Juvenile Drug Court: Enhancing outcomes by integrating evidence-based treatments

Family Services Research Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (Impact Factor: 4.85). 03/2006; 74(1):42-54. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.74.1.42
Source: PubMed


Evaluated the effectiveness of juvenile drug court for 161 juvenile offenders meeting diagnostic criteria for substance abuse or dependence and determined whether the integration of evidence-based practices enhanced the outcomes of juvenile drug court. Over a 1-year period, a four-condition randomized design evaluated outcomes for family court with usual community services, drug court with usual community services, drug court with multisystemic therapy, and drug court with multisystemic therapy enhanced with contingency management for adolescent substance use, criminal behavior, symptomatology, and days in out-of-home placement. In general, findings supported the view that drug court was more effective than family court services in decreasing rates of adolescent substance use and criminal behavior. Possibly due to the greatly increased surveillance of youths in drug court, however, these relative reductions in antisocial behavior did not translate to corresponding decreases in rearrest or incarceration. In addition, findings supported the view that the use of evidence-based treatments within the drug court context improved youth substance-related outcomes. Clinical and policy implications of these findings are discussed.

74 Reads
  • Source
    • "Based on the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence (Wexler & Winick, 1991), drug courts are designed to produce positive outcomes both for individuals involved in the legal system, as well as for those the legal system is designed to protect (Marlowe, Festinger, Lee, Dugosh, & Benasutti, 2006). Although there appears to be considerable variation in effectiveness of among JDCs, the literature suggests that juvenile drug courts have promise (Henggeler et al., 2006; Henggeler, McCart, Cunningham, & Chapman, 2012; Hiller et al., 2010; Maring, 2006; Polakowski, Hartley, & Bates, 2008; Ruiz, Stevens, Fuhriman, Bogart, & Korchmaros, 2009; Shaffer, Listwan, Latessa, & Lowenkamp, 2008; Sloan, Smykla, & Rush, 2004). Moreover, a consensus is emerging about the essential features of effective JDCs, namely, the quality of the treatment provided, the degree to which family members are included in treatment and court proceedings, and the extent to which the JDC procedures are developmentally appropriate (Marlowe, 2010). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this article is to examine the effectiveness of 2 theoretically different treatments delivered in juvenile drug court-family therapy represented by multidimensional family therapy (MDFT) and group-based treatment represented by adolescent group therapy (AGT)-on offending and substance use. Intent-to-treat sample included 112 youth enrolled in juvenile drug court (primarily male [88%], and Hispanic [59%] or African American [35%]), average age 16.1 years, randomly assigned to either family therapy (n = 55) or group therapy (n = 57). Participants were assessed at baseline and 6, 12, 18 and 24 months following baseline. During the drug court phase, youth in both treatments showed significant reduction in delinquency (average d = .51), externalizing symptoms (average d = 2.32), rearrests (average d = 1.22), and substance use (average d = 4.42). During the 24-month follow-up, family therapy evidenced greater maintenance of treatment gains than group-based treatment for externalizing symptoms (d = 0.39), commission of serious crimes (d = .38), and felony arrests (d = .96). There was no significant difference between the treatments with respect to substance use or misdemeanor arrests. The results suggest that family therapy enhances juvenile drug court outcomes beyond what can be achieved with a nonfamily based treatment, especially with respect to what is arguably the primary objective of juvenile drug courts: reducing criminal behavior and rearrests. More research is needed on the effectiveness of juvenile drug courts generally and on whether treatment type and family involvement influence outcomes. Trial Registry Name: Clinical, Identified NCT01668303. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).
    Journal of Family Psychology 01/2015; 29(2). DOI:10.1037/fam0000053 · 1.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "These studies were not selected by Waldron and Turner in order to preserve homogeneity in treatment population and service context for their meta-analytic purposes. The current article included such studies in the selection process, including one pre- 2007 study (Henggeler et al., 2006) discussed by Waldron and Turner but omitted from their selected pool. Fourth, the level of analysis at which JCCAP evaluation criteria are applied is treatment type or approach (e.g., ecological FBT) rather than treatment model or brand (e.g., FFT, MDFT). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article updates the evidence base on outpatient behavioral treatments for adolescent substance use (ASU) since publication of the previous review completed for this journal by Waldron and Turner (2008). It first summarizes the Waldron and Turner findings as well as those from more recent literature reviews and meta-analytic studies of ASU treatment. It then presents study design and methods criteria used to select 19 comparative studies subjected to Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology level of support evaluation. These 19 studies are grouped by study category (efficacy or effectiveness) and described for sample characteristics, methodological quality, and substance use outcomes. Cumulative level of support designations are then made for each identified treatment approach: ecological family-based treatment, group cognitive-behavioral therapy, and individual cognitive-behavioral therapy are deemed Well Established; behavioral family-based treatment and motivational interviewing are deemed Probably Efficacious; drug counseling is deemed Possibly Efficacious; and four integrated treatment models combining more than one approach are deemed Well Established or Probably Efficacious. The remainder of the article (a) articulates fidelity, mediator, and moderator effects reported for evidence-based approaches since 2008 and (b) recommends four enhancements to the prevailing business model of ASU outpatient services to accelerate penetration of evidence-based approaches into the underserved consumer base: pursue partnerships with influential governmental systems, utilize web-based technology to extend reach and control costs, adapt effective methods for linking services across sectors of care, and promote uptake and sustainability by emphasizing return on investment.
    Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 06/2014; 43(5):1-26. DOI:10.1080/15374416.2014.915550 · 1.92 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "For example, three successful randomized trials with violent and chronic juvenile offenders were published in the 1990s (Borduin et al., 1995; Henggeler et al., 1997; Henggeler, Melton, and Smith, 1992), with one producing sustained outcomes at even 22 years post-treatment (Sawyer and Borduin, 2011). Other randomized trials have been conducted with substance-abusing offenders (Henggeler et al., 2006) and juvenile sexual offenders (Letourneau et al., 2009). Importantly, independent replications have also been published in the United States (see, for example, Timmons-Mitchell et al., 2006) and Europe (Ogden and Hagen, 2006). "
    The Sage handbook of child research, Edited by G.B. Melton, A. Ben-Arieh, J. Cashmore, G.S. Goodman, N.K. Worley, 01/2014: chapter Youth who have broken the law: pages 266-284; Sage Publications.
Show more

Preview (2 Sources)

74 Reads
Available from