Chart II-D-1: Agencies Performing Screening and Assessment: Juvenile Drug Courts

Chart II-D-1: Agencies Performing Screening and Assessment: Juvenile Drug Courts

Jurisdic.

Juv. Court Intake

County Juv. Agency

Health Department

Social Services

Local Subst Abuse Agency

TASC

Scr

Assess

Scr

Assess

Scr

Assess

Scr

Assess

Scr

Assess

Scr

Assess

Scrn

Assess

Birming-ham

Phoenix

Auburn

EL Dorado

Frchcmp

San Francis-co

San Jose

Bureau of drug and alcohol assessment counselor

Tulare

Health and Human Service

Health and Human Services

Wilming-ton

Bartow

Ft. Lauder-dale

Spectrum Program -- Private Agency

Jackson-ville

Provider

Key West

Drug Court Treatment Program

Orlando

Pensa-cola (juvenile)

Juvenile Drug Court Case Coordina-tor

Tampa

Chicago

Louis-ville

Drug Court Tx Personnel

Drug Court Treatment Personnel

Benton

Missoula

Private CCDC

Private CCDC's

Jersey City

Drug Court Coord-inator

Las Cruces

Duck-water

Private Indian Program

Las Vegas (Juv)

Private Treatment Provider

Lancas-ter

Charles-ton

Salt Lake City

(2) Principal Changes Introduced by Juvenile Drug Court in Screening and Assessment Process

The principal changes instituted in the screening and assessment process of the reporting juvenile drug courts are: the use of a standardized screening and assessment process; the conduct of more comprehensive assessments; more intensive involvement of the parent in the assessment process; and earlier assessments and prompter reporting of results

b. Family Drug Court

Most of the family drug courts rely upon local health departments, substance abuse agencies, or juvenile service agencies for screening and assessment services and use, in addition to these agencies, private treatment agencies for case management services.

Chart II-D-2: Agencies Performing Screening and Assessment: Family Drug Courts

Jurisdic.

Juv. Ct Intake

Co. Juv. Agency

Social Serv

Health Dept.

Substance Agency

TASC

Other Local Agency

Scr

Assess

Scr

Assess

Scr

Assess

Scr

Assess

Scr

Assess

Scr

Assess

Scrn

Assess

Pensacola

Greenfield

Project Coord.

Las Vegas

Private Tx Provider

Reno

Central Islip

2. Case Management and Other Program Support Functions

a. Agencies Providing Case Management and Other Support Functions

The agencies most frequently used to provide case management and other support services for juvenile drug courts are probation departments (47%) and private treatment providers (30%). Approximately one-third of the programs use more than one agency. The agencies providing case management services for drug courts are depicted on Chart D-3 which follows.

Chart II-D-3: Agencies Performing Case Management and Other Support Functions:: Juvenile Drug Courts

State	Jurisdiction	Staff Support by Court	Pretrial	Prob.	Dept. Social Serv.	Dept. Juv. Ser.	TASC	Priv. Tx	Public Health	Local Substance Abuse Agency	Other
AL	Birmingham						x
AZ	Phoenix			x
CA	Auburn			x	x
CA	EL Dorado			x
CA	French camp			x
CA	San Francisco										Program staff, special programs for youth, division of health department and probations
CA	San Jose			x				x		x	Public Defender's Office
CA	Tulare			x					x
DE	Wilmington							x
FL	Bartow	x		x	x	x				x
FL	Ft. Lauderdale							x		x
FL	Jacksonville	x						x
FL	Key West		x								Drug Court Program
FL	Orlando							x			Private Case Management Provider(s) under Contract
FL	Pensacola (juvenile)							x			Court Administration/Case Coordinator
FL	Tampa									x
IL	Chicago			x
KY	Louisville										drug court staff
MI	Kalamazoo
MO	Benton	x								x
MT	Missoula			x
NJ	Jersey City	x									drug court coordinator
NM	Las Cruces		x	x				x
NV	Duckwater	n/a	n/a	n/a	x	n/a
NV	Las Vegas	x						x
OH	Lancaster			x*							Drug court
SC	Charleston		x	x		x				x
UT	Salt Lake City			x

Chart II-D-4: Agencies Performing Case Management and Other Support Functions:: Family Drug Courts

State	Jurisdiction	Staff Support by Court	Pretrial	Prob.	Dept. Social Serv.	Dept. Juv. Ser.	TASC	Priv. Tx	Public Health	Local Agency	Other
FL	Pensacola							x
MA	Greenfield	x		x	x	x				x	Drug Court Case Manager
NV	Las Vegas	x						x
NV	Reno	x		x	x			x
NY	Central Islip	x

b. Case Management and Other Support Functions Performed

(1) Juvenile Drug Courts

As Chart II-D-5 below illustrates, case management and other support functions provided to juvenile drug courts encompass a multitude of services, ranging from assessment, to client orientation and referral to treatment; to preparation of court reports; urinalysis monitoring; on-site and off-site counseling; data entry and visits to treatment agencies.

