Juvenile and Family Drug Court Structure
The judge is the key leader for the juvenile and family drug court programs. The judge not only oversees the child's performance and progress and that of his/her family but also must bring together all parts of the program, those within the criminal justice system as well as those associated with community, educational, public health, mental health, and other resources needed to support the child and his/her family's progress.
Operational Process
Most existing juvenile drug courts are post-adjudication programs that operate after the guilt of a child has been determined, through either trial or plea. Many advocate using a post-adjudication, rather than diversion, model because of the more extensive authority available to the court and the options available if the child fails to complete the program. The case disposition process, however, can entail suspending a sentence of commitment, deferring sentencing, or striking the guilty finding and dismissing the charge, pending the child's performance in the program.
Eligibility Requirements
For each jurisdiction, the process of determining the juvenile drug court's target population has, in effect, centered upon determining how best to make use of limited available resources. As in adult drug courts, there is concern that the populations targeted for participation not be dictated by desires to achieve high "success" rates, focusing on children who present minimal risks rather than those with more serious problems who can truly benefit from the drug court program. Given this concern, most juvenile drug courts, at least initially, focus on juveniles with moderate to heavy substance abuse who are not dangerous to the community. Determining a child's potential danger to the community has presented more complex screening and assessment tasks for the juvenile drug court than its adult counterpart because little history regarding a child's propensity for violence is available for many of the children brought before the court. Confidentiality requirements further complicate this task by inhibiting exchange of information regarding a child's prior activities, including acts of violence.