Enhancements to the Traditional Process

Juvenile drug courts generally require the following enhancements to the traditional court process (Roberts, Brophy, and Cooper, 1997):

• Comprehensive assessment of the juvenile at intake, with followup assessments conducted periodically thereafter.

• Integration of the information obtained during the intake and assessment process with subsequent decisions in the case.

• Focus on the functioning of the family and its effects on the juvenile throughout his or her participation in the drug court program.

• Coordination among the court, the treatment community, the school system, and other community agencies as they respond to the needs of the juvenile, the family, and the court.

• Focus on the training of officials involved in the program on adolescent developmental issues and the bearing of these issues on drug use and withdrawal.²

Operational Elements

Juvenile drug court programs are built on the following core elements that provide the framework for program operations:

• Goals and indicators of success.

• The drug court team.

• Clearly defined program eligibility requirements.

• An identified target population.

• Substance abuse treatment, case management, and other core services.

• Monitoring and supervision of participants.

• Development of a range of incentives and sanctions/consequences that are applied in response to participant progress or lack thereof.

• Establishment of the locus of the program in the judicial system process (e.g., preplea or postplea).

• Program monitoring, management, and evaluation.

Each of these operational elements is discussed briefly below.

Goals and indicators of success

The first step in planning and implementing a juvenile drug court is to identify the nature and extent of problems that the program must address, goals that the program must achieve, and indicators that will reveal the degree to which these goals are met. In most instances, this process is initiated by a juvenile court judge, who is frequently joined by representatives from the prosecutor’s office, public defender’s office, and juvenile intake and probation staff. If a review of caseload and case disposition characteristics suggests that a juvenile drug court would be useful, this initial planning group should invite representatives from social service agencies, treatment agencies, and other youth service agencies.

Members of this group or their designees can then form the nucleus of the juvenile drug court planning team, which will determine the goals of the program collaboratively. While reducing recidivism and substance abuse are common goals for adult drug courts, juvenile drug courts must go beyond this definition of success to address factors that promote the youth’s successful functioning as an adult. Many programs, therefore, include indicators such as educational development, competency/skills building, and improved family relationships.

The drug court team

The judge is the key leader for the juvenile drug court program. The judge oversees not only the juvenile’s performance and that of his or her family, but also the coordination and delivery of treatment and other core services. These services include those within the juvenile justice system and those associated with community, educational, vocational, public health, mental health, prosocial, and other resources needed to help the juvenile lead a drug- and crime-free life.

Although the judge is a key leader for the juvenile drug court program, the decisionmaking process is collegial, drawing on the perspectives and expertise of all members of the drug court team: judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, treatment provider, case manager, family therapist, probation official, law enforcement official, and others involved in the provision of treatment and other support services to the juvenile and his or her family. Most juvenile drug courts conduct “staffings” prior to each drug court hearing at which the team members meet to discuss issues in an individual’s case to agree on appropriate responses to both problems and progress. The team recommendations discussed at these staffings are then generally followed by the judge at the court status hearing with the client. Judicial decisions, however, remain with the judge.

Eligibility requirements and target population

The process of determining who the program will serve—the juvenile drug court’s target population—has tended to focus on how best to use limited available resources. The choice of a target population must not be dictated by desires to achieve high success rates by focusing on youth who present minimal risks. Rather, the target population should be representative of the community’s detention population and include youth who have serious problems and need the intensity of services and supervision provided by the program.

Most juvenile drug courts, at least initially, focus on juveniles who (1) demonstrate moderate to heavy substance use and (2) present no danger to the community. Determining an offender’s potential danger to the community frequently presents more complex screening and assessment tasks for the juvenile drug court than it does for an adult drug court. Little historical information regarding a youth’s propensity for violence is available for many of the youth brought before the juvenile drug court. Determining a youth’s potential danger is further complicated by confidentiality requirements that inhibit the exchange of information regarding a youth’s prior activities, including acts of violence.

Most jurisdictions must also determine which situations the drug court will target initially. Currently, most juvenile drug courts target youth who have committed nonviolent drug or drug-related offenses, although some programs include certain assault cases involving substance use (e.g., fighting at school). Certain eligibility qualifications are determined by various grant programs that may impose special eligibility requirements.³

Practitioners disagree as to whether youth involved in gang activity should be permitted in a juvenile drug court. Some argue that, at least initially, a juvenile drug court should exclude youth involved in gangs. Others, however, are concerned about labeling youth as gang involved and excluding them from consideration without taking into account the nature and extent of their involvement and the youth’s need for the services, supervision, and monitoring provided by the juvenile drug court.

The target population should reflect the demographic characteristics of the community and the juvenile arrestee population. Once the program becomes operational, the team must examine the program to ensure that it continues to be representative of the community and the arrestee population.

Treatment, case management, and other core services

Juvenile drug court services are not confined to only those provided by the treatment provider. All activity generated by the juvenile drug court is designed to have therapeutic value, including those programs that promote competency development (e.g., writing, computer literacy, and artistic skills) and the ongoing interaction between treatment and court processes. Among the special attributes of juvenile drug court treatment services are:

• Early and extensive assessment of the juvenile and his or her family situation.

