|
Abstract
|
Adolescence is a critical period in human development because significant physical and neurological maturation occur. Substance use during childhood and adolescence can have numerous negative effects that have the potential to significantly impair healthy development, as well as lead to substance abuse, substance dependence, or a substance use disorder (SUD) (Dennis, Babor, Roebuck, & Donaldson, 2002). SUDs among youth in the United States (U.S.) are not uncommon (Swendsen et al., 2012). More than 1.7 million (7%) U.S. youth ages 12 to 17 have an SUD, with significantly higher rates among those involved with the juvenile justice system (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2013). Moreover, adolescents involved with the justice system have more severe substance abuse-related issues than their non-involved peers (Tarter, Kirsci, Mezzich, & Patton, 2011). Thus, incorporating effective substance abuse treatment into the juvenile justice system has become critical for achieving effective youth rehabilitation and eliminating lifelong addiction and recidivism. Treatment programs backed by promising research are being implemented in juvenile drug courts nationwide. However, just as no two juvenile court jurisdictions are the same, no two individual juvenile clients are the same. Successful completion of a juvenile drug court program that includes substance abuse treatment by one client does not guarantee successful program completion for everyone. Characteristics unique to the implementation of the juvenile drug court program, as well as characteristics unique to the individual being treated, have an impact on whether a particular youth will successfully complete juvenile drug court and, thus, successfully complete treatment. Juvenile Drug Courts
In 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that adolescent substance use, which had come to a peak in the 1990s, remained alarmingly high (National Drug Court Institute [NDCI] & National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges [NCJFCJ], 2003). Given the aforementioned risks associated with adolescent substance use, this increase was viewed as a major public health crisis. The peak in adolescent substance use occurred roughly a decade after a similar peak in use among adults. Drug-related arrests among adults dramatically increased in the 1980s, in large part due to a drastic increase in accessibility and use of crack cocaine (NDCI & NCJFCJ, 2003) as well as the enforcement of increasingly harsh antidrug laws (Peugh & Belenko, 1999). In response, jurisdictions began creating separate dockets to focus on individuals who had been brought into the criminal justice system as a result of substance abuse. Rather than being exclusively punitive, sentencing practices under these dockets included therapeutic elements focused on treating the underlying dependence that often accompanied criminal activity. As these dockets grew in number, they began to be evaluated. Research conducted on these courts was encouraging, demonstrating a decrease in recidivism among participants of adult drug courts compared to those in non-specialized courts (Hora, Rosenthal, & Schman, 1999). There is a current trend to incorporate evidence-based practices into juvenile drug courts in an effort to enhance substance abuse treatment capacity. Consequently many jurisdictions that have been implementing the Juvenile Drug Court: Strategies in Practice (National Drug Court Institute & National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2003), have incorporated Reclaiming Futures (Nissen, Butts, Merrigan, & Kraft, 2006) into their juvenile drug courts. The expectation is that the integrated Juvenile Drug Court: Strategies in Practice and Reclaiming Futures (JDC/RF) program would lead to increased engagement of youth in juvenile drug court resulting in improved rates of program clients receiving substance abuse treatment.
RESULTS of the National Cross-Site Evaluation of JDC/RF indicate that the overall probability of a JDC/RF program client receiving treatment is relatively high, but varies by program. Specifically, JDC/RF programs lacking systems integration were less effective at serving substance abuse treatment needs, regardless of the characteristics of their clients. This finding suggests that all communities should focus on system integration when delivering services to adolescents with substance abuse problems in the justice system. In addition, JDC/RF programs with greater access to targeted treatment were more effective at serving substance abuse treatment needs. Even though this effect was accounted for by client characteristics, results suggest that targeted treatment should remain a particular focus of juvenile drug courts.
Josephine D. Korchmaros, Southwest Institute for Research on Women, University of Arizona; Sally J. Stevens, Southwest Institute for Research on Women, University of Arizona; Alison R. Greene, Southwest Institute for Research on Women, University of Arizona; Monica Davis, Southwest Institute for Research on Women, University of Arizona; and Rachel Chalot, Southwest Institute for Research on Women, University of Arizona. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Josephine D. Korchmaros, Southwest Institute for Research on Women, University of Arizona, 181 S. Tucson Boulevard, Ste. 101, Tucson, AZ 85716. E-mail: jkorch@email.arizona.edu
Keywords: Juvenile justice; substance use; children; adolescents; drug courts;
Language: en |