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

 

ST

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

AL

Birming-ham









x

x

x

x



AZ

Phoenix

x











x



CA

Auburn







x



x





CA

EL Dorado









x

x





CA

Frchcmp

x









x





CA

San Francis-co





x

x









CA

San Jose













Bureau of drug and alcohol assessment counselor

Bureau of drug and alcohol assessment counselor

CA

Tulare













Health and Human Service

Health and Human Services

DE

Wilming-ton









x

x





FL

Bartow









x






FL

Ft. Lauder-dale













Spectrum Program -- Private Agency


FL

Jackson-ville









x

x



Provider

Provider

FL

Key West














Drug Court Treatment Program

FL

Orlando





x










FL

Pensa-cola (juvenile)

x










x



Juvenile Drug Court Case Coordina-tor

FL

Tampa









x

x





IL

Chicago

x











x



KY

Louis-ville













Drug Court Tx Personnel

Drug Court Treatment Personnel

MO

Benton

x









x





MT

Missoula













Private CCDC

Private CCDC's

NJ

Jersey City










x



Drug Court Coord-inator


NM

Las Cruces









x

x





NV

Duck-water





x

x








Private Indian Program

NV

Las Vegas (Juv)

x













Private Treatment Provider

OH

Lancas-ter

x

x

x

x











SC

Charles-ton





x





x





UT

Salt Lake City

x

x








x





 

(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

 

ST

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

FL

Pensacola







x

x







MA

Greenfield










x




Project Coord.

NV

Las Vegas



x











Private Tx Provider

NV

Reno









x

x





NY

Central Islip








x







 

 

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