Juvenile Drug Court

This webpage identifies the major literature in the field of family court and criminal justice involvement: juvenile drug court. The time frame is from January 2000 through December 2014.

Carey, S. M., Allen, T. H., Perkins, T., & Waller, M. S. (2013). A detailed cost evaluation of a Juvenile Drug Court that follows the juvenile drug court model (16 Strategies). Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 64(4), pp. 1-20.

Although juvenile drug courts (JDCs) have now been in operation for 17 years, there is still no definitive appraisal as to this model’s cost effectiveness and in particular, no detailed cost analysis of a JDC program following the 16 strategies until this one. The cost data presented in this paper build on the process and outcome evaluations performed on the Clackamas County Juvenile Drug Court (CCJDC). Costs incurred by participants in drug courts are compared with costs incurred by eligible non-participants.

Goodkind, S., Shook, J. J., Kim, K. H., & Pohlig, R. T., & Herring, D. J. (2013). From child welfare to juvenile justice: race, gender, and system experiences. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11(3), pp. 249-272. DOI: 10.1177/1541204012463409

This article contributes to understandings of which youth are likely to become involved with juvenile justice by examining its relationships with child welfare experiences and mental health and substance abuse service receipt, with particular attention to racial and gender differences. According to the authors, in a sample of child welfare-involved youth, mental health services are associated with juvenile justice, and substance abuse services are predictive for White boys and out-of-home placement for girls. For youth experiencing out-of-home placement, mental health services are associated with increased likelihood of juvenile justice and substance abuse services with decreased likelihood, while congregate care predicts juvenile justice for girls and White youth.

Holmberg, M., & Yeres, S. A. (2013). Engaging Schools in the Juvenile Drug Court: Promising Strategies from the Field. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 64(3), pp. 41-54.

This brief seeks to fill the knowledge gap on juvenile drug court and school collaborations. NCJFCJ gathered the experiences of JDC practitioners who have successfully partnered with schools and offer “promising strategies” on how to build those collaborations. The authors identify barriers, and identify 5 key strategies for successful partnerships.

Back to Top
Back to Top