THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A JUVENILE DRUG COURT PROGRAM LOCATED IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Bonny Mhlanga, Ph.D. Western Illinois University And Jennifer M. Allen, Ph.D. North Georgia College and State University ABSTRACT Among the many goals of the juvenile justice system are prevention and diversion. Deterring future criminal acts and providing for the mental, physical, emotional, and moral well-being of youth are part of the responsibilities of that system. To accomplish these, the juvenile justice system often utilizes tertiary programs, such as drug courts. This paper explores data of one such program located in Chicago, Illinois in order to determine how effective the program is in reducing recidivism and increasing other opportunities for the participants who are court-ordered into the program. INTRODUCTION Since 1989 more than 1,900 drug court programs have been implemented throughout the U.S. (Bureau of Justice Assistance Drug Court Clearinghouse Project, 2008). The Dade County Circuit Court was the first to employ an intensive, community-based, treatment-oriented program for felony drug offenders (Office of National Drug Control Policy, no date). Since then, drug courts have been instrumental in diverting drug offenders from traditional court processing and into courtrooms where judges directly supervise the offenders while they receive treatment and other interventions to address their underlying causes of criminal and drug related conduct. The structure of drug courts varies greatly from state to state. Some drug courts work with only first time, minor offenders while others allow serious offenders to participate in the program. This is determined in many cases by the amount of funding available and the number of key services existing in the surrounding community to serve the needs of the population of the court (Huddleston, Freeman-Wilson, Marlowe, & Roussell, 2005, p. 8). Drug courts also differ in their involvement strategies with some accepting offenders prior to conviction while others require a conviction occur prior to participation. This too is dependent on factors outside of the court that may impact the type of offender population served by the court. If the court primarily serves impaired drivers or offenders released from jail or prison custody, post-conviction services are most common (Huddleston, et. al, 2005). Whether the drug court uses punitive sanctions to ensure compliance also differs by jurisdiction. In some drug courts, offenders who relapse are incarcerated and/or released from the program. Other drug courts view occasional relapse as part of the recovery process and will remain working with the offender as long as he or she continues treatment and commits no new criminal offenses (Longshore, Turner, Wenzel, & Morral, 2001). There are numerous debates in the literature on how court structure is related to offender outcomes (see Longshore, et.al, 2001; Cresswell & Deschenes, 2001; Dorf & Fagan, 2003).

The role of the judge in the offender’s treatment and rehabilitation is also more intense and on-going. The judge will likely see the offender weekly as he or she reports to the court for status hearings. There is greater collaboration and cooperation between community treatment services and court employees as offenders work toward the goals of becoming drug and crime free. Finally, the typical drug court consists of phases through which the offender must pass in order to be released from the program. Each phase is less restrictive than the last on the offender’s behavior (Brewster, 2001). Once the offender has successfully completed the required number of phases he or she is released from the court’s supervision. EFFECTIVENESS OF DRUG COURTS Although a few studies on drug courts have focused on the lowered costs and efficiency of drug courts when compared to traditional courts (Peters & Murrin, 2000; Vito & Tewksbury, 1999), the majority of the literature on drug courts assesses the effectiveness of these courts through recidivism rates. Evaluations of drug court programs have been primarily positive in showing a reduction of recidivism (Belenko, 1998; Tauber and Snavely, 1999; Spohn, Piper, Martin & Frenzel, 2001). Participants of drug courts have high rates of success in completing the program and have lowered rates of drug use than offenders not attending drug courts (Deschenes & Petersen, 1999; Finn & Newlyn, 1994; Schiff & Terry, 1997; Tauber and Snavely, 1999; Cooper, 1996; Belenko, 1998; Drug Courts Program Office, 1995; Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2005). Additionally, although drug court offenders do reoffend, they usually wait to do so after a longer period of time (Belenko, 1998; Drug Courts Program Office, 1995, 1998; Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse, 1998; Finn & Newlyn, 1994). Roman, Townsend and Bhati (2003) found that within one year of graduation 16.4% of drug court graduates had been rearrested for a serious offense while the percentage jumped to 27.5% within the first two years. According to them the size of the drug court mattered in recidivism rates. Larger courts had more graduates reoffending. Roman, et. al. (2003) suggest that this is because of their location in metropolitan areas and their likelihood to accept more serious offenders with the most severe drug problems. Furthermore, they found that females are more successful in drug courts than males and white have lower rates of recidivism than non-black minorities. Blacks have higher rates of recidivism than non-black minorities and younger participants are more unsuccessful in the program than older participants (Roman, et. al, 2003). JUVENILE DRUG COURTS Juvenile drug courts look very similar to adult drug courts in structure and purpose. Juvenile drug courts consist of separate dockets within juvenile courts to which delinquents, and sometimes status offenders, are referred to specific judges for case handling. The juvenile drug court judge specializes in working with teams consisting of law enforcement, juvenile court personnel, treatment providers, mental health services, vocational training programs, defense attorneys, and prosecutors that focus on youth identified as having problems with alcohol and/or other drugs (Huddleston, 2005). Unlike traditional juvenile court where the judge and youth meet once or twice to determine the outcome of the case, the juvenile drug court judge closely monitors and supervises the case through regular, almost weekly, status hearings with the youth and the service team. The goal throughout the program is to determine the best way to address the substance abuse problem and other issues brought before the court by the child and/or the family (Huddleston, 2005).

