Running Head: Juvenile Drug Court Model 1

Juvenile Drug Court Model

Madison Woolwine
2/22/22
Juvenile Drug Court Model 2

Drug and alcohol abuse has overwhelmed the United States and has become a major

concern for the legal system. Not only has drug and alcohol abuse impacted adults, but it has also

reached the youth as well. Court systems have been flooded with the negative factors of

substance abuse and it has hindered the success and efficiency of the criminal justice and

juvenile system. These issues have motivated multiple policy implementations to create courts

that allow for individuals to benefit from treatment and rehabilitation measures to decrease

recidivism and halt drug use among juveniles. The juvenile drug court model was created not

only as a legal institution to review cases and have traditional court proceedings, but also to

rehabilitate through various intervention-based treatment programs. The juvenile drug court

model is an important concept of modern courts to understand, and who is benefiting from these

courts as well as why they have been created are crucial to understanding the impact of substance

abuse on the legal system in the United States.

The creation of juvenile drug courts was influenced by many factors within the criminal

justice system in the 1990’s and early 2000’s. Positive results from adult drug courts, an increase

in adolescent drug use, policies involving harsh punishments, and a lack of intervention-based

programs within the juvenile system urged this new model of courts (Belenko & Logan, 2003).

According to the Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, published in 2003, over the span of ten

years, drug and alcohol cases overwhelmed the juvenile justice system, with an estimated 17.1%

of arrests being substance related in the year 2000 (Belenko & Logan, 2003). The article also

stated that between 1998 to 1999, the number of drug related cases handled by the juvenile

system increased by 148% (Belenko & Logan, 2003). This data shows that a need for a new

system that involved more rehabilitation, as well as a focus on solving substance abuse in

adolescents was a crucial step that needed to be made in future policy initiatives.
Juvenile Drug Court Model 3

The early juvenile drug court model attempted to apply the adult drug court

implementations, with disregard to the differences in physical and mental development of the

youth (Applegate & Santana, 2000). A lack of intervention-based treatment for substance abuse

in juveniles has influenced policies seeking ways to reduce drug use in juveniles effectively

(Belenko & Logan, 2003). The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has

claimed that to fix these issues, more focus needs to be placed on staff training, families, schools,

and working with the community to ensure all external factors for positive development are

being met (OJJDP). There is major importance in ensuring that the impacts of drug abuse for

juveniles psychological and social development are taken in account, as well as not disregarding

other mental disorders that may lead to severe substance abuse, family dysfunction, and poor

treatment outcomes (Chassin, 2008). Counteracting negative influences of peers, gangs, and

family members are crucial implementations to ensure juvenile drug courts reduce youth

substance abuse and recidivism within the system (Applegate & Santana, 2000).

In the today’s modern juvenile drug court model, detailed guidelines and regulations have

been created to ensure the courts are suitable for substance abuse treatment and success for

adolescents. The juvenile drug court model overview, established by the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, includes focusing on effectively addressing substance use

and needs to decrease chronic offending by regularly involving team members including

attorneys, judges, and clinicians (OJJDP). Measures must also be met to ensure all youth have an

equitable treatment opportunity and must adhere to the eligibility criteria and initial screenings

(OJJDP). There must be collaboration established between judges, attorneys, and other crucial

members to make sure the court process is fair and communication between families are

established (OJDP). When these rules and steps are completed, comprehensive assessments are
Juvenile Drug Court Model 4

implemented for individual cases so that case management and communicative supervision are

established correctly for the individual (OJJDP). Then, Substance abuse treatment is established,

and completion is tracked and monitored (OJJDP). This model is established to meet the main

goal of reducing drug use and associated criminal behavior by having treatment within the justice

system (Belenko & Logan, 2003).

The juvenile drug court model also involves holding juvenile offenders’ accountable

through a system of sanctions and rewards. Sanctions like adhering to curfew and attending

school are not necessarily illegal outside of the juvenile drug court, but if they are not followed,

offenders could face criminal like sanctions, such as staying in juvenile halls (Paik, 2011).

Treatment is regularly reviewed by a judicial officer and youth in treatment programs must

participate in mandatory periodic drug testing (Belenko & Logan, 2003). Regular status hearings

before a judge are required to monitor treatment progress. Rewards like taking a lesser plea or a

case dismissal are decided based off an individual’s progress, drug test results, and attitude

(Belenko & Logan, 2003). This attention to detail within the juvenile drug court model shows

that the goal is not only to reduce drug use, but also reshape juvenile offenders into more

responsible citizens. This makes juvenile drug courts different than typical courts because they

provide early assessments and have better integration between court decisions, while also using

continued supervision with sanctions and rewards (Chassin, 2008).

Even though juvenile drug courts are being established across the country, not every

juvenile with substance related issues is given the opportunity to benefit from treatment. Only

juveniles with diagnosed substance abuse disorders are a priority for treatment in juvenile drug

courts (Chassin, 2008). According to an article, Juvenile Justice and Substance Abuse, in The

Future of Our Children, published by Princeton University, substance abuse diagnostics vary by
Juvenile Drug Court Model 5

race and ethnicity, with non-Hispanic Caucasian individuals being the highest with a diagnosis

and African Americans being the lowest (Chassin, 2008). Screenings within juvenile drug courts

vary by institutions, resulting in unclear data and some juveniles missing out on needs that could

be met (Chassin, 2008). Adolescents in the juvenile drug courts are like all juvenile offenders,

meaning that they use alcohol and marijuana, have been involved in the justice system in the

past, and have co-occurring mental health problems (Chassin, 2008). Various programs of

federal funding have been used to establish drug courts across the country, but money is still an

issue for allowing all juveniles suffering from substance abuse to have the opportunity to use

juvenile drug courts and their treatment.

Substance abuse has taken a major toll on the United States criminal justice system, and

motivation through various policies of reform have been created to help cure individuals from

substance abuse. Rehabilitation and treatment while also involving one of the most trusted and

valuable sources within communities, the courts, has allowed a new outlook on juveniles

suffering from substance abuse. Policy initiatives were able to from juvenile drug courts to

enable rehabilitation treatments that would reduce recidivism, but also help juvenile offenders

become responsible and accountable individuals. Modern juvenile drug courts are being used by

offenders who have been clinically diagnosed with substance abuse disorders, but hopefully

reform can be made to ensure screenings and criteria can be widened to help individuals without

an official diagnosis. Juvenile drug courts have turned the traditional court system into a more

active, intervention-based program that can ultimately help juvenile offenders stay out of future

courts and become successful citizens.

Juvenile Drug Court Model 6

References

Applegate, B. K., & Santana, S. (2000). Intervening with Youthful Substance Abusers: A

Preliminary Analysis of a Juvenile Drug Court. The Justice System Journal, 21(3), 281–300.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27977030

Belenko, S., & Logan, T. K. (2003). Delivering more effective treatment to adolescents:

Improving the juvenile drug court model. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 25(3), 189-

211. https://www.sciencedirect/science/article/pii/S0740547203001235

Chassin, L. (2008). Juvenile Justice and Substance Use. The Future of Children, 18(2),

165–183. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20179983

Paik, L. (2011). Inside the Black Box of Drug Court Justice. In Discretionary Justice:

Looking Inside a Juvenile Drug Court (pp. 1–16). Rutgers University Press.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5hjghg.4

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs . (n.d.). Juvenile Drug Treatment Court

guidelines. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh176/files/pubs/250368.pdf
Juvenile Drug Court Model 7