topic are included.

B. Defining Juvenile and Family Drug Courts

For the purpose of this report, a juvenile drug court is defined as a drug court that focuses on juvenile delinquency (e.g., criminal) matters and status offenses (e.g., truancy) that involve substance-using juveniles; a family drug court is defined as a drug court that deals with cases involving parental rights in which an adult is the party litigant, which comes before the court through either the criminal or civil process, and which arise out of the substance abuse of a parent, and include custody and visitation disputes; abuse, neglect and dependency matters; petitions to terminate parental rights; guardianship proceedings; or other loss, restriction or limitation of parental rights.

C. Juvenile and Family Drug Court Activity Underway in the States

Interest in developing juvenile and family drug courts is rapidly spreading across the country. Since 1995, when the first juvenile and family drug courts were developed in Birmingham, Alabama; Tulare County (Visalia), California; Escambia County (Pensacola), Florida; Washoe County (Reno), Nevada; and Salt Lake City, Utah, juvenile and family drug court activity has been launched in 16 states and the District of Columbia,, including one Native American Tribal Court. To date, over 50 juvenile and ten family drug courts are in operation and an additional 50 juvenile and 10 family drug courts are being planned. Juvenile and family drug court activity is presently underway in over 35 states, the District of Columbia and one territory. The rapidly increasing interest in juvenile and family drug courts is being spurred by both the success of adult drug court programs and the increasing impact on court dockets, families, and communities of substance use by juveniles and other family members.

The development of juvenile and family drug court programs is proving to be an extemely complex task ÷ considerably more difficult than adult drug court development because of the nature and complexity of the issues being addressed, and the number of agencies and parties potentially involved in these cases. Most of these programs are therefore starting with a smaller number of participants than their adult counterparts. To date, approximately 1, 300 juveniles and 200 adults have been enrolled in juvenile drug courts and/or family drug courts, with approximately 76% still participating or graduated.

The sections that follow reflect survey responses from all 27 juvenile and six family drug courts that were operational as of January 1998.

II. Description of Juvenile and Family Drug Courts Included in this Report

A. Operational, Caseload, Demographic and Organizational Description

1. Operational Information

a. Juvenile Drug Courts

The 30 juvenile drug courts providing information for this report include one Native American Tribal Court (Shonone) in Duckwater, Nevada) and operate in 17 different states, with the greatest state activity occurring in Florida and California, with 7 and 5 programs, respectively. The population size of the jurisdictions in which these programs operate ranges from under 100,000 (Duckwater, Nevada; Monroe County (Key West), Florida; Benton, Missouri; Missoula, Montana) to over 1 million (Birmingham, Alabama; San Jose, California; Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; Jacksonville, Florida; Chicago, Ill.; and Las Vegas, Nevada.). Over half of the programs operate in jurisdictions that have already established adult drug courts.

