key moments in nadcp history b est p ractices in j uvenile d rug c ourts b est p ractices in j...

Key Moments in NADCP History BEST PRACTICES IN JUVENILE DRUG COURTS

DOUGLAS B. MARLOWE, J.D., PH.D.CHIEF OF SCIENCE, LAW & POLICY

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRUGCOURT PROFESSIONALS

Key Moments in NADCP History What, if anything, works?Average Effect of Juvenile Justice Dispositions on Recidivism

Sources: Aos et al (2006); Drake (2012); Drake et al. (2009); Henggeler & Schoenwald(2011); Lipsey (2009); Mitchell et al. (2012); Petrosino et al. (2010); Petrosino et al. (2013); Schwalbe et al. (2012); Sedlak & McPherson (2010); Shaffer (2006); Stein et al. (2012); Stein et al. (in press); Wilson et al. (2006); Wilson & Hoge (2012).

8% 8%

6%

0% 0%

-4% -3%

-7%

7%

-8%-10%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

Minimum Effect (%) Maximum Effect (%)

Detention Traditional processing

Scared Straight

Boot camp/ Wilderness Challenge

Probation/ Parole

JUVENILEDRUGCOURT

Diversionto services generally

Drug treatment generally

Harmful

IrrelevantSlightly helpful

Key Moments in NADCP History JDC Meta-Analysis

Mitchell et al., 2012 (Campbell Collaborative)

Drug-related recidivism General recidivism0

20

40

60

Base rateJuvenile Drug Court


20

40

60


50% ~ 48%

no effect

JDC Meta-Analysis



20

40

60


50% ~ 48%44% *

50%

no effect small effect

JDC Meta-Analysis


Also no effect:• Shaffer (2006)• Wilson et al. (2006)• Madell et al. (2012)

Small effect (8%):• Stein et al. (2015)

New offense /"

referral"

New convic

tion / "ad

judication"

0

20

40

60

Juvenile Drug CourtComparison Group

OJJDP Multisite Study

Sullivan et al., 2014

New offense /"

referral"

New convic

tion / "ad

judication"

0

20

40

60


60%

49%



*

New offense /"

referral"

New convic

tion / "ad

judication"

0

20

40

60


60%

49%

33%

45% *

Increased recidivism!



*

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryFidelity to Best Practices

Highly

adherent

Somewhat

adherent

Needs impro

vement

Ineffective

0

20

40

60

0%

Latessa et al., 2013 (OJJDP Evaluation)


Highly

adherent

Somewhat

adherent

Needs impro

vement

Ineffective

0

20

40

60

22%

0%



Highly

adherent

Somewhat

adherent

Needs impro

vement

Ineffective

0

20

40

60

44%

22%

0%



Highly

adherent

Somewhat

adherent

Needs impro

vement

Ineffective

0

20

40

60

44%

22%

0%


33%

77% deficient programs

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryTeen Characteristics

Primarily MJ Substance use diagnosis

Prior S.A. treatment

Less than weekly drug

use

Prior offense High risk0

20


Key Moments in NADCP HistoryTeen Characteristics

Primarily or only MJ

Substance use diagnosis

Prior S.A. treatment

Less than weekly drug

use

Prior offense High risk0

20

40

60

8071%


Low need & variable (mixed) risk

40%

51%

26%24%

32%

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryCommunity Panels (not judges)

Cook et al., 2009

Cook et al., 2009

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

12 mos. 24 mos. 54 mos.

JDC (n = 105)Matched (n = 104)Referred (n = 52)

Re-

arre

st r

ates

Community Panels (not judges)

Cook et al., 2009

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

12 mos. 24 mos. 54 mos.


Re-

arre

st r

ates


32% 33% 35%

No effect

Cook et al., 2009

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

12 mos. 24 mos. 54 mos.


Re-

arre

st r

ates


32% 33% 35%

52% 52% 52%

No effect

No effect

Cook et al., 2009

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

12 mos. 24 mos. 54 mos.