Since looks can be deceiving, we must note that juvenile drug courts are actually fundamentally different than adult drug courts. According to the Bureau of Justice Assistance (2003), juveniles may use substances to function but usually are not addicted to drugs and alcohol in the same way that adults are. Essentially, youth use substances for differing reasons than adults. This must be taken into consideration by the juvenile drug court. Additionally, youth are still developing in cognitive, social and emotional ways that impact their views of the world and their crime and drug behaviors. Other individuals in the child’s life, such as family, peers, and schools, may also impact the developmental process of the youth and the behaviors exhibited by the child (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2003). Juvenile drug courts are not only working with a single individual, as in the adult court, but instead have to focus on the child, the child’s family, the school system, and others influential in the youth’s life. This requires a “comprehensive continuum of care” (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003, p. 8). The juvenile drug court then has to consider all of these factors in creating a program of treatment and in monitoring the case. When considering these issues, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (2003, p. 8) suggests that juvenile drug courts: 1. Develop motivational strategies that are specific to adolescents, understanding that adolescents stop their substance abuse for reasons that are different from those of adults. 2. Counteract the negative influences of peers, gangs, and family members. 3. Address the needs of the family and, at times, the intergenerational nature of abuse problems. 4. Comply with confidentiality requirements while maintaining a collaborative, information-sharing framework. 5. Respond to the developmental changes that occur in the lives of juveniles while they are under the court’s jurisdiction. Basically, these are unique challenges faced by the juvenile court when creating and implementing a juvenile drug court program. THE JUVENILE DRUG COURT IN CHICAGO The juvenile drug court in Chicago, IL began in 2004. A previous analysis of a six month period of data (January 1, 2007 – June 30, 2007) on the juvenile drug court found that early on the court had experienced a turnover in personnel which included the probation representative (several changes); treatment provider representative; public defender representative (several changes); state’s attorney (several changes); judge; and the drug court coordinator (Webster, 2004). The drug court program had not been successful in meeting its goals of 40 participants and had low numbers of referrals and assessments during the period evaluated. Additionally, recruitment and system support of the juvenile drug court had been a problem. The staff had experienced a number of problems with entering data into the management information system for the drug court. This had resulted in missing data and mistaken data on drug court participants. Webster (2004) recommended that the drug court better conceptualize their goals and mission as well as work with new team members in the purpose of the court and in the recruitment of court participants. Webster (2004) also suggested that the court continue, even though it had struggled in meeting defined goals.

