U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Treating the Tough Cases in Juvenile Drug Court: Individual and Organizational Practices Leading to Success or Failure

NCJ Number
224376
Journal
Criminal Justice Review Volume: 33 Issue: 3 Dated: September 2008 Pages: 379-404
Author(s)
Michael Polakowski; Roger E. Hartley; Leigh Bates
Date Published
September 2008
Length
26 pages
Annotation
This study used logistic regression to examine measures of failure, such as termination from drug court and two measures of offender recidivism, and compared a sample of drug court graduates with a similar sample of randomly selected drug court failures in a southwestern community.
Abstract
The findings indicate that participant experiences within the drug court program are the strongest predictors of termination and recidivism. Drug courts are a fundamental change to trial courts. One goal of drug courts is to provide defendants the opportunity to alter their drug-addicted lifestyles through intense supervision, feedback, treatment, and graduated sanctions and rewards for behavior. The literature on drug courts has grown and there remain significant debates about what constitutes a successful outcome and what characteristics of either an individual or a program predict such a result. This study began by examining the termination or graduation of juvenile drug court participants in a southwest community and compared post-program behavior of both graduates and those that were terminated from the program as measures of recidivism. The study builds on existing literature by examining both individual and structural characteristics of the program that appear to lead to successful outcomes. The results add to the evolving discussion of what are successful drug court participants and program procedures. The conclusions address the policy implications of the results and provide suggestions for those who manage drug courts. Tables, appendixes A-C, notes and references