U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Juvenile Accountability Incentive

Block Grants Program

May 2001

Juvenile Drug Court

Programs

Caroline S. Cooper

This Bulletin is part of OJJDP’s Juvenile

Accountability Incentive Block Grants

(JAIBG) Best Practices Series. The basic

premise underlying the JAIBG program,

initially funded in fiscal year 1998, is that

young people who violate the law need to be

held accountable for their offenses if society is

to improve the quality of life in the Nation’s

communities. Holding a juvenile offender

“accountable” in the juvenile justice system

means that once the juvenile is determined

to have committed law-violating behavior,

by admission or adjudication, he or she is

held responsible for the act through consequences or sanctions, imposed pursuant to

law, that are proportionate to the offense.

Consequences or sanctions that are applied

swiftly, surely, and consistently, and are

graduated to provide appropriate and effective responses to varying levels of offense

seriousness and offender chronicity, work

best in preventing, controlling, and reducing

further law violations.

In an effort to help States and units of local

government develop programs in the 12 purpose areas established for JAIBG funding,

Bulletins in this series are designed to present

the most up-to-date knowledge to juvenile

justice policymakers, researchers, and practitioners about programs and approaches that

hold juvenile offenders accountable for their

behavior. An indepth description of the

JAIBG program and a list of the 12 program

purpose areas appear in the overview Bulletin

for this series.

Juvenile drug courts are intensive treatment programs established within and

supervised by juvenile courts to provide

specialized services for eligible druginvolved youth and their families. Cases

are assigned to a juvenile drug court

docket based on criteria set by local officials to carry out the goals of the drug

court program.

Juvenile drug courts provide (1) intensive and continuous judicial supervision

over delinquency and status offense

cases that involve substance-abusing

juveniles and (2) coordinated and supervised delivery of an array of support services necessary to address the problems

that contribute to juvenile involvement in

the justice system. Service areas include

substance abuse treatment, mental

health, primary care, family, and education. Since 1995, more than 140 juvenile

drug courts have been established in the

United States, and more than 125 are currently being planned.

A Message

From OJJDP

The establishment of juvenile

drug court programs and their

integration into other juvenile

justice sanctions and services is

1 of the 12 purpose areas of

the Juvenile Accountability

Incentive Block Grants (JAIBG)

program.

Part of OJJDP’s JAIBG Best

Practices Series, this Bulletin

provides local officials with the

perspectives of juvenile justice

practitioners and policymakers

who have juvenile drug court

program experience. Often

established within juvenile

courts, juvenile drug courts are

intensive treatment programs

that provide specialized

services for drug-involved

youth and their families.

Initial assessment of juvenile

drug courts indicates considerable promise. The information

and resources provided within

this Bulletin should facilitate

the development of constructive, well-conceived programs

that will improve the juvenile

justice system’s capacity to

hold offenders accountable and

protect the public.
2

■ Recidivism rates among substanceinvolved juveniles who have come

through the juvenile justice system.

■ Mechanisms in the existing juvenile justice system that promote

accountability.

The nature of information relevant to

assessing each of these factors is discussed below.

Caseload Factors

Analysis of the delinquency caseload

should focus on the nature and volume of juvenile court cases that involve alcohol and/or drug use. Efforts

should also be made to identify youth

who may be at risk of using alcohol or

drugs. Local juvenile justice system

and treatment professionals may want

to identify indicators associated with

drug use by youth and certain “red

flags,” such as persistent truancy, that

may suggest the risk of substance use

even if drug use is not apparent in an

initial screening. Information regarding substance use by youth involved

in delinquency proceedings should be

augmented with information about

other potential special needs of this

population and case-specific issues,

including level of family functioning,

learning disabilities, physical disabilities, and mental health problems. The

absence of assessment information

concerning these areas should alert

courts to potential gaps in their

screening and assessment process for

juvenile offenders.

Availability of Treatment

and Other Core Services

Once the extent of juvenile substance

use is determined, local officials should

decide whether existing resources—

including the judicial system, school

system, treatment services, and

other community organizations and

services—can adequately address

the needs of juveniles in a timely

and effective manner. Local officials

should develop an inventory of

community resources that addresses

the needs of juvenile offenders who

use or who are at risk of using drugs

and alcohol. This inventory should

include both treatment-specific

resources and other core services,

examples of which include:

■ Education, mental health, and

public health services.

■ Family therapy.

■ Literacy skills building.

■ Mentoring.

■ Prosocial activities.

■ Vocational training.

■ Other family support services.

This list of services will provide a

measure of the extent of a community’s existing resources and will indicate any gaps in services and resources. Even if treatment and other

core adolescent services are available,

juvenile justice system officials need

to assess whether the services are developmentally based, culturally relevant, and gender specific.

Officials would benefit from conducting a preliminary review of existing

services for handling substanceinvolved offenders, the degree of coordination provided in their delivery,

and the extent to which these services

promote accountability. Jurisdictions

should keep the following key factors

in mind when conducting this review:

■ Extent of drug and alcohol use by

juveniles after their initial contact

with the juvenile court and the

court’s ability to measure such use

on an ongoing basis.

■ Degree to which the court obtains

prompt notification of the juvenile’s progress or lack thereof in

court-ordered treatment and other

services.

■ Extent of flexibility provided to the

court to modify initial orders for

treatment and other services to

This Bulletin addresses JAIBG program purpose area 9—the establishment of juvenile drug court programs

to provide continuing judicial supervision of juvenile offenders with substance abuse problems and to integrate the administration of other

sanctions and services. The purpose

of this Bulletin is twofold: (1) to share

with local officials the experience and

perspective of juvenile justice policymakers and practitioners who have

been involved with juvenile drug

court programs during the past several years and (2) to facilitate the

development of constructive, wellconceived programs that improve

the juvenile justice system’s ability to

hold youthful offenders accountable

for their behavior while enhancing

public safety and strengthening existing State and local programs.

Indicators of Need

The primary indicators of the potential

value of developing a juvenile drug

court program in a particular community are the (1) extent to which delinquency is associated with drug and

alcohol use in the community; (2) juvenile justice system’s existing ability

to address this use through substance

abuse treatment, supervision, and

other core adolescent and family

services (e.g., family therapy, mentoring, vocational training); and (3) degree of accountability that the juvenile

justice system promotes for both juvenile offenders and service providers.