FINDINGS We were asked to review data from January 2004 – January 2008. During this period a total of 186 juveniles were served by the juvenile drug court. The majority, who accounted for well over half of the total number of juveniles in the sample, were listed as “Inactive” cases, at 56.5%. Juveniles who were regarded as being “Active in the Juvenile Drug Court (JDC) Program” amounted to only 14% of the sample. Those who successfully completed the JDC Program during the reference period amounted to only 9.7% of the total sample. However, “Terminated” juveniles as well as those who “Withdrew” from the program amounted to 11.8% and 4.8% of the sample, respectively. There was only one juvenile who was on a “Bench Warrant Status”. Information relating to the then current status of the juveniles referred to the drug court program during the reference period of January 2004 through January 2008 was missing or unknown on just 5 juveniles or on 2.7% of the total number of cases in the sample. The majority of the referrals to the JDC program were male juveniles, at 84.9% of the sample. Female participants accounted for only 15.1% of the total sample. With regard to race, the majority were white juveniles, at 59.7% of the sample. Hispanic and African-American juveniles accounted for 24.2% and 12.4% of the total sample, respectively. Juveniles classified as belonging to “Other” racial groups constituted only 3.8% of the total number of juveniles referred to the JDC program. With respect to the age of the juveniles referred to the JDC, the majority were those aged 16 years old, at 39.8% of the sample, followed by those who were aged 15 and 17 years old, at 25.3% and 24.7% of the sample, respectively. The minority, at 1.1% of the total sample each, were those who were aged 13 and 18 years old. Two juveniles had their ages missing from the JDC records. The majority of the juveniles, at 39.8% of the sample lived with just their mother. This was followed by those who lived with both parents, at 30.1% of the sample. Juveniles who lived with just their father and with their grandparents or other relatives accounted for 9.1% and 6.5% of the sample, respectively. Those who lived with foster parents or someone else accounted for 2.2% and less than 1% of the sample, respectively. However, about 11.8% of the cases had information about their family status missing from the JDC records. Drug Use The types of drugs allegedly taken by the juveniles prior to their referral to the JDC are shown below in Table 1. It can be seen that an overwhelming percentage of juveniles, at 81.7% of the sample, admitted using marijuana. This was followed by the percentage of those who abused alcohol, at 60.2% of the sample. The next popular drug was cocaine, which was used by 26.9% of the juveniles in the sample, followed by those who admitted abusing prescription drugs and using hallucinogens, heroin, other amphetamines, inhalants, methamphetamines, crack and PCPs, at 13.4%, 11.3%, 7%, 3.8%, 3.2%, 2.7%, 2.2% and 1.1% of the total sample, respectively. The distribution of juveniles involved in poly-drug use prior to their referral to the JDC is shown in Table 2. It can be seen that only 20.4% of the juveniles in the sample were thought to have used only one type of drug prior to their referral to the JDC. However, the majority of the juveniles, at 28% of the sample, were thought to have used at least two types of drugs prior to their referral to the JDC. This was followed by the percentage of juveniles who used up to three types of drugs prior to their referral to the JDC, at 12.9% of the sample. Those who were thought to have used up to four, five, six and seven types of drugs prior to their referral to the JDC accounted for 9.1%, 4.3%, 3.8% and 2.2% of the total sample, respectively. Poly-drug use amongst 19.4% of juveniles in the sample was unknown.

Table 1: Drug use in order of popularity

Type of drug

Percentage of juveniles admitting using / abusing the drug

Marijuana Alcohol Cocaine Prescription drugs Hallucinogens Heroin Other Amphetamines Inhalants Methamphetamine Crack PCP

81.7 60.2 26.9 13.4 11.3 7.0 3.8 3.2 2.7 2.2 1.1

Table 2: Poly drug use

Valid

Missin g Total

One type of drug only 2 types of drugs 3 types of drugs 4 types of drugs 5 types of drugs 6 types of drugs 7 types of drugs Total 9

Frequenc y Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

38

20.4

25.3

25.3

52 24 17 8 7 4 150

28.0 12.9 9.1 4.3 3.8 2.2 80.6

34.7 16.0 11.3 5.3 4.7 2.7 100.0

60.0 76.0 87.3 92.7 97.3 100.0

36

19.4

186

100.0

When comparing first and second drugs of choice amongst the juveniles prior to their referrals to the JDC, an overwhelming number of juveniles were thought to have preferred marijuana as their first drug of choice prior to their referral to the JDC, at 62.9% of the sample. There was an almost even distribution of juveniles who were thought to have preferred alcohol, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines as their first drug of choice prior to their referral to the JDC, at only 2.7%. 2.2%, 2.2% and 1.1% of the total sample, respectively. The first drug of choice amongst 29% of juveniles in the sample was unknown. The majority of the juveniles, at 23.7% of the sample, were thought to have preferred alcohol as their second drug of choice prior to their referral to the JDC. Juveniles who were thought to have preferred marijuana, cocaine, crack and heroin as their second drug of choice prior to their referral to the JDC accounted for only 5.4%. 3.2%, 1.1% and 1.1% of the total sample, respectively. The second drug of choice amongst a very high percentage of juveniles, at 65.6% of the sample, was unknown. The ages at which the juveniles began to use/abuse the respective drugs prior to their referral to the JDC is shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Age at which the majority of the juveniles began to use/abuse drugs

Type of drug Marijuana Alcohol Methamphetamines Prescription drugs Other Amphetamines Cocaine Hallucinogens Heroin Inhalants PCP Crack

Age at which the majority of the juveniles began to use / abuse drugs 13 14 14 14 and 15 14 and 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 and 16