Re-

arre

st r

ates


32% 33% 35%

75% 72%69%

52% 52% 52%

No effect

No effect

No effect

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryStructre

39%

19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

YesN=3

NoN=10

Perc

ent I

mpr

ovem

ent i

n Out

com

e Cos

ts*

* "Percent improvement in outcome costs" refers to the percent savings for drug court compared to business-as-usual

Court Sessions are Required Every 2 Weeks or Less in the First Phase

Twice the cost benefit}

Adult Drug Courts

Carey et al. (2012)

Bi-weekly Status Hearings

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryStructre

Twice the cost benefit}

Length of Interactions

Carey et al. (2012)

43%

17%

Two and a half times the reduction in crime}

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Low Medium High

Key Moments in NADCP History Positive Judicial Qualities

3.6 *

0.7# C

rim

es

av

ert

ed

Rossman et al., 2011; Zweig et al., 2012

4.2 *

* p < .05

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryFamily at Hearings

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Anyfamily

Mother Father Other

Salvatore et al., 2010



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Anyfamily

Mother Father Other

49%

11%12%

39%

Family at approx. half of hearings



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Anyfamily

Mother Father Other NONE ALL

49%

11%12%

39%



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Anyfamily

Mother Father Other NONE ALL

49%

11%12%

39%

21%

26%

No family for fifth of kids

Juvenile outcomes Family attendance

Absent from treatment - .38**

Late to treatment - .33*

Absent from school - .21

Late to school - .31*

Positive drug screen - .26† Received a sanction - .38**

† p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01 (Salvatore et al., 2010)

Family and Outcomes

0

5

10

15

20

Family Ct. JDC JDC + MST/CMn=32 n=29 n=37

Henggeler et al., 2006

Days of Substance Use Per Month at 12-Month Follow-Up

Family-Based Treatment

0

2

4

6

Family Ct. JDC JDC + MST/CMn=33 n=31 n=37

p < .05

*

Days of Substance Use Per Month at 12-Month Follow-Up

2.70

1.32

0.19

Family-Based Treatment

Henggeler et al., 2006

Parental attendance at status hearings

Parental attendance at treatment sessions

Juvenile attendance at status hearings

Juvenile attendance at treatment sessions

Decreased peer delinquency

Decreased peer drug activity

Increased parental supervision

Consistent parental supervision

Decreased Delinquency

Decreased Alcohol Use

Decreased Marijuana Use

Decreased Polydrug Use

Essential Services Mediating Changes Outcomes

Schaeffer et al., 2010

Mediators of FDC Success

0

2

4

Never Rarely Sometimes Always

Trea

tmen

t P

lan

Go

als

Ach

ieve

d

Mentor Training

(Miller et al., 2012)

Specialized Training & Supervision of Mentors

0

2

4

Never Rarely Sometimes Always * p < .05

*

Trea

tmen

t P

lan

Go

als

Ach

ieve

d

1.75

2.04

2.38

Mentor Training


Specialized Training & Supervision of Mentors

2.77

0

2

4

1 to 2 3 to 4 > 4

Trea

tmen

t P

lan

Go

als

Ach

ieve

d

Mentoring Frequency


No. Mentor/Mentee Meetings per Month

0

2

4

1 to 2 3 to 4 > 4 * p < .05

*

Trea

tmen

t P

lan

Go

als

Ach

ieve

d

2.18

2.55

2.97

Mentoring Frequency


No. Mentor/Mentee Meetings per Month

0

2

4

< 1 hour 1 to 2 hours 2 to 3 hours > 3 hours

Trea

tmen

t P

lan

Go

als

Ach

ieve

d

Mentoring Intensity


Duration of Mentor/Mentee Meetings

0

2

4

< 1 hour 1 to 2 hours 2 to 3 hours > 3 hours

Trea

tmen

t P

lan

Go

als

Ach

ieve

d

Mentoring Intensity


Duration of Mentor/Mentee Meetings * p < .05

*

2.242.44

2.92

2.67

• Target high-risk & high-need teens (don’t mix!)

• Judge presides over frequent status hearings

• Family attendance in treatment and court

• Reduce associations with delinquent peers

• Enhance guardian supervision of teens

• Model consistent disciplinary practices

• Reduce reliance on detention

• Professionally trained mentors

Best Practices

key moments in nadcp history b est p ractices in j uvenile d rug c ourts b est p ractices in j...

Documents