To assess these indicators, jurisdictions

considering a juvenile drug court may

want to review the following aspects

of juvenile justice operations:

■ The extent and nature of substance

use by juveniles referred to juvenile court.

■ The nature and effectiveness of

existing alcohol and substance

abuse treatment programs and

other core adolescent resources

available in the community.
3

meet the emerging and/or evolving

needs of juveniles.

■ Degree to which the court is able to

address problems in the juvenile’s

living environment, including his

or her family situation, that may

contribute to the juvenile’s substance use.

■ Recidivism rates—with regard to

crimes related to or precipitated by

substance use—of juveniles who

have come through the system.

If information on these factors is not

readily available, local officials may

find it useful to identify a sample of

juveniles who have appeared before

the court during the past several

years and track their progress in certain key areas such as drug-free living, recidivism in either the juvenile

or criminal justice system, and educational and vocational achievement.

This process may provide additional

perspective in identifying potential

gaps in the type or extent of services existing to meet the needs of

substance-involved juveniles in the

community.

Court Responsiveness and

Accountability Mechanisms

The JAIBG program resolves “to promote greater accountability in the

juvenile justice system” (Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, 1998). To determine the

extent to which establishing a juvenile drug court can promote increased accountability, officials

should consider the following:

■ How quickly and effectively can

the judicial system currently respond to juvenile delinquent activity? Juvenile drug courts are

designed to screen eligible youth

shortly after arrest and promote

their prompt entry into the juvenile drug court process. The juvenile drug court can then respond

to subsequent delinquent activity

by a participant immediately, either at the routine judicial review

hearing (often held weekly)1 or at a

special hearing to address the new

delinquent offense.

■ How quickly and effectively can

the judicial system respond to juvenile drug and alcohol use? The

frequent and random drug testing

(often at least twice weekly) conducted by juvenile drug courts

permits prompt detection and response to alcohol and drug use by

participating youth. Judicial and/

or treatment responses to such use

generally can include any one or

a combination of the following:

home detention, secure detention,

more frequent drug testing, more

frequent contacts with the treatment provider, writing assignments, and community service.

■ How effective is the delivery of

treatment services? In many jurisdictions, youth referred for treatment or other special programs

must wait weeks or months for

an available opening. Even when

services are provided, the intervention may not be designed to

resolve the range of presenting issues. For example, the youth may

have mental health needs that become apparent during the course

of treatment or other collateral

needs that relate to his or her family or living situation. In addition,

the services delivered may not be

developmentally based, culturally

relevant, or gender specific. For

these reasons, juvenile drug courts

have dedicated treatment and

other service slots specifically for

juvenile drug court participants

where the multifaceted issues they

are confronting can be addressed

by the collaboration of service delivery options. For these slots, no

waiting time is required, allowing

juvenile participants to access

these services immediately. The

frequent status hearings conducted

by the juvenile drug court permit

the judge and the drug court team

to monitor the provision of services continually and to immediately identify situations in which

service delivery plans need modification or enhancement to meet a

juvenile’s needs.

■ How well are treatment and other

services being coordinated? Are

services to individual juveniles

or to families being duplicated?

Most officials involved with the

juvenile justice system recognize

that it is quite common for one

family unit to be involved in cases

on multiple court dockets and

therefore receive duplicative services pursuant to separate court

orders or social service agency directives. To promote accountability

and the coordination of services

that are critical to the operation of

a juvenile drug court, local officials

initially must identify other court

dockets or agencies with which a

juvenile’s immediate family members may be involved and promote

coordination of services to reduce

this duplication of effort.

Key Elements of a

Juvenile Drug Court

Program

Although tailored to the needs and

resources of individual jurisdictions,

juvenile drug court programs are

characterized by the following common and essential elements:

■ Establishment of a drug court team

to include, at a minimum, a judge,

prosecutor, defense attorney, treatment provider, evaluator, and

school representative working collaboratively to meet the needs of

the juvenile and his or her family.

1 See OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical

Assistance Project, 1999.
4

■ Intervention by the court as soon

as possible following the juvenile’s

initial contact with the justice system and continuous judicial supervision of the juvenile through

frequent (often weekly) status

hearings with the juvenile and his

or her family.

■ Development of a court-supervised

program of substance abuse treatment and other core services to address the multifaceted issues that

the juvenile and his or her family

face (e.g., the juvenile’s substance

use, family and educational needs,

and behavioral problems as they

affect his or her ability to lead a

drug-free life).

■ Coordination of treatment and

other services provided.

■ Ongoing monitoring of the juvenile’s progress in the program

through frequent random urinalysis, continuous supervision, and

proactive case management.

■ Immediate judicial response to

the progress of each participating

juvenile or his or her noncompliance with the court’s program

conditions.

■ A judge who is concerned about

juveniles and their families, sensitive to cultural and other factors

unique to each participant, and interested and trained in adolescent

development and behavior, substance abuse, and pharmacology.

■ A program philosophy that focuses

on capitalizing on the strengths of

each juvenile and his or her family.

Enhancements to the

Traditional Process

Juvenile drug courts generally require

the following enhancements to the

traditional court process (Roberts,

Brophy, and Cooper, 1997):

■ Comprehensive assessment of the

juvenile at intake, with followup

assessments conducted periodically thereafter.

■ Integration of the information obtained during the intake and assessment process with subsequent

decisions in the case.

■ Focus on the functioning of the

family and its effects on the juvenile throughout his or her participation in the drug court program.

■ Coordination among the court, the

treatment community, the school

system, and other community

agencies as they respond to the

needs of the juvenile, the family,

and the court.

■ Focus on the training of officials

involved in the program on adolescent developmental issues and the

bearing of these issues on drug use

and withdrawal.2

Operational Elements

Juvenile drug court programs are

built on the following core elements

that provide the framework for program operations:

■ Goals and indicators of success.

■ The drug court team.

■ Clearly defined program eligibility requirements.

■ An identified target population.

■ Substance abuse treatment, case

management, and other core

services.

■ Monitoring and supervision of

participants.

■ Development of a range of incentives and sanctions/consequences

that are applied in response to participant progress or lack thereof.