It can be seen that the age at which the majority of the juveniles began to use marijuana was 13 years old. The age at which the majority of the juveniles began to abuse alcohol and to use methamphetamines was 14 years old. Fourteen and 15 years old were the ages at which the majority of the juveniles began to abuse prescription drugs and to use other amphetamines other than methamphetamines. In connection with cocaine, hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants and PCP, the age at which the majority of the juveniles began to use those drugs was 15 years old. Lastly, the age at which the majority of the juveniles began to use crack was 15 as well as 16 years old. Although further analysis was done on relationships between age and drug use, only the two most common relationships are reported in this paper. The others drugs are missing because it was thought that the number or percentage of juveniles who participated in those drugs was very low (as noted in Table 1). The two most commonly used drugs were marijuana and alcohol. Further breakdown of age and drug use identified that a slight majority of the juveniles, at 15.6% of the sample, began to use marijuana at the age of 13 years old prior to their referral to the JDC. This was closely followed by the percentage of those who began to use marijuana at the age of 14 years old, at 13.4% of the sample. Juveniles who began to use marijuana at the ages of 12, 15, 11 and 10 years old accounted for 8.6%, 7%, 3.8% and 2.7% of the sample, respectively. Those who began to use marijuana at the ages of 7 and 16 years old amounted to only 1.1% of the total sample each. There was only one juvenile who began to use marijuana at the age of 8, and also another at the age of 9 years old in the sample. Information about the age at which juveniles began to use marijuana prior to their referral to the JDC was missing on nearly half of the juveniles in the sample, at 45.7%. A majority of the juveniles, at 16.1% of the sample, began to abuse alcohol at the age of 14 years old prior to their referral to the JDC. This was followed by the percentage of those who began to abuse alcohol at the age of 13 years old, at 10.8% of the sample. Juveniles who began to abuse alcohol at the ages of 12, 15 and 16 years old accounted for 8.1%, 4.3% and 3.8% of the total sample, respectively. Those who began to abuse alcohol at the ages of 9, 10 and 11 years old amounted to only 1.1% of the total sample, in respect of each of those three age groups. There was only one juvenile who began to abuse alcohol at the age of 7 years old in the sample.

Information about the age at which juveniles began to abuse alcohol prior to their referral to the JDC was missing or unknown on over half of the juveniles, at 53.2% of the total sample. Provider Assessment Results Data analysis was also conducted on the assessments made by the practitioners of the JDC pertaining to the eligibility of the juvenile for drug court. The majority of the juveniles were found by the practitioners of the JDC to be eligible for drug court participation, at 69.4% of the sample. Slightly over one quarter of the juveniles, at 26.3%, was found to have been ineligible for drug court participation. Information relating to assessment results for eligibility for drug court participation involving 4.3% of juveniles in the sample was missing. Of the juveniles who were assessed by the practitioners of the JDC and found to be eligible for drug court participation, just over half of the juveniles, at 54.8% of the sample, were not admitted to the drug court. A minority, at 40.9%, were actually admitted. Again, information relating to the admission of the juveniles for drug court participation involving 4.3% of juveniles in the sample was missing. The data analyzed identified that the majority of the juveniles, at 11.3% of the sample, were rejected from acceptance to the program because of lack of support from a significant member of their family. This was closely followed by the percentage of juveniles who were rejected as a result of the juveniles themselves declining to participate in such a program, at 10.2% of the sample. Juveniles whose admission to a drug court was rejected because of other reasons, such as the juvenile having had serious offenses or with current charges pending, the police and/or a school identifying a juvenile as being involved in a gang, a juvenile thought to be dependent on drugs and/or alcohol, a minor who was shortly turning 18 years old at the time of their assessment, and a juvenile who was currently attending other intervention programs, accounted for 9.1%, 8.1%, 4.8%, 2.7% and 2.2% of the sample, respectively. Information relating to the reasons for rejection of admission of juveniles to a drug court was missing on 51.6% of the juveniles in the sample. Treatment History The treatment histories of the juveniles who attended the JDC during the period January 2004 to January 2008 are shown in Table 4 through 6. Participants were offered up to three levels of treatment opportunities for their treatment while attending the drug court program. Those three levels of treatment opportunities are listed as treatment history type 1 through treatment history type 3.

Table 4: Treatment history Type 1

Valid

Residential Counseling Hospitalization Anger management Mental health Detox PHP Challenge Program Early intervention Female offender program Community service Total Missing 99 Total

