Do juvenile drug courts reduce recidivism?: Outcomes of drug court and an adolescent substance abuse program

A randomized clinical trial of family therapy in juvenile drug court.

“…Based on the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence (Wexler & Winick, 1991), drug courts are designed to produce positive outcomes both for individuals involved in the legal system, as well as for those the legal system is designed to protect (Marlowe, Festinger, Lee, Dugosh, & Benasutti, 2006). Although there appears to be considerable variation in effectiveness of among JDCs, the literature suggests that juvenile drug courts have promise (Henggeler et al, 2006; Henggeler, McCart, Cunningham, & Chapman, 2012; Hiller et al, 2010; Maring, 2006; Polakowski, Hartley, & Bates, 2008; Ruiz, Stevens, Fuhriman, Bogart, & Korchmaros, 2009; Shaffer, Listwan, Latessa, & Lowenkamp, 2008; Sloan, Smykla, & Rush, 2004). Moreover, a consensus is emerging about the essential features of effective JDCs, namely, the quality of the treatment provided, the degree to which family members are included in treatment and court proceedings, and the extent to which the JDC procedures are developmentally appropriate (Marlowe, 2010).…”

A Systematic Review of Literature Relating to Problem-Solving Youth Courts

“…Many of these reported that the courts had positive impacts on criminal behaviour (Applegate & Santana, 2000;Behnken et al, 2009;Bryan et al, 2006;Carswell, 2004;Eardley et al, 2004;Henggeler et al, 2006;O'Connell et al, 1999;Rodriguez & Webb, 2004;Ruiz et al, 2009;Vick, 2006) while some suggested positive effects on substance abuse (Eardley et al, 2004;Halliday-Boykins et al, 2010;Henggeler et al, 2006;Ruiz et al, 2009) or social and psychological functioning, including social integration (Applegate & Santana, 2000;Eardley et al, 2004). However, other studies were either inconclusive or suggested that problem-solving youth courts were either ineffective or no better than other programmes at reducing recidivism (Gilmore et al, 2005;Mooney, unpublished;Searle & Spier, 2006;Sloan et al, 2004) or substance abuse (Gilmore et al, 2005;Rodriguez & Webb, 2004 (Ruiz et al, 2009); client retention to the drug court programme (Applegate & Santana, 2000); satisfaction with proceedings (Weisz et al, 2002); attitudes towards authority, including perceptions of fairness and respect (Weisz et al, 2002); health (including general physical and mental health and experiences of pain) (Eardley et al, 2004;Searle & Spier, 2006); and access to clinical treatment (Mooney, unpublished).…”

“…Research designs used in the studies included group comparison with random allocation to conditions (Henggeler et al, 2006); group comparison with matched samples (Applegate & Santana, 2000;Mooney, unpublished;O'Connell, Nestlerode, & Miller, 1999;Rodriguez & Webb, 2004;Searle & Spier, 2006); group comparison without matched samples (Byrnes & Parsons, 1999, Gilmore, Rodriguez, & Webb, 2005Polakowski, Hartley, & Bates, 2008;Shaw & Robinson, 1998;Weisz et al, 2002); comparison of a single sample at different periods (Behnken, Arredondo, & Packman, 2009); retrospective group comparison (Sloan, Smylka, & Rush, 2004); follow-up studies with no comparison group (Carswell, 2004;Eardley et al, 2004;Ruiz, Stevens, Fuhriman, Bogart, & Korchmaros, 2009); regression analysis (Halliday-Boykins et al, 2010); financial cost analysis (McCollister, French, Sheidow, Henggeler, & HallidayBoykins, 2007;Vick, 2006); focus groups or interviews (Bryan, Hiller, & Leukefeld, 2006;Eardley et al, 2004;Gilmore et al, 2005;Paik, 2009;Searle & Spier, 2006;Whiteacre, 2004); ethnography (Paik, 2009); and a case study (Arredondo et al, 2001). (Sloan & Smylka, 2003;Weisz et al, 2002); and social or psychological assessments or screening tools (Carswell, 2004;Gilmore et al, 2005;Mooney, unpublished;...…”

“…Some studies suggested that older juveniles, males, African Americans and Hispanics may be more likely to offend after youth drug court programmes (Applegate & Santana, 2000;Rodriguez & Webb, 2004;Sloan et al, 2004) and that a prior record of delinquency and unsuccessful termination from drug court could lead to greater criminal misconduct in the future (Sloan et al, 2004). Another study suggested that family stability, prior drug use and school attendance could have an impact on drug use (Rodriguez & Webb, 2004).…”

“…One study reported on a juvenile drug court in its first 14 months of operation (Applegate & Santana, 2000), while another considered data across 18 months (Eardley et al, 2004). Still another study had a follow-up period of two years (Sloan et al, 2004) and two further studies reported on three-year evaluations (Rodriguez & Webb, 2004;Vick, 2006 Rodriguez & Webb, 2004;Ruiz et al, 2009;Searle & Spier, 2006;Shaw & Robinson, 1998;Weisz et al, 2002). Many of these reported that the courts had positive impacts on criminal behaviour (Applegate & Santana, 2000;Behnken et al, 2009;Bryan et al, 2006;Carswell, 2004;Eardley et al, 2004;Henggeler et al, 2006;O'Connell et al, 1999;Rodriguez & Webb, 2004;Ruiz et al, 2009;Vick, 2006) while some suggested positive effects on substance abuse (Eardley et al, 2004;Halliday-Boykins et al, 2010;Henggeler et al, 2006;Ruiz et al, 2009) or social and psychological functioning, including social integration (Applegate & Santana, 2000;Eardley et al, 2004).…”