The nature of information relevant to assessing each of these factors is discussed below.

Caseload Factors

Analysis of the delinquency caseload should focus on the nature and volume of juvenile court cases that involve alcohol and/or drug use. Efforts should also be made to identify youth who may be at risk of using alcohol or drugs. Local juvenile justice system and treatment professionals may want to identify indicators associated with drug use by youth and certain “red flags,” such as persistent truancy, that may suggest the risk of substance use even if drug use is not apparent in an initial screening. Information regarding substance use by youth involved in delinquency proceedings should be augmented with information about other potential special needs of this population and case-specific issues, including level of family functioning, learning disabilities, physical disabilities, and mental health problems. The absence of assessment information concerning these areas should alert courts to potential gaps in their screening and assessment process for juvenile offenders.

Availability of Treatment and Other Core Services

Once the extent of juvenile substance use is determined, local officials should decide whether existing resources—including the judicial system, school system, treatment services, and other community organizations and services—can adequately address the needs of juveniles in a timely and effective manner. Local officials should develop an inventory of community resources that addresses the needs of juvenile offenders who use or who are at risk of using drugs and alcohol. This inventory should include both treatment-specific resources and other core services, examples of which include:

• Education, mental health, and public health services.

• Family therapy.

• Literacy skills building.

• Mentoring.

• Prosocial activities.

• Vocational training.

• Other family support services.

This list of services will provide a measure of the extent of a community’s existing resources and will indicate any gaps in services and resources. Even if treatment and other core adolescent services are available, juvenile justice system officials need to assess whether the services are developmentally based, culturally relevant, and gender specific.

Officials would benefit from conducting a preliminary review of existing services for handling substance-involved offenders, the degree of coordination provided in their delivery, and the extent to which these services promote accountability. Jurisdictions should keep the following key factors in mind when conducting this review:

• Extent of drug and alcohol use by juveniles after their initial contact with the juvenile court and the court’s ability to measure such use on an ongoing basis.

• Degree to which the court obtains prompt notification of the juvenile’s progress or lack thereof in court-ordered treatment and other services.

• Extent of flexibility provided to the court to modify initial orders for treatment and other services to meet the emerging and/or evolving needs of juveniles.

• Degree to which the court is able to address problems in the juvenile’s living environment, including his or her family situation, that may contribute to the juvenile’s substance use.

• Recidivism rates—with regard to crimes related to or precipitated by substance use—of juveniles who have come through the system.

If information on these factors is not readily available, local officials may find it useful to identify a sample of juveniles who have appeared before the court during the past several years and track their progress in certain key areas such as drug-free living, recidivism in either the juvenile or criminal justice system, and educational and vocational achievement. This process may provide additional perspective in identifying potential gaps in the type or extent of services existing to meet the needs of substance-involved juveniles in the community.

Court Responsiveness and Accountability Mechanisms

The JAIBG program resolves “to promote greater accountability in the juvenile justice system” (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1998). To determine the extent to which establishing a juvenile drug court can promote increased accountability, officials should consider the following:

• How quickly and effectively can the judicial system currently respond to juvenile delinquent activity? Juvenile drug courts are designed to screen eligible youth shortly after arrest and promote their prompt entry into the juvenile drug court process. The juvenile drug court can then respond to subsequent delinquent activity by a participant immediately, either at the routine judicial review hearing (often held weekly)¹ or at a special hearing to address the new delinquent offense.

• How quickly and effectively can the judicial system respond to juvenile drug and alcohol use? The frequent and random drug testing (often at least twice weekly) conducted by juvenile drug courts permits prompt detection and response to alcohol and drug use by participating youth. Judicial and/or treatment responses to such use generally can include any one or a combination of the following: home detention, secure detention, more frequent drug testing, more frequent contacts with the treatment provider, writing assignments, and community service.

• How effective is the delivery of treatment services? In many jurisdictions, youth referred for treatment or other special programs must wait weeks or months for an available opening. Even when services are provided, the intervention may not be designed to resolve the range of presenting issues. For example, the youth may have mental health needs that become apparent during the course of treatment or other collateral needs that relate to his or her family or living situation. In addition, the services delivered may not be developmentally based, culturally relevant, or gender specific. For these reasons, juvenile drug courts have dedicated treatment and other service slots specifically for juvenile drug court participants where the multifaceted issues they are confronting can be addressed by the collaboration of service delivery options. For these slots, no waiting time is required, allowing juvenile participants to access these services immediately. The frequent status hearings conducted by the juvenile drug court permit the judge and the drug court team to monitor the provision of services continually and to immediately identify situations in which service delivery plans need modification or enhancement to meet a juvenile’s needs.

• How well are treatment and other services being coordinated? Are services to individual juveniles or to families being duplicated? Most officials involved with the juvenile justice system recognize that it is quite common for one family unit to be involved in cases on multiple court dockets and therefore receive duplicative services pursuant to separate court orders or social service agency directives. To promote accountability and the coordination of services that are critical to the operation of a juvenile drug court, local officials initially must identify other court dockets or agencies with which a juvenile’s immediate family members may be involved and promote coordination of services to reduce this duplication of effort.