Frequency 21 39 5 2 6 1 2 1 1

Percent 11.3 21.0 2.7 1.1 3.2 .5 1.1 .5 .5

Valid Percent 25.9 48.1 6.2 2.5 7.4 1.2 2.5 1.2 1.2

Cumulative Percent 25.9 74.1 80.2 82.7 90.1 91.4 93.8 95.1 96.3

1

.5

1.2

97.5

2 81 105 186

1.1 43.5 56.5 100.0

2.5 100.0

100.0

The type of treatment or services offered to the juveniles listed as treatment history type 1 is/are shown in Table 4. It can be seen that less than half of the juveniles, at 43.5% of the total sample, received services described under treatment history type 1, while a majority did not receive such services, at 56.5% of the total sample. Of those who received services listed under treatment history type 1, it was revealed that the majority of those juveniles, at 21% of the total sample, received counseling. This was followed by the number of juveniles who received residential care, at 11.3% of the total sample. Those who received other services in the form of mental health care and hospitalization accounted for only 3.2% and 2.7% of the total sample, respectively. Juveniles who attended an anger management program, PHP and ordered to do community service accounted for 1.1% of the total sample, in respect of each of those three types of treatment methods. Finally, those who received a detoxification and an early intervention service, and attended a Challenge Program and a Female Offender Program, accounted for only 0.5% of the total sample, in respect of each of those four types of treatment methods. In an analysis of whether or not the type of treatment or services offered to the juveniles listed under treatment history type 1 was/were successful, it was shown that that a slight majority, at 14% of the total sample, successfully completed the treatment that was offered to them under treatment history type 1. However, it should be noted that such information was available in respect of only just over one quarter of the juveniles, or 25.8% of the total sample. A minority of the juveniles, at 11.8% of the total sample, were discharged because they were unsuccessful in completing such treatments. Information relating to whether or not the type of treatment or services offered to the juveniles listed under treatment history type 1 was/were successful was missing or unknown with respect to just under three quarters of the juveniles, or 74.2% of the total sample. The type of treatment or services offered to the juveniles listed as treatment history type 2 is/are shown in Table 5. It can be seen that just less than one quarter of the juveniles, at 23.1% of the total sample, received services described under treatment history type 2, while an overwhelming majority did not receive such services, at 76.9% of the total sample. Of those who received services listed under treatment history type 2, it can be seen that the majority of

those juveniles, at 6.5% of the total sample, received counseling. This was closely followed by the number of juveniles who received mental health care, at 5.4% of the total sample. Those who received other services in the form of residential care, hospitalization, an after-care service and PHP accounted for only 3.2%, 2.7%, 2.2%, and 1.1% of the total sample, respectively. Juveniles who attended an anger management program, Challenge Program, UDIS Probation Program and who were ordered to do community service accounted for only 0.5% of the total sample, in respect of each of those four types of treatment methods. Table 5: Treatment history Type 2 Frequency Valid Counseling 12 Hospitalization 5 Mental health 10 Residential 6 Anger management 1 Aftercare 4 Challenge program 1 PHP 2 Community 1 service UDIS Probation 1 Total 43 Missing 99 143 Total 186

Percent 6.5 2.7 5.4 3.2 .5 2.2 .5 1.1

Valid Percent 27.9 11.6 23.3 14.0 2.3 9.3 2.3 4.7

Cumulative Percent 27.9 39.5 62.8 76.7 79.1 88.4 90.7 95.3

.5

2.3

97.7

.5 23.1 76.9 100.0

2.3 100.0

100.0

The analysis of whether or not the type of treatment or services offered to the juveniles listed under treatment history type 2 was/were successful showed that a slight majority, at 6.5% of the total sample, were discharged because they were unsuccessful in completing the treatment that was offered to them under treatment history type 2. However, it should be noted that such information was available in respect of only 11.8% of the total number of juveniles in the sample. A minority of the juveniles, at 5.4% of the total sample, were successful in completing such treatments. Information relating to whether or not the type of treatment or services offered to the juveniles listed under treatment history type 2 was/were successful was missing or unknown with respect to an overwhelming 88.2% of the total number of juveniles in the sample. Table 6: Treatment history Type 3

Valid

Counseling Mental history Hospitalization Female offender program Residential Total Missing 9