Chart II-D-5(1): Case Management and Other Program Support Functions Performed: Juvenile Drug Courts

State	Jurisdiction	Assessment	Client Orient	Referral to Tx (dedicated)	Referral to Tx (not dedicated)	Preparation of Court Reports	Appear at Hearings	Presentation of Court Reports	Ancillary Rehabilitation
AL	Birmingham	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
AZ	Phoenix	x	x	x		x	x	x
CA	Auburn	x	x	x		x	x	x
CA	EL Dorado			x		x	x	x
CA	French camp		x	x		x	x
CA	San Francisco	x	x	x	x	x	x
CA	San Jose		x	x		x	x	x	x
CA	Tulare	x	x		x	x	x	x
DE	Wilmington	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
FL	Bartow			x		x	x		x
FL	Ft. Lauderdale	x		x	x	x	x	x	x
FL	Jacksonville	x	x	x		x	x	x	x
FL	Key West	x	x			x	x	x	x
FL	Orlando	x	x	x		x	x	x	x
FL	Pensacola (juvenile)	x	x		x	x	x	x	x
FL	Tampa	x*		x	x	x	x	x	x
IL	Chicago		x	x		x	x	x	x
KY	Louisville	x	x	x		x	x	x	x
MO	Benton	x	x	x	x		x	x	x
MT	Missoula	x	x	x		x	x	x	x
NJ	Jersey City	x	x	x		x	x	x
NM	Las Cruces	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
NV	Duckwater		x	x	x	x	x	x	x
NV	Las Vegas (Juvenile)	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
OH	Lancaster	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
SC	Charleston	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
UT	Salt Lake City	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x

Chart II-D-5(2): Case Management and Other Program Support Functions Performed: Juvenile Drug Courts

ST	Jurisdiction	Urinalysis Monitoring	Client Supervision	Onsite Counseling	Data Entry	Offsite Counseling	Treatment Development	Tx Visiting	Other
AL	Birmingham	x	x	x	x
AZ	Phoenix	x	x				x	x
CA	Auburn	x	x					x
CA	EL Dorado	x	x
CA	French camp	x	x	x		x	x
CA	San Francisco	x	x	x	x		x
CA	San Jose	x	x	x		x	x	x
CA	Tulare			x	x	x		x
DE	Wilmington	x	x	x	x		x		job placement
FL	Bartow	x	x					x
FL	Ft. Lauderdale	x			x
FL	Jacksonville	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
FL	Key West	x	x	x	x		x	x
FL	Orlando	x	x				x	x
FL	Pensacola (juvenile)	x					x
FL	Tampa	x	x			x	x		*By Case manager's at Assessment Center
IL	Chicago	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
KY	Louisville	x	x		x	x	x
MO	Benton	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
MT	Missoula	x	x		x		x	x
NJ	Jersey City				x			x
NM	Las Cruces	x	x	x	x		x	x
NV	Duckwater		x	x		x	x	x
NV	Las Vegas (Juvenile)	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
OH	Lancaster	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
SC	Charleston	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
UT	Salt Lake City	x	x	x	x		x	x

(2) Family Drug Courts

Case management functions performed for family drug courts span a similar range of services, as illustrated in Chart D-6 which follows:

Chart II-D-6 (1): Case Management Functions and Other Support Functions Performed: Family Drug Courts

State	Jurisdiction	Assessment	Client Orient	Referral to Tx (dedicated)	Referral to Tx (not dedicated)	Preparation of Court Reports	Appear @ Hearings	Presentation of Court Reports	Ancillary Rehabilitation
FL	Pensacola	x	x		x	x	x	x	x
MA	Greenfield		x	x	x		x
NV	Las Vegas	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
NV	Reno	x	x	x			x	x	x
NY	Central Islip	x	x		x	x	x	x	x

Chart II-D-6(2): Case Management and Other Support Functions Performed: Family Drug Courts

ST	Jurisdiction	Urinalysis Monitoring	Client Supervision	Onsite Counseling	Data Entry	Offsite Counseling	Treatment Development	Tx Visiting	Other
FL	Pensacola	x					x
MA	Greenfield	x	x	x		x	x	x
NV	Las Vegas	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
NV	Reno	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
NY	Central Islip	x	x			x	x	x

3. Decision Making Authority

a. Decision to Accept Participant in Program

All of the programs report that the drug court judge has the ultimate authority regarding the decision to accept a participant into the program but all programs also note that this decision is made in consultation with the drug court team (usually the defense attorney, prosecutor, case manager, treatment provider, with other service providers as appropriate.). Composition of the juvenile drug court team usually varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but generally includes the judge, the prosecutor, defense attorney, treatment representative and case manager. In Duckwater, the team also includes the arresting officer.

