Juvenile drug treatment courts in the United States: Initial lessons learned and issues being addressed

Substance Use and Misuse

Volumn 37, Issue 12-13, 2002, Pages 1689-1722

  Cooper, Caroline S ^a  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Adolescent drug treatment court; Adolescent substance use treatment; Juvenile drug court; Juvenile drug treatment court; Juvenile justice system; Problem solving courts; Restorative justice; Therapeutic jurisprudence

Indexed keywords

CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DRUG DEPENDENCE TREATMENT; FAMILY; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; JURISPRUDENCE; JUVENILE DELINQUENCY; MOTIVATION; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; REVIEW; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0036445003     PISSN: 10826084     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1081/JA-120014427     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse of Columbia University. Substance Abuse and Learning Disabilities: Peas in a Pod or Apples and Oranges?; Columbia University, 2000.
2. States in which juvenile jurisdiction ends at age 15 (e.g., adult jurisdiction begins at age 16) are: Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina. States at which juvenile jurisdiction ends at 16 (e.g., adult jurisdiction begins at age 17) are: Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. In addition, it is becoming increasing frequent for juveniles to be waived (e.g., transferred to the adult criminal court and prosecuted as adults) for drug possession and related offenses, in addition to the more serious offenses for which the waiver process was designed.
3. A juvenile drug treatment court is a special docket established within the juvenile court to which appropriate cases involving substance-involved youth are assigned for much closer judicial supervision and more intensive, holistic service provision than would otherwise be provided. The attributes and distinctive features of juvenile drug treatment court programs are discussed further in this article.
4. Hora, Schma, Rosenthal. Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Treatment Court Movement: Revolutionizing the Criminal Justice System's Response to Drug Abuse and Crime in America. Notre Dame Law Rev. 1999, 74, 439. See also www.therapeuticjurisprudence.org.
5. There is an extensive and growing body of literature on the topic of therapeutic jurisprudence. In the United States courts adhering to therapeutic jurisprudential approaches are becoming known as "problem-solving" courts.
6. Among the agencies collaborating with the juvenile court to support the juvenile drug treatment court have included: juvenile/probation service agencies, family service agencies, mental health agencies, local substance user treatment agencies, public health agencies, local school systems, local prosecuting agency, local public defender agency, and a broad range of other community agencies and organizations which can provide support and/or services for the program. The range of participating agencies has been expanding to address to evolving participant and program needs being identified.
7. Edwin T. Oliver v. U.S. No. 95-CO-434. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. August 29, 1996.
8. 42 United States Code (USC Section 290dd-2 and 42 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 2.
9. A substantial number of adolescents are deemed to be drug abusers, but not, in fact, chemically dependent according to criteria developed by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition (DCM-IV) published by the American Psychiatric Association, Washington D.C. 1994. These diagnostic criteria, widely used by "substance abuse" treatment professionals, apply to most common mental disorders and are categorized as follows: Anxiety Disorders; Childhood Disorders; Eating Disorders; Mood Disorders; Personality Disorders; Psychotic Disorders; Substance-Related Disorders; and Other Disorders, including Autistic Disorder, Delirium and Dementia.
10. The states with no juvenile drug treatment courts currently operating or being planned are New Hampshire and Vermont. In addition, Puerto Rico, which has a number of adult drug treatment courts, has no juvenile drug treatment court activity currently underway.
11. Juvenile Drug Court Activity Update; OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project; School of Public Affairs, American University: Washington, DC, June 20, 2001.
12. Although juvenile records are generally not considered a part of a youth's criminal record once the age of majority is attained (e.g., 18 years), there are increasingly situations in which a youth's juvenile record may be subsequently used. Dismissal of the charges can therefore be a significant incentive for program participation and success.
13. A program evaluator often joins the team to promote compilation of appropriate data for participant monitoring and program management and evaluation.
14. Zickler, P. Annual survey finds increasing teen use of ecstasy, steroids. NIDA Notes 2001, 16, 2.
15. Based on 132,913 tests reported to the OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American University in May 2001 by 53 programs which maintain this information.
16. Special recognition and appreciation is extended to Judge John Parnham of Pensacola, Florida, Michael J. Nerney of Long Lake, New York, and Betsy Smith of Key West, Florida whose pioneering work with juvenile drug treatment courts has provided many, many insights for the author and others involved in this field. Their insights are reflected throughout this article but, particularly, in this section and the sections which follow.
17. One of the early - and most significant - challenges for the architects of juvenile drug treatment court programs has been the recognition that juvenile substance users often lack a sense of having "hit bottom," which has been a significant motivator for adult drug treatment court participants. In addition, the characteristics adolescent "minute-to-minute" orientation of participants has been difficult to mesh with the early long-term structure of the programs. See also discussion regarding optimum length for program participation.
18. National Association of Drug Court Professionals. Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. Prepared under the auspices of the Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 1997. The Key Components embody ten principals identified by a committee of adult drug treatment court practitioners and other experts as critical elements of adult drug treatment court programs. A counterpart set of "strategies" is presently being developed for juvenile drug treatment courts by the National Drug Court Institute and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges under the auspices of the Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
19. American Bar Association. Criminal Justice Section. Task Force on Youth in the Criminal Justice System. Youth in the Criminal Justice System: Guidelines for Policymakers and Practitioners; ABA: Washington DC, 2001.
20. Cooper, C.; Nerney, M.; Parnham, J.; Smith, B. Juvenile Drug Courts: Where Have We Been? Where Should We Be Going? Draft Report of November 1999 meeting of drug court practitioners, OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project; School of Public Affairs, American University; Washington, DC, 2000.
21. These comments are attributed in large part to the observations and perceptions of Michael J. Nerney.
22. Gilbert, J.; Grimm, R.; Parnham, J. Applying therapeutic jurisprudential principles to a family-focused juvenile justice model (delinquency). Alabama Law Rev. 2001, 52 (4), 1155.
23. Gilbert, Grimm, and Parnham [221 discuss various state statutory approaches for compelling parental participation in juvenile drug treatment courts. Many feel, however, that legal coercion should be used only in extreme situations in order not to exacerbate already frail family relationships.
24. Fishman, M.D. Lack of research, capacity plague adolescent treatment system. Join Together Online, May 15, 2001.
25. Michael F. Nerney (2001). Regional Training on Adolescent Development and Addiction Conducted by Michael Nerney for the Kitsap County (Port Orchard), Washington Juvenile Drug Court and Surrounding Jurisdictions: Observations Regarding the Seven Challenges Curriculum Being Used. Memorandum Report.
26. Betsy Smith, the Drug treatment court Coordinator for the First Judicial Circuit (Monroe County), Florida, has addressed this issue with great insight and concern.
27. [22] provide a much fuller discussion of the relevant legal and clinical issues and strategies being used.