Frequency 5 4 4

Percent 2.7 2.2 2.2

Valid Percent 29.4 23.5 23.5

Cumulative Percent 29.4 52.9 76.5

1

.5

5.9

82.4

3 17 169

1.6 9.1 90.9

17.6 100.0

100.0

Total

186

100.0

The type of treatment or services offered to the juveniles listed as treatment history type 3 is/are shown in Table 6. It can be seen that only 9.1% of the total number of juveniles in the sample received services described under treatment history type 3, while an overwhelming majority did not receive such services, at 90.9% of the total sample. Of those who received services listed under treatment history type 3, it can be seen that a very slight majority of those juveniles, at 2.7% of the total sample, received counseling. This was closely followed by the number of juveniles who received mental health care and hospitalization, at 2.2% of the total sample, in respect of each of those two types of treatment methods. Those who received other services in the form of residential care and attending a Female Offender Program accounted for only 1.6% and 0.5% of the total number of juveniles in the sample, in respect of each of those two types of treatment methods. Whether or not the type of treatment or services offered to the juveniles listed under treatment history type 3 was/were successful demonstrated that a slight majority, that is 5 juveniles or 2.7% of the total sample, were successful in completing the treatment that was offered to them under treatment history type 3. However, it should be noted that such information was available in respect of only 9 juveniles or 4.8% of the total number of juveniles in the sample. A minority, that is 4 juveniles or 2.2% of the total sample, were discharged because they were unsuccessful in completing such treatments. Information relating to whether or not the type of treatment or services offered to the juveniles listed under treatment history type 3 was/were successful was missing or unknown with respect to an overwhelming 95.2% of the total number of juveniles in the sample. Delinquency History An analysis of the number of charges or offenses that the juveniles allegedly committed during the relevant period of between January 2004 and January 2008 was performed. The majority of the juveniles, at 36% of the total sample, were charged with allegedly committing just a single offense. This was followed by the number of juveniles who were charged with allegedly committing two offenses, at 24.2% of the total sample. Juveniles who were charged with allegedly committing three, five or more, and four offenses accounted for 14%, 9.1% and 4.8% of the total number of juveniles in the sample, respectively. Information relating to the number of charges or offenses that the juveniles allegedly committed during the relevant period was missing or unknown with respect to 11.8% of the total number of juveniles in the sample. It should be noted that the researchers did not have access to the recidivism rates of those participants that graduated and/or were terminated in this data. CONCLUSIONS The results presented in this report stemmed from an analysis of the frequency distributions of the data relating to juveniles who were referred to a Chicago juvenile drug court between January 2004 and January 2008. The data that was analyzed involved the demographic characteristics of the juveniles, history of their drug usage prior to their referral to the JDC, the age at which the juveniles began to use/abuse drugs, the assessments made by the practitioners of the JDC pertaining to the eligibility of the juveniles for drug court participation, treatment histories of the juveniles while participating in the drug court program, and delinquency history of the juveniles during the relevant period.

It was discovered that the majority of the juveniles referred to the JDC, at 56.5% of the total sample, were listed as “Inactive” cases. Only 14% of juveniles were regarded as being “Active” in the drug court program. Overall, only 9.7% of the juveniles referred to the JDC successfully completed the program. In connection with the demographic characteristics of the participants of the JDC program, it was found that an overwhelming number of the juveniles were male, at 84.9% of the sample. Female participants accounted for only 15.1% of the total sample. There were more white participants, at 59.7% of the sample, compared to participants from minority ethnic groups. However, the largest ethnic minority group was Hispanic juveniles, at 24.2% of the total sample. The majority of the juveniles were aged 16 years old, at 39.8% of the sample, although a preponderant age group of the referred juveniles was between 15 and 17 years old. Surprisingly, most of the juveniles lived with just their mother at the time of their referral to the JDC, at 39.8% of the sample. Those who lived with both of their parents accounted for only 30.1% of the total number of juveniles in the sample. The analysis of the drug involvement of the juveniles prior to their referral to the JDC showed that an overwhelming majority of the juveniles, at 81.7% of the sample, admitted using marijuana. This was closely followed by those who admitted abusing alcohol, at 60.2% of the sample. Cocaine was found to have been the third most popularly used drug by the juveniles, at 26.9% of the sample. A rather surprising finding was one relating to the somewhat high percentage of juveniles who admitted abusing prescription drugs, at 13.4% of the sample, and were the fourth most popularly abused drugs by the juveniles in the sample. With regard to poly-drug use, the majority of the juveniles, at 28% of the sample, admitted using/abusing at least two type of drugs prior to their referral to the JDC (possibly a combination of marijuana and alcohol). Those who used/abused only one type of drug accounted for only 20% of the total sample. It was also found that the most popular first drug of choice was marijuana, which was preferred by a wide majority of juveniles, at 62.9% of the sample. The most popular second drug of choice was alcohol, which was preferred by 23.7% of the juveniles in the sample. The age at which the juveniles began to use/abuse drugs varied by type of drug used/abused. It was discovered that the majority of the juveniles began to use marijuana at the age of 13 years old. The majority of those who abused alcohol and those who used methamphetamines began to do so at the age of 14 years old. Fourteen and 15 years old were the ages at which the majority of the juveniles began to abuse prescription drugs and to use other amphetamines other than methamphetamines. The age at which the majority of the juveniles began to use cocaine, hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants and PCP, was 15 years old. Lastly, the age at which the majority of the juveniles began to use crack was 15 as well as 16 years old. The results of the assessments made by the practitioners of the JDC regarding the eligibility of the juveniles for drug court participation showed that a majority of the juveniles were found to be eligible for drug court, at 69.4% of the total sample. However, a minority of the juveniles, at 40.9% of the sample, were actually admitted into such a program. The main reason for rejecting a juvenile admission into a drug court program was because of lack of support from a significant member of a juvenile’s family, followed by the juvenile him/herself declining to participate in the program. The analysis involving the treatment histories of the juveniles while participating in the drug court program showed that the majority of the juveniles who received or were offered treatment received such treatment in the form of counseling, residential care, mental health care