Chart II-A-1: Juvenile Drug Courts Included in this Report

State	Jurisdiction	Name of Court	Population	Date of Implementation	Adult Drug Court in jurisdiction
AL	Birmingham	Jefferson County Family Court	1,000,000	1/12/95	x
AZ	Phoenix	Maricopa Co. Juvenile Drug Court	380,165	11/7/97	x
CA	Auburn	Placer Co. Juvenile Drug Court	198,481	9/1/97	x
CA	French camp	San Joaquin Co. Superior Court	450,000	7/1/97	x
CA	EL Dorado	El Dorado Co. Superior Court	144,839	7/21/97
CA	San Francisco	San Francisco Juvenile Drug Court	750,000	11/1/97	x
CA	San Jose	Santa Clara Co. Superior Court-Juvenile Division	1,557,211	8/12/95
CA	Tulare	Tulare Co. Juvenile Drug Court	390,000	10/20/95	x
DE	Wilmington	Family Court of the State of DE	498,303	9/1/95	x
FL	Bartow	10th Judicial Circuit	450,768	7/1/97	x
FL	Ft. Lauderdale	Broward Co.-11th Judicial Circuit	1,300,000	10/1/97	x
FL	Jacksonville	Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts	1,000,000	3/1/97	x
FL	Key West	Monroe Co., 16th Judicial Circuit	80,000	4/1/97	x
FL	Orlando	Ninth Judicial Circuit	750,000	8/1/97	x
FL	Pensacola (juv)	Escambia County Florida	280,000	4/15/96
FL	Tampa	13th Judicial Circuit Juvenile Drug Court	950,000	2/1/96	x
IL	Chicago	Circuit Court of Cook Co.-Juvenile Justice Division	6,000,000	9/1/96
KY	Bowling Green	Warren District Court	100,000	4/1/97	x
KY	Louisville	Jefferson County Juvenile Drug Court	672,311	7/1/97	x
MI	Kalamazoo	Kalamazoo Co. Juvenile Drug Court	228,796	1/4/98	x
MO	Benton	Scott Co. Juvenile Drug Court	65,000	1/1/96
MT	Missoula	Missoula Co. Youth Drug Court	85,669	10/1/96
NJ	Jersey City	Superior Court of NJ/Hudson Co.	552,384	2/3/98
NM	Las Cruces	Third Judicial District Court	150,000	12/9/97	x
NV	Duckwater	Duckwater Shoshone Tribal Court	1,000	1/1/97	x
NV	Las Vegas	Clark Co. Family Court ÷ Juvenile Division	1,250,000	3/1/95	x
OH	Lancaster	Fairfield Co. Juvenile Court	117,556	8/1/97
SC	Charleston	Charleston Family Court	293,557	9/29/97
UT	Salt Lake City	3rd District Juvenile Court	795,325	10/1/95	x
WA	Port Angeles	Clallam County Juvenile Court	61,787	7/1/97

b. Family Drug Courts

The six family drug courts providing information for this report represent five states and serve a similar population range as the juvenile drug courts. Two of the family drug courts (Reno and Pensacola) have been operating over two years; the other programs are newer. All of these family drug courts operate in jurisdictions with established adult drug courts and three of these family drug courts (Pensacola, Reno and Las Vegas) operate in jurisdictions that also have juvenile drug courts operating which are included in this publication.

Chart II-A-2: Family Drug Courts Included in this Report

State	Jurisdiction	Name of Court	Population	Date of Implementation	Adult Drug Court in Jurisdiction
FL	Pensacola (family)	Escambia County Florida	280,000	2/1/96	x
KY	Bowling Green	Warren District Court	100,000	4/1/97	x
MA	Greenfield	Franklin County (Greenfield District, Orange District, Franklin Family and Probate, Franklin Superior)	70,000	1/1/97	x
NV	Las Vegas	Clark County Family Court -- Juvenile Division	1,250,000	3/1/95	x
NV	Reno	Second Judicial District Court- State of Nevada	295,000	1/1/95	x
NY	Central Islip	Family Drug Treatment Court	1,349,191	12/10/97	x

2. Caseload and Program Enrollment

a. Juvenile Drug Courts

(1) General Caseload Information

All of the reporting juvenile drug courts note that at least 25% of their caseloads involve substance problems and most cite a significantly higher percentage. The most commonly encountered substances noted are alcohol and marijuana but a number of programs also report participant use of other drugs as well. The use of toxic inhalants is also reported as a rapidly growing problem.

Chart II-A-3(1): Total Juvenile Delinquency Cases Filed in 1997 in Jurisdictions with Juvenile Drug Courts Included in this Report and Estimated Percent of Defendants Using Specific Drugs

State	Jurisdiction	Total Case-load	% w/ Substance Prob	Alcohol (%)	Barbiturates (%)	Crack/Cocaine (%)	Hallucinogens (%)	Heroin (%)
AL	Birmingham	5,133	33	50	2	5	2	7
AZ	Phoenix	13,187	70	60	5	35	5	15
CA	EL Dorado	n/a	100	100			30
CA	San Francisco	n/a	100	100	25	50
CA	San Jose	7,000	75	75		50	57	4
CA	Tulare	n/a	80	80	1	20	20	1
DE	Wilmington	8,547
FL	Bartow	4,279		25	5
FL	Ft. Lauderdale	7,277	75	50		10	10
FL	Jacksonville	8,940
FL	Pensacola	3,351	65
FL	Tampa	9,811	20.6	40	0.4	4	3	0.4
IL	Chicago	15,000	60	10	1	10	1	2
KY	Bowling Green	n/a	50
MO	Benton	260	25	85	1
NJ	Jersey City	9,209	40	20		5		5
NM	Las Cruces	3,355	91	70	8	50	10	15
NV	Duckwater	n/a	20	50
NV	Las Vegas	7,000	50	39		2		1
OH	Lancaster	704	41	75	5	8	10
UT	Salt Lake City	26,600	30	50	5	5	5