■ Establishment of the locus of the

program in the judicial system process (e.g., preplea or postplea).

■ Program monitoring, management,

and evaluation.

Each of these operational elements is

discussed briefly below.

Goals and indicators of success

The first step in planning and implementing a juvenile drug court is to

identify the nature and extent of

problems that the program must address, goals that the program must

achieve, and indicators that will reveal the degree to which these goals

are met. In most instances, this process is initiated by a juvenile court

judge, who is frequently joined by

representatives from the prosecutor’s

office, public defender’s office, and

juvenile intake and probation staff. If

a review of caseload and case disposition characteristics suggests that a

juvenile drug court would be useful,

this initial planning group should invite representatives from social service agencies, treatment agencies, and

other youth service agencies.

Members of this group or their designees can then form the nucleus of the

juvenile drug court planning team,

which will determine the goals of the

program collaboratively. While reducing recidivism and substance abuse

are common goals for adult drug

courts, juvenile drug courts must go

beyond this definition of success to

address factors that promote the

youth’s successful functioning as an

adult. Many programs, therefore, include indicators such as educational

development, competency/skills

building, and improved family

relationships.

2 See Juvenile and Family Drug Courts: An Overview,

which describes the consensus of a focus group assembled in August 1996 by the Office of Justice Programs’ Drug Courts Program Office and the State

Justice Institute regarding juvenile drug court elements (OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical

Assistance Project, 1999).
5

The drug court team

The judge is the key leader for the juvenile drug court program. The judge

oversees not only the juvenile’s performance and that of his or her family, but also the coordination and delivery of treatment and other core

services. These services include those

within the juvenile justice system and

those associated with community,

educational, vocational, public health,

mental health, prosocial, and other

resources needed to help the juvenile

lead a drug- and crime-free life.

Although the judge is a key leader for

the juvenile drug court program, the

decisionmaking process is collegial,

drawing on the perspectives and expertise of all members of the drug

court team: judge, prosecutor, defense

attorney, treatment provider, case

manager, family therapist, probation

official, law enforcement official, and

others involved in the provision of

treatment and other support services

to the juvenile and his or her family.

Most juvenile drug courts conduct

“staffings” prior to each drug court

hearing at which the team members

meet to discuss issues in an individual’s case to agree on appropriate

responses to both problems and progress. The team recommendations discussed at these staffings are then generally followed by the judge at the

court status hearing with the client.

Judicial decisions, however, remain

with the judge.

Eligibility requirements and

target population

The process of determining who the

program will serve—the juvenile

drug court’s target population—has

tended to focus on how best to use

limited available resources. The choice

of a target population must not be

dictated by desires to achieve high

success rates by focusing on youth

who present minimal risks. Rather,

the target population should be

representative of the community’s

detention population and include

youth who have serious problems and

need the intensity of services and supervision provided by the program.

Most juvenile drug courts, at least initially, focus on juveniles who (1) demonstrate moderate to heavy substance

use and (2) present no danger to the

community. Determining an offender’s

potential danger to the community

frequently presents more complex

screening and assessment tasks for

the juvenile drug court than it does

for an adult drug court. Little historical information regarding a youth’s

propensity for violence is available

for many of the youth brought before

the juvenile drug court. Determining

a youth’s potential danger is further

complicated by confidentiality requirements that inhibit the exchange of information regarding a youth’s prior

activities, including acts of violence.

Most jurisdictions must also determine which situations the drug court

will target initially. Currently, most

juvenile drug courts target youth who

have committed nonviolent drug or

drug-related offenses, although some

programs include certain assault

cases involving substance use (e.g.,

fighting at school). Certain eligibility

qualifications are determined by various grant programs that may impose

special eligibility requirements.3

Practitioners disagree as to whether

youth involved in gang activity

should be permitted in a juvenile

drug court. Some argue that, at least

initially, a juvenile drug court should

exclude youth involved in gangs.

Others, however, are concerned about

labeling youth as gang involved and

excluding them from consideration

without taking into account the

nature and extent of their involvement and the youth’s need for the

services, supervision, and monitoring provided by the juvenile drug

court.

The target population should reflect

the demographic characteristics of

the community and the juvenile arrestee population. Once the program

becomes operational, the team must

examine the program to ensure that

it continues to be representative of

the community and the arrestee

population.

Treatment, case management,

and other core services

Juvenile drug court services are not

confined to only those provided by

the treatment provider. All activity

generated by the juvenile drug court

is designed to have therapeutic value,

including those programs that promote competency development (e.g.,

writing, computer literacy, and artistic skills) and the ongoing interaction

between treatment and court processes.

Among the special attributes of juvenile drug court treatment services are:

■ Early and extensive assessment of

the juvenile and his or her family

situation.

■ Provision of developmentally

based, gender-specific, and culturally appropriate treatment and

other core services.

■ Significant focus on family therapy

and other services to assist and improve the capacity of the family

and juvenile to work together to

achieve program goals.

■ Sustained attention to each juvenile participant’s school performance, peer relationships, development of competencies, and

self-esteem.

■ Ongoing case management of services to ensure that the program

meets each participant’s current

3 See, for example, OJP Drug Courts Program Office

funding requirements pursuant to the 1994 Crime Act

and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant funding

requirements.
6

and evolving needs. Treatment and

other services for juvenile drug

court participants may be necessary beyond the period of the

court’s jurisdiction, so the availability of aftercare services is vital.

Monitoring and supervision

The hallmark of juvenile drug courts

is the intensive, continuous judicial

monitoring and supervision of participants. Each member of the juvenile drug court team works closely

with the juvenile and monitors his or

her compliance with the courtimposed conditions of participation

(e.g., treatment program participation, school attendance, drug testing,

community service, court appearances). However, the judge’s frequent

involvement and continual supervision play a paramount role in improving the functioning of a juvenile

and his or her family. A participant’s

noncompliance with any of the conditions of participation is immediately

detected and brought to the court’s

attention for prompt action.