and some hospitalization. There were three levels of treatment opportunities through which the juveniles received the treatments. It was found that juveniles successfully completed treatment offered in two out of the three levels of treatment opportunities available to them. With respect to the delinquent histories of the juveniles, it was found that a majority of the juveniles, at 36% of the total sample, allegedly committed only one offense or were charged with just a single offense. This was followed by the number of juveniles who were charged with two offenses, at 24.2% of the total sample. RECOMMENDATIONS Of no surprise were the statistics in this article on age and drug use. As noted in the literature on juvenile drug courts, most programs report that the age of first use among court participants is between 12 and 14 years old. Alcohol and marijuana are also reported to be the most commonly used drugs by youth drug court participants (Cooper, 1996). This JDC is no exception to the literature. When reviewing the records, we noted a large amount of missing data (also noted by Webster, 2004, in his original assessment of the program). We would strongly recommend that the juvenile drug court maintain better statistics either through additional training on the information management database used to compile information or by consulting with an outside agency that can better record necessary facts and figures. The missing data allows for gaps in the assessment of the program and questions the viability and reliability of the program in treating participants and in securing funding for the continuation of the program. Another suggestion would be for the program to more clearly define “inactive” as well as “terminated” cases. At present, it is uncertain whether an initial assessment of a juvenile as ineligible for drug court participation can be an indicator for his or her subsequent failure to complete the JDC program successfully. In this regard, perhaps practitioners of the JDC program would need to review their assessment procedures in order to see whether admission numbers to the drug court program can be improved. In both the Webster program assessment (2004) and this one, it was suggested that the JDC review their recruitment and assessment procedures to increase their numbers of participants. According to the statistics, the JDC rejects individuals identified as being involved in gangs (8.1% of the sample). There is current debate over whether juveniles involved in gang activity should be permitted in a juvenile drug court. Some believe that these youth should be automatically excluded; while others propose that labeling youth as “gang involved” does not fully take into account the child’s actual role in the gang. The question becomes “is it unfair to exclude children who have gang involvement or violence in their background when, at least some of these children, may be those who really need to be helped and can profit from the program?” (Cooper, 1996, p. 4). Current juvenile drug court practices as identified by Cooper, Nerney, Parnham, & Smith (1999) include considering the nature of the gang involvement rather than simply excluding the child on the assumption that he or she has ties to a gang. Since the environment of a youth can be rather complex, we recommend the JDC consider those youth who may associate with gangs or peers who are also actively involved in drug use and/or criminal activity as potential participants in the drug court. Treatment strategies can be modified to include a more mainstream social network that assists the child in overcoming the isolation he or she may feel while satisfying the needs for belonging and a drug free lifestyle (Cooper, et. al., 1999).