Chart II-A-3(2): Total Juvenile Delinquency Cases Filed in 1997 in Jurisdictions with Juvenile Drug Courts Reported in this Report and Estimated Percent of Defendants Using Specific Types of Drugs

State	Jurisdiction	Inhalants %	Marij%	Meth. %	PCP %	Other	Specify	Poly Drug %	Explain
AL	Birmingham	1	33	1	0.01	1	Benzodiazepines	22
AZ	Phoenix	15	60	35	5			60	Most juveniles use a variety or a combination (Primo's)
CA	EL Dorado		100	90
CA	San Francisco		100	25				100
CA	San Jose	23	79	52	26			40	40% of both males and females reported alcohol and drug use almost daily
CA	Tulare	30	95	90	1	75		98
FL	Bartow		70
FL	Ft. Lauderdale		50		5
FL	Pensacola (juvenile)							50
FL	Tampa	1	43.2	0.9	0.4			97
IL	Chicago	6	75	1	1
MO	Benton		100	1				8
NJ	Jersey City		70				These are rough estimates based upon discussions with court officials	5	more than one drug of choice
NM	Las Cruces	15	80	15	2	8		80
NV	Duckwater	50						0
NV	Las Vegas		54	4				50	Estimated % with Substance Use Problems is actually 50-60%
NV	Reno	3	30	40	3			80	It is the exception to the rule to find anyone except those involved with alcohol who don't use another drug.
OH	Lancaster	20	75	5	5	15	Parents' prescription medications	75	Primarily alcohol and marijuana, with experimentation with other substances
UT	Salt Lake City	50	10

(2) Program Enrollment

Reported annual program capacities range from 20 to 300, with most programs' capacities accommodating 100-200 participants. The total capacity of the reporting programs is approximately 2,100 with over 1,600 participants enrolled to date. Those programs that have been operating for six months or more are generally operating at capacity. The majority of current participants have been enrolled for at least three to six months. Approximately 250 individuals have graduated from these programs and approximately 900 are currently enrolled, most of whom have been participating in drug courts for at least three - six months.

Chart II-A-4: Program Enrollment of Juvenile Drug Courts: Total Capacity and Number Enrolled By Period of Enrollment

ST	Jurisdiction	Ann. Cap.	# elig.	# accept.	# cur partic.	# part. < 30	# part 31-90	# part 91-180	# part 181-270	# part 271-365	# part >365
AL	Birmingham	150	114	220	114	2	10	20	15	17	50
CA	Auburn	60	50	40	18	5	5	8
CA	EL Dorado		10	10	8	4	3	1
CA	French camp	20		19	18
CA	San Francisco	25		4	3		3
CA	San Jose	60	2000	80	50		11	10	20	9
CA	Tulare	125	180	229	61	13	13	9	9	8	4
DE	Wilmington	200		101	91	19	25	29	11	4	3
FL	Bartow	200	200	100	75	15		60
FL	Key West	50		40
FL	Orlando	160	84	24	24	10	10	4
FL	Pensacola (juvenile)	49		68	16	6	11	12	10	26	3
FL	Tampa	216	216	148	32	13	39	62	36	19	84
IL	Chicago	300	360	161	130	10	16	19	54	31
KY	Louisville	50		13	11	2	4	6
MI	Kalamazoo			8	8		8
MT	Missoula	20		22	20	3	4	2	5	4	1
NJ	Jersey City	200	9	6		6
NM	Las Cruces	100	200	29				29
NV	Duckwater	10	5	5				5
NV	Las Vegas			109	66	10	26	10	4	6	10
OH	Lancaster	75	75	75	75
SC	Charleston	50	30	28	28	10	22	2
UT	Salt Lake City				40
WA	Clallam Co.	40		25	25
TOTAL		2060	3533	1606	953

Continue