Sanctions/consequences

and incentives

Sanctions in the juvenile drug court

must promote each juvenile’s ability

to take responsibility and be accountable for his or her actions. Most drug

court professionals agree that the

hallmarks of any sanctioning and motivational scheme are consistency,

predictability, and, when working

with juveniles, immediacy. When developing sanctions—increasingly

called consequences—and incentives,

it is important for communities also

to ask what competencies are being

built by these responses to youth delinquency. Among the sanctions commonly used by juvenile drug courts

are (1) imposition of or increase in

curfew conditions, (2) requirement of

community service hours, and/or

(3) increase in the frequency of court

and/or treatment contacts and/or

urinalysis. Positive rewards and incentives for compliance with program

conditions are considered as important as sanctions for noncompliance.

Examples of positive incentives that

juvenile drug courts frequently use

to recognize participant progress are

(1) promotion to a subsequent program phase, (2) award of a gift voucher or a ticket to a local sports or other

event contributed by local merchants,

and/or (3) presentation of a certificate

or other token acknowledging the

participant’s accomplishments. The

praise of the judge is, as always, of

immeasurable motivational value.

The emphasis on sanctions and incentives for juveniles involved with

the justice system may be new to

many communities, and local officials need to be educated in their use.

The key is using sanctions and incentives to promote positive behavioral

change (rather than to simply use

sanctions as punishment), keeping in

mind that the factors that motivate an

adolescent generally are quite different from those that motivate an adult.

It is also important to use treatment

as a resource, not as a punishment, so

that a determination to increase treatment contacts, for example, is based

on a determination that this increase

is necessary to better serve the participant’s needs rather than to punish

him or her for past behavior.

As noted above, at the time of a

juvenile’s entry into a drug court

program, many courts impose suspended periods of incarceration contingent on successful participation in

the drug court. As a sanction, shortterm incarceration is generally considered much more effective than

long-term incarceration.

The positive incentives that appear

most highly valued by drug court

participants, both juvenile and adult,

are a judge’s handshake and words of

encouragement and the accolades of

other drug court participants. Specially designed contracts between the

drug court and the participant provide both positive and negative reinforcements and help develop the

participant’s sense of accountability.

Some juvenile drug court programs

require participants to keep a daily

journal or maintain a “thinking log.”

One judge has a drug court library

from which all participants must read

and has designated a portion of the

courtroom wall for the display of artwork produced by the participating

juveniles. Although community service and mentoring programs may

not seem to be incentives, program

personnel agree that many juveniles

view them as incentives.

Program locus in the judicial

system process

Most juvenile drug courts are postadjudication programs—meaning

that they operate after a youth has

been adjudicated delinquent. A

postadjudication, rather than diversion, model is preferred by many because the court has more authority

after guilt has been established and

more options are available in the

event the youth fails to complete the

program. Nevertheless, the drug

court disposition process can include

suspending a sentence of commitment pending successful program

completion, deferring sentencing

pending ongoing reviews of the

juvenile’s program performance,

and/or dismissing the charge if the

youth successfully completes the

program.

Management and evaluation

The need to maintain adequate information on juvenile drug court participants and the overall operation of the
7

program is critical. This information

is particularly important for two

purposes:

■ Monitoring of participant progress

and compliance with drug court

conditions.

■ Evaluating the program to ensure

that it is operating as intended and

that the desired outcomes are being achieved.

The evaluation design should address

the following:

■ What problems will be addressed

by the juvenile drug court?

■ What are the expected outcomes

for the juvenile drug court?

■ What impact will the program

have on the juvenile, the family,

and the community?

■ What changes in policies, procedures, and services are needed to

implement the program?

Some juvenile drug courts have encountered difficulties integrating the

various databases (e.g., court, school,

public health, social services, law enforcement, treatment provider) that

contain essential information but are

frequently incompatible. Jurisdictions

that integrate existing information

systems for juvenile and family drug

court purposes must also comply

with Federal and State confidentiality

requirements. Many programs find

that the first step in developing useful information systems is to have

representatives of the key agencies

involved in the program identify the

critical data elements needed to make

decisions and measure outcomes.

These representatives must then determine how these data can be compiled, maintained, and accessed on

a regular basis.

Program Planning and

Implementation

To establish a juvenile drug court,

communities must complete the tasks

and address the critical issues discussed below.

Required Tasks

The tasks required to establish a juvenile drug court fall into the following

categories.

Assemble a planning team

The juvenile drug court planning team

should include a broad range of justice system, treatment, public health,

education, mental health, vocational,

and other community personnel who

can provide the foundation for the

services delivered by the program.

The planning team should meet frequently and regularly both before

and after launching the program.

During the planning process, many

jurisdictions designate a policy-level

planning/oversight committee consisting of policymakers from the critical agencies involved to develop program policies and procedures and to

meet periodically thereafter. Following program implementation, most

jurisdictions then designate a working committee to address the dayto-day operational aspects of the

program. A major task of the planning committee is developing links

among the essential agencies, which

will promote ongoing communication

and coordination.

Identify resources

Among the most critical tasks the

planning committee must perform is

identifying resources necessary to

implement the juvenile drug court

program. These resources should include substance abuse treatment and

mental health services, related community support services (e.g., housing, parenting skills, medical services,

transportation), case management,

and supervision and related staff resources. Additional resources may

include an array of supporting skillsbuilding services—which must be

developmentally based, culturally

competent, and gender specific—

designed to enhance participants’

competencies, self-esteem, and skills

and promote their capacity to live

drug and alcohol free. These services

include tutoring, vocational training,

mentoring, recreational opportunities, and literacy development.

Goals of the Juvenile Drug Court

■ Provide immediate intervention, treatment, and structure in the lives of

juveniles using drugs through the ongoing, active oversight and monitoring

by the drug court judge.

■ Improve juveniles’ level of functioning in their environment, address 

problems that may be contributing to their use of drugs, and develop/

strengthen their ability to lead crime- and drug-free lives.

■ Provide juveniles with skills that will aid them in leading productive 

substance-free and crime-free lives, including skills relating to their educational development, sense of self-worth, and capacity to develop positive

relationships in the community (see Roberts, Brophy, and Cooper, 1997).

■ Strengthen the families of drug-involved youth by improving the capacity of

families to provide structure and guidance to their children.

■ Improve system capacity to promote accountability for both juvenile

offenders and the services they are provided.
8

Once jurisdictions identify the range

of services and resources needed to

support the juvenile drug court, local

officials can catalog and assess existing resources to determine the degree

to which they can support program

goals. This process will identify gaps

and areas where existing services

may require enhancement or

modification.