b. Decision to Maintain Participant in Program

All of the reporting programs indicate that the judge makes the ultimate decision, in consultation with the drug court team, as to whether or not to maintain a participant in the drug court. The arresting officer and social worker in the Duckwater program are also involved in this decision.

c. Decision to Impose Sanctions on Participant for Noncompliance

The reporting programs indicate that the judge makes the ultimate decision as to whether to impose sanctions for noncompliance and the type of sanctions to be imposed. Treatment representatives are closely consulted in this decision.

d. Decision to Terminate Participant from Program

Again, all of the reporting programs note that the judge makes the ultimate determination regarding whether to terminate a participant from the drug court program. However, all also note that this decision is a team decision, made in close consultation with the other team members, including the arresting officer and social worker in Duckwater.

4. Program Organization/Phases

Fifteen of the reporting programs have three program phases and twelve of the programs have four phases. In several of the four-phased program, the fourth phase is devoted primarily to aftercare Although most programs generally require 12 month or longer to complete, the length of the individual phases varies from: 30 days to four months for Phase I; 30 days to 8 months for Phase 2; up to four months for Phase 3; and for as long as the participant requires for Phase 4. Most phases require participants to accomplish certain milestones in order to move to a subsequent phase (e.g., remain "clean" for a specified period of time; attend school for a continuous period, etc.). Many respondents also noted that the participant's length of stay in each phase is dependent on his or her individual needs.

5. Drug Testing

a. Frequency

Most juvenile drug courts test participants at least once per week and most test more frequently during Phase I. Testing frequency decreases as the participant progresses to other program phases.

Chart II-D-7: Drug Testing Frequency in Juvenile Drug Courts: Phase 1

State	Jurisdiction	Phase I:Twice per Week	Phase I: Once per Week	Phase I: Every Other week	Phase I: Other Frequency
AL	Birmingham		x
AZ	Phoenix				3 times per week
CA	Auburn	x
CA	EL Dorado		x		As often as possible
CA	French camp	x
CA	San Francisco		x
CA	San Jose	x
CA	Tulare		x
FL	Bartow			x
FL	Ft. Lauderdale		x
FL	Jacksonville		x
FL	Key West	x
FL	Orlando				Random
FL	Pensacola	x
FL	Tampa	x
IL	Chicago		x
KY	Bowling Green				Random
KY	Louisville	x
MO	Benton	x
MT	Missoula	x
NJ	Jersey City		x
NM	Las Cruces	x
NV	Duckwater				With the exception of the possibility of a blood or urine test at time of arrest or issuance of citation, only hand-held PBT for presence of alcohol is available and only for treatment purposes. Nearest computerized breath testing instrument for alcohol, or hospital for taking blood sample, is 74 miles away.
NV	Las Vegas	x*			*5 times/wk
OH	Lancaster		x
SC	Charleston	x
UT	Salt Lake City		x	x

Chart II-D-8: Drug Testing Frequency in Juvenile Drug Courts: Phase 2

State	Jurisdiction	Phase 2: Twice per Week	Phase 2: Once per Week	Phase 2: Every Other week	Phase 2: Other Frequency
AL	Birmingham			x
AZ	Phoenix	x
CA	Auburn		x
CA	EL Dorado			x
CA	French camp		x
CA	San Francisco				depends on the individual participant
CA	San Jose		x
CA	Tulare			x
FL	Bartow				Once per month
FL	Ft. Lauderdale			x
FL	Jacksonville		x
FL	Key West		x
FL	Pensacola (juvenile)	x
FL	Tampa	x
IL	Chicago		x
KY	Louisville	x
MO	Benton	x
MT	Missoula	x			If clean for 3+ weeks will test 1 time per week periodically 2 times a week
NJ	Jersey City		x
NM	Las Cruces	x
NV	Las Vegas	x*			*3 times/wk
OH	Lancaster		x
SC	Charleston			x

Chart II-D-9: Drug Testing Frequency in Juvenile Drug Courts: Phase 3

State	Jurisdiction	Phase 3: Twice per Week	Phase 3: Once per Week	Phase 3: Every Other week	Phase 3: Other Frequency
AL	Birmingham				every 3 weeks or monthly
AZ	Phoenix		x
CA	Auburn			x
CA	EL Dorado			x
CA	French camp			x
CA	San Francisco				depends on the individual participant
CA	San Jose		x
CA	Tulare				depends on how participant is doing
FL	Bartow				random
FL	Ft. Lauderdale			x
FL	Jacksonville		x
FL	Key West		x
FL	Pensacola (juvenile)		x
FL	Tampa	x
IL	Chicago			x
KY	Louisville		x
MO	Benton		x
MT	Missoula	x
NJ	Jersey City			x
NM	Las Cruces		x
NV	Las Vegas	x			2 times week
OH	Lancaster			x
SC	Charleston				monthly

Continue