We would also like to suggest that the JDC take a look at the statistic regarding rejections based on unsupportive family members (11.3% of the sample). Although it is widely recognized that support from the family is vital to the success of the child in drug court, the court does have the option of compelling parental participation through statutory and/or contempt powers. This may not be the ideal situation but may, in the long run, lead difficult parents to better understand the child and his or her behavior. This recognition will provide for better treatment of the child both in court and at home as the parent recognizes that “juvenile drug abuse and delinquent behavior are often symptomatic of a youth’s personal, family, social and peer problems which must ultimately be addressed if the youth is to be able to cease his/her drug use” (Cooper, et. al., 1999, p. 3). Of course, using sanctions against the parents to force compliance can backfire and result in additional acting out by the child. The JDC in this case may want to consider persuasion training that can be used by team members to constructively involve parents and other family members that may be reluctant in the process. With a rather broad defining of “family” the youth may be able to identify other persons (aside from the parent) that can play or have played family roles in the past. This person is a great resource for the youth participating in the drug court program. As a final suggestion, it is imperative that the juvenile drug court identify meaningful program goals, outside of recidivism and drug use reduction, that measure the actual efforts of those working with the youth. Juvenile drug courts have the ability to radically change the behaviors of participants – not just their drug use practices. Some of the suggestions for measures of success in juvenile drug courts include improving relationships between the youth and the family; increasing the child’s involvement with community activities, in the school or through vocational training; teaching the child about healthy choices and lifestyles; assisting the child in developing skills, competencies, stress management abilities, and in choosing peer groups that reduce the likelihood of future drug and crime involvement; and strengthening the overall family structure so that it promotes long term support for the child’s drug free lifestyle (Cooper, et. al., 1999). By doing this, the JDC may be better able to identify who should and should not participate in the program and in what resources are necessary to ensure successful treatment of the participants. For future research, it is strongly recommended that the data should be subjected to a cross-tabulation analysis of the variables, in particular cross-tabulating the then current status of the juveniles referred to the JDC, history of drug use/abuse, the age at which drug use/abuse began, the assessments made by the practitioners of the JDC pertaining to the eligibility of the juveniles for drug court participation, treatment histories of the juveniles while participating in the drug court program, and delinquency history of the juveniles during the relevant period by gender and racial origin of the juveniles. This would constitute the basis of a second and much more informative report of the JDC data during the relevant period. REFERENCES Belenko, S. (1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review, 1 (1), p. 1-42. Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2003). Juvenile drug courts: Strategies in practice. Monograph. Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Assistance Drug Court Clearinghouse Project. (2008). Drug courts: Facts and figures. National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice. Available online at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/spotlight/drug_courts/facts.html. Brewster, M. P. (2001). An evaluation of the Chester County (PA) drug court program. Journal of Drug Issues, 31 (1), p . 177-206. Cresswell, L. S. & E. P. Deschenes. (2001). Minority and non-minority perceptions of drug court program severity and effectiveness. Journal of Drug Issues, 31 (1), p. 259-279. Cooper, C. S. (1996). Juvenile drug courts: Preliminary Assessment of activities underway and implementation issues being addressed. Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Available online at: http://spa.american.edu/justice/document_center.php?keywords=&project=1&category=1 88. Cooper, C. S., M. Nerney, J. Parnham, & B. Smith. (1999). Juvenile drug courts: Where have we been? Where should we be going? Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Available online at: http://spa.american.edu/justice/document_center.php?keywords=&project=1&category=1 88. Deschenes, E. P. & Petersen, R. D. (1999). Experimenting with the drug court model: Implementation and change in Maricopa County, Arizona. In W. C. Terry III (Ed.), The early drug courts: Case studies in judicial innovation (pp. 139-165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Dorf, M. C. & J. A. Fagan. (2003). Problem-solving courts: From innovation to institutionalization. The American Criminal Law Review, 40 (4), p. 1501-1511. Drug Courts Program Office. (1995). Looking at a decade of drug courts. Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Available online at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/bja/decade98.htm. Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse. (1998). Drug court monitoring, evaluation, and management information systems. Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Available online at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/bja/monitor/welcome.html. Finn, P. & A. K. Newlyn. (1994). Miami drug court gives drug defendants a second chance. Judicature, 77 (5), p. 268. Huddleston, C. W., K. Freeman-Wilson, D. B. Marlowe, & A. Roussell. (2005). Painting the current picture: A national report card on drug courts and other problem solving court programs in the United States. Vol. I , No. 2. Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Longshore, D., S. Turner, S. Wenzel, & A. Morral. (2001). Drug courts: A conceptual framework. Journal of Drug Issues, 31 (1), p. 7-25. National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (1997, January). Defining drug courts: The key components. Washington, DC: Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Available online at: http://www.nadcp.org/docs/dkeypdf.pdf.

Roman, J., W. Townsend, & A. S. Bhati. (2003). Recidivism rates for drug court graduates: Nationally based estimates, final report. The Urban Institute. U.S. Department of justice, Washington, DC. Available online at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/201229.pdf. Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2005). Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes. Retrieved on January 31, 2009 from http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/enforce/drugcourt.html. Office of National Drug Control Policy. (no date). Drug Courts. Retrieved on January 31, 2009 from http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/enforce/drugcourt.html. Peters, R. H. & M. R. Murrin. (2000). Effectiveness of treatment-based drug courts in reducing criminal recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27 (1), p. 72-96. Schiff, M. & W. C. Terry. (1997). Predicting graduation from Broward County’s dedicated drug treatment court. The Justice System Journal, 19 (3), p. 291-310. Spohn, C., R. K. Piper, T. Martin, & E. D. Frenzel. (2001). Drug courts and recidivism: The results of an evaluation using two comparison groups and multiple indicators of recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 31 (1), p. 149-176. Tauber, J., & Snavely, K. (1999). Drug courts: A research agenda. National Drug Court Institute. Vito, G. F. & R. A. Tewksbury. (1999). The impact of treatment: The Jefferson County (Kentucky) Drug Court Program. Federal Probation, 62 (2), p. 46-51.