Develop procedures for drug

court program operation

Determining the operational procedures for the juvenile drug court program entails first reviewing the juvenile justice system’s caseflow process

(from arrest, through screening and

intake, to final court disposition). The

next step is to develop a series of hypothetical case studies that can demonstrate what modifications to the

traditional adjudication process may

be necessary to implement the juvenile drug court program. The newly

developed operational procedures

should include steps necessary to

develop the interagency relations,

agreements, and services that are fundamental to juvenile drug court program operations (e.g., screening and

assessment, case management, drug

testing, ongoing judicial supervision,

mental health services, family counseling, and educational service

components).

Develop program management

and monitoring capacity

As noted above, the planning process

should include developing the capacity to manage the program and monitor the performance of both individual participants and the overall

program. Officials involved in the

program’s operations should meet as

soon as possible to identify:

■ Information needed to manage the

program.

■ Program activities that should be

monitored on an ongoing basis.

■ Elements of participant performance that the program should

track, both continuously and

periodically.

Although an automated information

system may ultimately be necessary

to address these issues, local officials

should first identify the information

elements that need to be compiled on

an ongoing basis and the available

sources for these data.

Develop a program evaluation

plan

Developing an evaluation plan for the

program involves several critical

tasks, including:

■ Determining the questions necessary to establish whether the program is achieving its goals and

having the desired impact on participants, their families, the justice

system, the community, and agencies involved in the program.

■ Identifying data and sources of

data that are responsive to evaluation inquiries.

■ Developing the appropriate management information system for

these purposes.

The activities involved in developing

the program’s management and

monitoring capabilities, described

above, are critical to developing

evaluation capability.4

Delineate key roles and

responsibilities for operating

the program

The planning committee needs to define the key roles and responsibilities

of the drug court team. This entails

defining the roles and responsibilities

of each team member and outlining

team members’ functions and interrelationships in the drug court setting.

Develop and maintain

community support

Drug courts—juvenile drug courts in

particular—rely on community support for their survival. Upon establishing the feasibility of developing a

juvenile drug court, the planning

committee should clearly explain the

goals and services of the program to

all segments of the community and

establish mechanisms for ongoing

communication with the community.

In addition, the planning committee

Steps in Developing a Juvenile Drug Court

■ Identify program goals.

■ Develop the planning committee.

■ Identify target population.

■ Identify resources necessary to support the program.

■ Determine existing resources and gaps.

■ Develop procedures for program operation.

■ Develop program management and monitoring capacity.

■ Develop a plan for program evaluation.

■ Delineate the key roles and responsibilities for the drug court team.

■ Gain community support by involving a broad range of community organizations.

4 See Drug Courts Program Office, 1998, for more information on program evaluation.
9

should, on an ongoing basis, actively

seek out agencies, organizations, and

community volunteers that can contribute to the program. Among some

of the common community agencies

providing support to juvenile drug

courts are local parks and recreation

departments, arts centers, school systems and community colleges, chambers of commerce (which can provide

job banks and job training), YMCAs

(Young Men’s Christian Associations),

and YWCAs (Young Women’s Christian Associations).

Critical Issues

Most judicial system leaders who have

developed juvenile drug court programs have found that their perceptions of the complexity of factors surrounding juvenile substance abuse

that motivated them to develop juvenile drug courts are also presenting

the programs’ greatest challenges. The

initial period of juvenile drug court

operations has also brought to light a

number of other special issues that

were not readily apparent at the start.

Adequately assessing the

treatment and other needs of

juvenile drug court participants

The nature of juvenile drug court participants’ substance use and other

problems is complex, requiring the

provision of an array of family services, specialized treatment, and

other core adolescent services. Programs frequently report not only considerable substance use by youth but

significant percentages of participants

with mental health problems (particularly depression, fetal alcohol syndrome or effects, and learning disabilities) and physical problems (see

OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and

Technical Assistance Project, 2001). In

many instances, the nature and extent

of these problems do not become apparent until a juvenile has been involved in the program for some time.

Ongoing and updated assessments

are therefore critical.

Providing a broad spectrum of

family, treatment, skills-building,

and other core adolescent services

for participants

The initial experience of juvenile

drug courts strongly suggests that

services need to be family focused

and complemented by a sound program of other core adolescent services. In addition, individualized

treatment services often need to be

developed for participants. Programs

also must enable participants to develop the capacity and the selfconfidence to fill time previously devoted to drugs and crime with

productive activity, thereby increasing the likelihood that they will lead

drug- and crime-free lives.

A number of juvenile drug courts

have been adopting the Multisystemic Therapy (MST) approach,

which is designed to provide familybased treatment to reduce or eliminate the need for out-of-home placement. MST’s “family preservation”

model of service delivery is based on

the philosophy that the most effective strategy for helping substanceinvolved juvenile offenders is

through improving intrafamilial relations and assisting the family in providing the support structure that can

function during and after the period

of the court’s intervention. The MST

approach was developed in response

to the lack of scientifically proven,

cost-effective strategies designed to

treat adolescent substance abuse. Preliminary evaluation of MST programs

has indicated that, compared with

traditional service, MST has been significantly more effective in reducing

long-term rates of criminal behavior

and also is considerably less expensive. Additional evaluations now in

progress appear to corroborate these

results.

Adequately assessing and

addressing family needs

and problems

Most practitioners agree that drug

use by adults has a direct effect on the

children with whom the adults are in

contact, whether the contact occurs in

utero, in person, or by example or

other involvement. It is vital for juvenile drug courts to include in their

assessment process a review of possible substance use by a juvenile’s

family members to assess its potential

impact on the juvenile. Most juvenile

drug court practitioners observe a

high correlation between a juvenile’s

drug abuse and that of a parent or

other family member. It is unlikely,

therefore, that juvenile drug courts

will be able to deal with delinquency

issues without getting involved with

dependency issues—even if no formal dependency action is pending.

Conversely, if family issues are not

addressed, practitioners consider it

likely that the child will continue to

be involved with drugs and delinquent activity. The challenge for the

juvenile drug court is to fully assess

family needs and meaningfully engage the family in the court’s efforts

to address the needs of the juvenile to

the greatest extent feasible.

