Program Profile: Utah Juvenile Drug Courts

This is a juvenile drug court designed to reduce alcohol and other drug and delinquency offenses through an accountability framework. The program is rated Promising. Treatment group participants were statistically significantly less likely to recidivate in delinquency/criminal offenses, compared with the comparison group participants. However, there was no statistically significant effect on alcohol and other drug recidivism.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals

Utah Juvenile Drug Courts (JDCs) offer substance abuse treatment and programming to juveniles in an effort to reduce participants’ alcohol and other drug offenses and delinquency offenses. Although JDCs throughout Utah vary from one court to another, the basic drug court philosophy and components are the same. The basic elements of the drug court model include 1) screening and assessment, 2) an individualized treatment plan, 3) judicial supervision, 4) community-based treatment, 5) a designated courtroom, 6) regular status hearings, 7) accountability and compliance monitoring, 8) sanctions and incentives, 9) comprehensive services, 10) a non-adversarial team approach, and 11) case dismissal or sentence reduction for successful completers.

Target Population

Youths served by the Utah JDCs have varying backgrounds and offense histories, but generally the courts accept juveniles who have been charged with an alcohol and other drug offense.

Program Components

The Utah JDCs vary in their treatment modality, treatment intensity, frequency of random drug testing, and judicial-hearing frequency. For example, although the majority of courts in Utah use individual and group treatment, there is one court that primarily uses group treatment. Treatment intensity across courts could include any of the following: a 30-day social detox followed by outpatient treatment, primarily outpatient treatment with intensive outpatient treatment as needed, outpatient treatment only, or both outpatient and intensive outpatient treatment. Similarly, random drug testing could include testing by phase (3 times per week in phase 1, and 1 time per week in phase 4); testing by priority assignment (2 times per month if low assignment, and 5–6 times per month if high assignment; or 4–6 times per month if low assignment, and 10–12 times per month if high assignment); or simply 3 times per month. Finally, juvenile hearing frequency also varies across the Utah JDCs: specific courts may hold review hearings biweekly, bimonthly, or once a month at a minimum.

Program Theory

The Utah JDCs are similar to other JDCs in that they are grounded in the theoretical perspective of therapeutic justice or jurisprudence. Therapeutic jurisprudence holds that interactions between judicial staff and defendants, the structure and organization of the court proceedings, and the legal rules and policies should all be dealt with in a manner that encourages health and positive growth (Shaffer 2011). Drug courts aim to provide treatment to participants while reducing recidivism; however, the type of treatment provided is not standardized (Hickert et al. 2011).

Study

To analyze the impact of the Utah Juvenile Drug Courts (JDCs), Hickert and colleagues (2011) used a quasi-experimental design. The treatment group consisted of participants in Utah’s four largest JDCs from January 2003 to May 2007. Two of the juvenile drug courts served youths who were on probation, whereas the other two drug courts were considered to be an alternative to probation. The comparison probation group was selected from the state juvenile court database: youths were selected if they had an alcohol and other drug offense that resulted in probation between 2003 and 2007. An alcohol and other drug offense could include being a minor in possession, driving under the influence (DUI), or possessing a controlled substance. If a youth had more than one offense, the study authors randomly selected one offense as the primary one. Further, youths were excluded from the comparison group if they had ever participated in a JDC. Demographic and court involvement measures were obtained from the state juvenile database. The demographic variables included date of birth, gender, and race/ethnicity. Race/ethnicity was divided into two categories: white/non-Hispanic; and Hispanic/other race, which included African American, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Asian. Court involvement measures included offense type, offense date, and referral date.

The final sample included 622 participants in the treatment group, and 596 participants in the comparison group. Both the treatment and comparison groups were composed of predominately white/nonminority males, with an average age of 14 years at their first juvenile offense. There were notable group differences within the treatment group, (i.e., age at first offense, age at first alcohol and other drug offense, alcohol and other drug prior offenses, delinquency prior offenses, and total prior offenses) as each court slightly differed from the other on eligibility criteria as well as treatment and programming. Juvenile Drug Courts A and D accept youths who have more severe court histories and who have also been on probation. Juvenile Drug Courts B and C target youths with minor court histories, as both courts target youths earlier in their delinquency trajectories.

After controlling for any significant differences that were found in the bivariate analysis, two logistic regressions were used to measure the impact of JDCs on alcohol and other drug recidivism and delinquency/criminal recidivism at 3-to 30-month follow-ups, after youths had exited the juvenile drug court or probation.

It is important to note that although the comparison group was matched on similar offenses, the comparison group had significantly more juvenile court histories than the treatment group (both alcohol and other drug and delinquency offenses). Further, some of the comparison group participants may have received treatment similar to the treatment group. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Shaffer, Deborah. 2011. “Looking Inside the Black Box of Drug Courts: A Meta-analytic Review.” Justice Quarterly 28(3):493-521.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Juvenile Drug Courts

Juvenile drug courts are dockets within juvenile courts for cases involving substance abusing youth in need of specialized treatment services. The focus is on providing treatment to eligible, drug-involved juveniles with the goal of reducing recidivism and substance abuse. The practice is rated Promising in reducing recidivism rates, and Ineffective for reducing drug-related offenses or drug use.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Crime & Delinquency - Drug and alcohol offenses
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Multiple substances

Juvenile Diversion Programs

An intervention strategy that redirects youths away from formal processing in the juvenile justice system, while still holding them accountable for their actions. The practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism rates of juveniles who participated in diversion programming compared with juveniles who were formally processed in the justice system.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?