• Provision of developmentally based, gender-specific, and culturally appropriate treatment and other core services.

• Significant focus on family therapy and other services to assist and improve the capacity of the family and juvenile to work together to achieve program goals.

• Sustained attention to each juvenile participant’s school performance, peer relationships, development of competencies, and self-esteem.

• Ongoing case management of services to ensure that the program meets each participant’s current and evolving needs. Treatment and other services for juvenile drug court participants may be necessary beyond the period of the court’s jurisdiction, so the availability of aftercare services is vital.

Monitoring and supervision

The hallmark of juvenile drug courts is the intensive, continuous judicial monitoring and supervision of participants. Each member of the juvenile drug court team works closely with the juvenile and monitors his or her compliance with the court-imposed conditions of participation (e.g., treatment program participation, school attendance, drug testing, community service, court appearances). However, the judge’s frequent involvement and continual supervision play a paramount role in improving the functioning of a juvenile and his or her family. A participant’s noncompliance with any of the conditions of participation is immediately detected and brought to the court’s attention for prompt action.

Sanctions/consequences and incentives

Sanctions in the juvenile drug court must promote each juvenile’s ability to take responsibility and be accountable for his or her actions. Most drug court professionals agree that the hallmarks of any sanctioning and motivational scheme are consistency, predictability, and, when working with juveniles, immediacy. When developing sanctions—increasingly called consequences—and incentives, it is important for communities also to ask what competencies are being built by these responses to youth delinquency. Among the sanctions commonly used by juvenile drug courts are (1) imposition of or increase in curfew conditions, (2) requirement of community service hours, and/or (3) increase in the frequency of court and/or treatment contacts and/or urinalysis. Positive rewards and incentives for compliance with program conditions are considered as important as sanctions for noncompliance. Examples of positive incentives that juvenile drug courts frequently use to recognize participant progress are (1) promotion to a subsequent program phase, (2) award of a gift voucher or a ticket to a local sports or other event contributed by local merchants, and/or (3) presentation of a certificate or other token acknowledging the participant’s accomplishments. The praise of the judge is, as always, of immeasurable motivational value.

The emphasis on sanctions and incentives for juveniles involved with the justice system may be new to many communities, and local officials need to be educated in their use. The key is using sanctions and incentives to promote positive behavioral change (rather than to simply use sanctions as punishment), keeping in mind that the factors that motivate an adolescent generally are quite different from those that motivate an adult. It is also important to use treatment as a resource, not as a punishment, so that a determination to increase treatment contacts, for example, is based on a determination that this increase is necessary to better serve the participant’s needs rather than to punish him or her for past behavior.

As noted above, at the time of a juvenile’s entry into a drug court program, many courts impose suspended periods of incarceration contingent on successful participation in the drug court. As a sanction, short-term incarceration is generally considered much more effective than long-term incarceration.

The positive incentives that appear most highly valued by drug court participants, both juvenile and adult, are a judge’s handshake and words of encouragement and the accolades of other drug court participants. Specially designed contracts between the drug court and the participant provide both positive and negative reinforcements and help develop the participant’s sense of accountability. Some juvenile drug court programs require participants to keep a daily journal or maintain a “thinking log.” One judge has a drug court library from which all participants must read and has designated a portion of the courtroom wall for the display of artwork produced by the participating juveniles. Although community service and mentoring programs may not seem to be incentives, program personnel agree that many juveniles view them as incentives.

Program locus in the judicial system process

Most juvenile drug courts are postadjudication programs—meaning that they operate after a youth has been adjudicated delinquent. A postadjudication, rather than diversion, model is preferred by many because the court has more authority after guilt has been established and more options are available in the event the youth fails to complete the program. Nevertheless, the drug court disposition process can include suspending a sentence of commitment pending successful program completion, deferring sentencing pending ongoing reviews of the juvenile’s program performance, and/or dismissing the charge if the youth successfully completes the program.

Management and evaluation

The need to maintain adequate information on juvenile drug court participants and the overall operation of the program is critical. This information is particularly important for two purposes:

• Monitoring of participant progress and compliance with drug court conditions.

• Evaluating the program to ensure that it is operating as intended and that the desired outcomes are being achieved.

The evaluation design should address the following:

• What problems will be addressed by the juvenile drug court?

• What are the expected outcomes for the juvenile drug court?

• What impact will the program have on the juvenile, the family, and the community?

• What changes in policies, procedures, and services are needed to implement the program?

Some juvenile drug courts have encountered difficulties integrating the various databases (e.g., court, school, public health, social services, law enforcement, treatment provider) that contain essential information but are frequently incompatible. Jurisdictions that integrate existing information systems for juvenile and family drug court purposes must also comply with Federal and State confidentiality requirements. Many programs find that the first step in developing useful information systems is to have representatives of the key agencies involved in the program identify the critical data elements needed to make decisions and measure outcomes. These representatives must then determine how these data can be compiled, maintained, and accessed on a regular basis.

³ See, for example, OJP Drug Courts Program Office funding requirements pursuant to the 1994 Crime Act and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant funding requirements.