Involving parents of juvenile

drug court participants

Once the above assessment is completed, juvenile drug court judges

must determine how to engage parents and other family members in

supporting a juvenile’s participation

in the drug court program while also

addressing their child’s substance use

and related behavioral issues.

A number of juvenile drug court programs, for example, require parents

or other adults in the youth’s life to

participate in special parent groups

that provide both support and the opportunity to develop parenting skills.

Even if the court has the authority to
10

incarcerate or impose other sanctions

on noncompliant parents, it is unclear

whether such actions would help or

harm the parent-child relationship

and the drug court’s ability to achieve

its goals. Most juvenile drug court

judges are coming to realize that the

long-term effectiveness of programs

depends on their ability to achieve

parental cooperation with program

requirements through persuasion

rather than coercion. Parental incarceration or removal of a child from

the home is therefore generally

viewed as a last resort.

Some States require parents to participate in court proceedings involving

their children; in some States (e.g.,

Indiana), this requirement extends to

any adult living in a child’s household. In others, however, no clear authority compels parental participation. While most juvenile drug courts

are using existing legal authority to

compel parental participation, strategies for dealing with a truly noncompliant parent, such as appointment

of a guardian ad litem for the juvenile,

may need to be explored further on

a case-by-case basis.

One special issue relating to family

involvement and compliance that

many juvenile courts are addressing

is how to define “family.” A child’s

immediate family may not be nuclear;

it may include godparents, stepparents, other relatives, live-in friends of

parents, neighbors, or other caretakers. Juvenile drug court programs,

therefore, frequently find it necessary

to identify an adult figure in the

child’s life with whom the child can

work, recognizing that this adult figure may change during the period of

the court’s jurisdiction.

Some drug court programs use peer

groups of juveniles who are further

along in the juvenile drug court

process to reinforce positive family

forces and overcome negative ones.

Drug court programs, though focusing on family issues, also recognize

that some families may be unable to

provide meaningful support despite

the court’s best efforts. Juvenile drug

courts, therefore, must equip participants with life and coping skills and,

if necessary, strive to help them find

alternative adult role models.

Developing constructive

relationships with local schools

Most juvenile drug courts make a

special effort to develop a close relationship with local schools, as it is

in everyone’s best interest for participants to succeed in school. In a number of jurisdictions, school systems

that previously expelled students arrested for illicit substance use have

begun working with the court to keep

these youth in school. Schools also

have provided additional support

services for the juvenile drug court.

Jurisdictions are finding that the juvenile drug court program’s rigid supervision elements can benefit the

school system by reinforcing school

policies and providing a mechanism

for addressing school-related problems as soon as they occur. Because

juvenile drug court participants often

are not attending school at the time of

program entry, drug courts are making special efforts to develop relationships with local school systems to ensure that participants can reenroll and

obtain any special support services

deemed necessary.

The most recent information from

juvenile drug courts indicates that

more than 80 percent of participants

have returned to, or remained in,

school full-time as a result of program participation—a significantly

higher rate than would have been

expected if the juvenile drug court

program had not been established

(OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and

Technical Assistance Project, 2001).

Program’s Potential

Impact on Juvenile Justice

System Components

The implementation of a juvenile drug

court affects the operational activities

of existing justice system entities in

three principal ways: expediting the

timeframe within which various juvenile justice system functions are

performed, increasing the level of supervision provided for juvenile participants, and improving the level

and frequency of communication and

coordination among juvenile justice,

treatment, and other youth services

agencies. These impacts are particularly significant for the following

functions and entities involved in

the juvenile justice process.

Juvenile Intake

The intake function takes on special

significance for juvenile drug courts.

In addition to serving as the initial

point for obtaining background information on alleged juvenile offenders,

the juvenile intake process becomes

the essential screening point for identifying the treatment and related

needs of juvenile drug court participants. It is therefore essential that juvenile drug courts obtain comprehensive and relevant information at intake

to determine the nature and extent

ofthe juvenile’s involvement with

alcohol or other drugs and other collateral problems that need to be

addressed.

Juvenile Services

Juvenile drug courts must be capable

of promptly delivering an array of

services appropriate for each juvenile

offender. It may be necessary to enlarge the scope of services provided

to substance-involved juveniles to

include in-home family services,

skills-building opportunities, and

mental health services. The intensive
11

Exemplary Juvenile Drug Court Programs

With the rapid growth of juvenile drug courts, many exemplary programs are emerging. The seven programs listed below

illustrate the range of jurisdictions and environments in which juvenile drug court programs have been implemented.

Jurisdiction and Total Age Range Retention

Start Date Population Participants Male Female Rate* Contact

Escambia County 371,000 137 14–17 14–17 56% Hon. Edward Nickinson

Pensacola, FL 850–595–3910

4/95 Robin Wright

Drug Court Coordinator

850–595–3055

Las Cruces, NM 160,000 138 12–17 12–17 65% Hon. Tom Cornish

12/97 505–523–8240

Ann Wallace

Drug Court Coordinator

505–523–8287

Missoula County 85,669 63 13–18 15–17 69% Hon. John Larson

Missoula, MT 406–523–4773

10/96 Hon. Brenda Desmond

Drug Court Master

406–523–4773

Monroe County 100,000 200 13–18 13–18 72% Hon. Mark Jones

Key West, FL 305–292–3422

10/95 Betsy Smith

Drug Court Coordinator

305–292–3463

Orlando, FL 784,000 320 15–18 15–18 77% Hon. Jose Rodriguez

4/97 407–836–7590

Ken Allison

Drug Court Coordinator

407–522–2260

San Francisco, CA 723,959 132 14–17 14–17 57% Hon. Ina Gyrmant

11/97 415–551–5756

Margo Gibney

Drug Court Coordinator

415–753–4439

Santa Clara County 1,557,211 80 14–17 16–17 74% Hon. Eugene M. Hymen

San Jose, CA 408–299–3609

8/95 Carl Tademaru

Drug Court Coordinator

408–278–6156

*Retention rates may vary among jurisdictions, depending on the extent of substance involvement of the individual participants,

nature of other participant problems being addressed, and resources available to address them.
12

Drug Courts Program Office

In 1989, several communities began experimenting with an

approach to dealing with low-level drug offenses that differed from the approach of the traditional justice system,

which rarely provided substance abuse treatment to defendants in any systematic way and, in many cases, provided little or no threat of sanctions for continued drug

use. Local coalitions of judges, prosecutors, attorneys,

substance abuse treatment professionals, probation officers, community-based organizations, law enforcement

officials, and others began using the court to force abstinence from drugs and alter the behavior of substanceabusing offenders. This new approach—the drug court—

integrates substance abuse treatment, sanctions, and incentives with case processing to place nonviolent druginvolved defendants in judicially supervised rehabilitation

programs. As such, drug courts offer a way to eliminate

the revolving-door syndrome of drug offenders cycling in

and out of the juvenile and criminal justice systems.

In 1995, the Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO), under

the authority of the Assistant Attorney General, U.S.

Department of Justice, was established to make grants

available to States, State courts, local courts, units of local

government, and tribal governments for the development

and formation of drug courts.1

Grant Program

The Drug Court Grant Program is a competitive, discretionary grant program designed to help communities plan,

implement, and enhance drug courts. From 1995 to 2000,

more than 275 drug courts became operational with

DCPO’s support. The grant program assists jurisdictions in

establishing programs that provide a multitude of services,

including (1) regular status hearings at which the supervising judicial official reviews the defendant’s progress,

(2) appropriate and specific responses to a defendant’s

compliance or noncompliance with program requirements, and (3) ongoing supervision through pretrial, probation, and other release programs.

Training and Technical Assistance

Drug courts require justice system and treatment professionals to step outside traditional practices and procedures to achieve a nonadversarial, problem-solving

approach to treating substance-abusing offenders. To

facilitate this process, DCPO supports training and

technical assistance to promote and support best practices in the development, implementation, evaluation, and

institutionalization of drug courts. DCPO enters into

partnerships with qualified organizations that have

expertise in the following areas:

■ Team building, goal setting, and action planning.

■ Substance abuse treatment and collateral services.

■ Cultural competency.

■ Court systems and case processing.

■ Evaluation.

■ Automated management information systems.

■ Drug testing.

■ Case management.

■ Juvenile, tribal, and driving-under-the-influence

drug courts.

Resources

The following DCPO publications can be obtained by

contacting the National Criminal Justice Reference

Service (NCJRS) at 800–851–3420 or visiting the NCJRS

Web site at www.ncjrs.org:

■ Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management

Information Systems. 1998. NCJ 171138.

■ Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. 1997. 

NCJ 165478.

■ Drug Testing in a Drug Court Environment: Common Issues

To Address. 2000. NCJ 181103.

■ Guideline for Drug Courts on Screening and Assessment.

1998. NCJ 171143.

■ The Interrelationship Between the Use of Alcohol and Other

Drugs: Summary Overview for Drug Court Practitioners.

1999. NCJ 178940.

■ Juvenile and Family Drug Courts: An Overview. 1998. 

NCJ 171139.

■ Looking at a Decade of Drug Courts. 1998. NCJ 171140.

■ Practical Guide for Applying Federal Confidentiality Laws to

Drug Court Operations. 1999. NCJ 176977.

1

 DCPO was created to implement and support title 1, subchapter XII–J of the Omnibus

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3796ii–3796ii8 (repealed).

Although the statute authorizing DCPO was repealed, the office has been receiving an

appropriation since 1995.
13

judicial oversight each case receives

requires the juvenile drug court program to be structured in a way that

will promote greater coordination of

and accountability for these services.

The Court

The frequency of review hearings for

juvenile drug court participants and

the coordinated service delivery and

supervision provided by the drug

court team significantly increase the

court’s contact with youthful offenders, thereby increasing the youth’s

accountability to the presiding judge.

It is essential to develop specialized

docketing and procedures for emergency hearings in the course of developing a drug court program.

Prosecutor’s Office

Juvenile drug courts require prosecutors to conduct early screening of delinquency cases. Screening generally

involves an assessment of the circumstances of the current charge, review

of the juvenile’s delinquent history

and background, cursory assessment

of the juvenile’s current social history,

and assessment of the juvenile’s substance abuse history. It also is advisable for the prosecutor to attend the

staffings before court and the periodic status hearings conducted for

the juvenile drug court participants.

Public Defender’s Office

If the juvenile offender is assigned

court-appointed counsel, juvenile

drug courts require the public defender’s office to (1) promptly consult

with eligible youth who need legal

advice before determining whether

such a program (if voluntary) is appropriate for them, (2) participate in

the precourt staffings process, and

(3) attend the staffings and court status hearings with the youth.

Potential Impact on

Accountability of

Youth Affected

Juvenile drug courts are intended to

promote greater behavioral accountability on the part of participants, resulting in an increased level of compliance with court-ordered conditions

of release. As a result of the intensive

supervision focused on the juvenile

participant and the close collaboration of the drug court team, the juvenile drug court can:

■ Respond immediately when a participant becomes involved in recidivist delinquent activity.

■ Respond immediately to subsequent substance use by the

participant.

■ Supervise the participant intensively.

■ Help the participant develop structure and accountability that can

benefit the participant during the

period of initial program participation and after the court’s jurisdiction terminates.

Although most juvenile drug courts

are still relatively new and remain in

the process of documenting the full

range of their impact, most have

demonstrated the following results

(see OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse

and Technical Assistance Project,

2001):

■ Substantial reductions in recidivism.

■ Substantial reductions in drug use,

as measured by the frequency of

positive urinalyses (compared with

urinalyses of a comparison group).

■ School progress of program participants, as measured by percentages of participants who remain in

school, return to school, or obtain

a general equivalency diploma

(GED).

■ Improved family functioning.

■ Development of participants’ life

skills to promote their capacity to

live crime and drug free.

Conclusion

This Bulletin has shared the experiences and perspectives of practitioners who have developed and

implemented juvenile drug court

programs and has detailed critical

components that may help the juvenile justice system hold offenders accountable through juvenile drug

court programs. Juvenile drug courts

are relatively new, however, and no

significant, long-term results are currently available.

Juvenile drug court judges anecdotally report that these programs are

able to achieve greater accountability

and provide a broader array of treatment and other services to youth and

their families than traditional juvenile

courts. Initial analyses of juvenile

drug court program operations are

demonstrating remarkable rehabilitation of youth who were assessed to be

at high risk of continued, escalating

delinquent involvement and illicit

substance use. Measured by indicators such as recidivism, drug use, and

educational achievement, juvenile

drug courts appear to hold significant

promise.

Beyond the judicial reports, all other

professional personnel involved with

these programs agree that juvenile

drug courts exercise more intensive

supervision over juvenile offenders

than do traditional juvenile courts. It

is believed that the rigorous monitoring of participants and the treatment

and rehabilitation requirements of juvenile drug court programs promote a

greater likelihood of success in reducing drug use and delinquent activity

than can be achieved through most

existing juvenile court processes.
14

Resources

Technical Assistance

Resources

Drug Courts Program Office

Office of Justice Programs

U.S. Department of Justice

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

202–616–5001

202–514–6452 (fax)

Internet: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/dcpo

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

Office of Justice Programs

U.S. Department of Justice

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

202–307–5911

202–307–2093 (fax)

Internet: www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org

Development Services Group, Inc.

7315 Wisconsin Avenue

Suite 700E

Bethesda, MD 20814

877–465–2424

301–951–3324 (fax)

Internet: www.dsgonline.com

OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse

and Technical Assistance

Project

Justice Programs Office, School of

Public Affairs

American University

Brandywine Building, Suite 100

4400 Massachusetts Avenue NW.

Washington, DC 20016–8159

202–885–2875

202–885–2885 (fax)

Internet: www.american.edu/justice

National Council of Juvenile and

Family Court Judges

P.O. Box 8970

Reno, NV 89507

775–784–1663

775–784–6628 (fax)

Internet: www.ncjfcj.unr.edu

National Association of Drug

Court Professionals

901 North Pitt Street, Suite 370

Alexandria, VA 22314

703–706–0576

703–706–0577 (fax)

Internet: www.nadcp.org

Institute on Family and

Neighborhood Life

Clemson University

158 Poole Agricultural Center

Clemson, SC 29634–0132

864–656–6271

864–656–6281 (fax)

Internet: virtual.clemson.edu/

groups/ifnl

Other Resources

Center for Substance Abuse

Treatment

Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration

Rockwall II

Suite 615

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

301–443–5700

301–443–8751

Internet: www.samhsa.gov/centers/

csat/csat.html

Join Together

441 Stuart Street

Seventh Floor

Boston, MA 02116

617–437–1500

617–437–9394 (fax)

Internet: www.jointogether.org

Journal of Adolescent Health

Division of Adolescent Medicine

Stanford University School of

Medicine

750 Welch Road, Suite 325

Mailcode 5731

Palo Alto, CA 94304

650–725–8293

650–725–8347 (fax)

Internet: www.elsevier.com/locate/

jahonline

Juvenile Justice Center

American Bar Association

740 15th Street NW.

10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005

202–662–1506

202–662–1501 (fax)

Internet: www.abanet.org/crimjust/

juvjus

National Center for Juvenile

Justice

710 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3000

Pittsburgh, PA 15219–3000

412–227–6950

412–227–6955 (fax)

Internet: www.ncjj.org

National Criminal Justice

Reference Service

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–851–3420

301–519–5500

301–519–5212 (fax)

Internet: www.ncjrs.org

Bibliography

Henggeler, S.W. 1997. Treating Serious

Anti-Social Behavior in Youth: The MST

Approach. Bulletin. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

McGee, C., Merrigan, T., Parnham, J.,

and Smith, M.O. 2000 (Revised from

1998). Applying Drug Court Concepts to

the Juvenile and Family Court Environments: A Primer for Judges, edited by

C.S. Cooper. Washington, DC: American University, State Justice Institute,

and U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Drug Courts

Program Office.

McPhail, M.W., and Wiest, B.M. 1995.

Combining Alcohol and Other Drug

Abuse Treatment With Diversion for

Juveniles in the Justice System. Treatment Improvement Protocol Series

21. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Substance Abuse
15

and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse

Treatment.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1998. Juvenile

Accountability Incentive Block Grants

Program. Program Announcement.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and

Technical Assistance Project. 1998.

Juvenile and Family Drug Courts: Profile

of Operational Characteristics and Implementation Issues. Washington, DC:

American University, School of Public

Affairs, OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse

and Technical Assistance Project.

Sherin, K.M., and Mahoney, B. 1996.

Treatment Drug Courts: Integrating

Substance Abuse Treatment With Legal

Processing. Treatment Improvement

Protocol Series 23. Rockville, MD:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,

Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration, Center for

Substance Abuse Treatment.

Winters, J.C. 1999a. Screening and Assessing Adolescents for Substance Use

Disorders. Treatment Improvement

Protocol Series 31. Rockville, MD:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,

Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration, Center for

Substance Abuse Treatment.

Winters, J.C. 1999b. Treatment of Adolescents With Substance Use Disorders.

Treatment Improvement Protocol Series 32. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Public Health Service, Substance

Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration, Center for Substance

Abuse Treatment.

References

Drug Courts Program Office. 1998.

Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and

Management Information Systems.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Drug Courts Program Office.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1998. Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program: Guidance Manual, FY 1998.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and

Technical Assistance Project. 1999

(June). Juvenile and Family Drug Courts:

An Overview. Washington, DC: American University, School of Public Affairs, OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse

and Technical Assistance Project. Retrieved from the Web: www.american.

edu/spa/justice/publications/

juvoverview.htm.

Acknowledgments

Caroline S. Cooper is Associate Director of the Justice Programs Office,

School of Public Affairs, American University, Washington, DC, and Director

of the OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. The

Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of

Justice, contributed to the review and preparation of this Bulletin.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the author and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and

Technical Assistance Project. 2001.

Juvenile Drug Court Activity Update.

Washington, DC: American University, School of Public Affairs, OJP

Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project.

Roberts, M., Brophy, J., and Cooper,

C. 1997. The Juvenile Drug Court Movement. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected.

We encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint,

please cite OJJDP and the author of this Bulletin. We are also interested in

your feedback, such as how you received a copy, how you intend to use the

information, and how OJJDP materials meet your individual or agency

needs. Please direct your comments and questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5600 (fax)

E-Mail: tellncjrs@ncjrs.org
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

NCJ 184744

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300