Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluation Reports of Juvenile

Drug Court Programs: 2000 – Present

# Publication Bibliographic Information Focus of Study Population Studied Comparison Group

Date
1 March 31, Three-Year Annual Report: Bibb Co. (Georgia) Juvenile Program description; description of 96 youth who left program (53 n/a
2004 Drug Court Program participants; recidivism for 53 graduated; 43 terminated) plus 45
graduates and 43 youth terminated current participants
2 February Evaluation of the Kalamazoo County Juvenile Drug Reviewed 51 participants in Year 6 51 participants entering program in Control group established during
2004 Treatment Court Program: October 1, 2002 – of program, making comparisons, Year 6, comparing them where Year one continued to grow
September 30, 2003: Year 6. By David J. Hartmann, where applicable, with participants applicable with prior program during each year.
Ph.D. and Paul Gregory, M.A., Western Michigan during previous 5 years of program participants.
University operation.

3 March 2003 Summary Report of Virginia’s Drug Court Programs. Individuals in the Virginia drug 217 Virginians admitted to the felony Control group matched by age,
Office of the Supreme Court of Virginia and Virginia court program between November drug court program race, gender, educational level,
Department of Criminal Justice Services. Author 1995 and December 2002 were and offense history
Not Provided analyzed.

4 May 5, 2002 From Whether to How Drug Courts Work:
Retrospective Evaluation of Drug Courts in Clark
County (Las Vegas) and Multnomah County (Portland),
[Oregon]. John S. Goldkamp; Michael D. White;
Jennifer B. Robinson.
5 June 10, 2001 A Preliminary Outcome Evaluation of North Dakota’s
Juvenile Drug Court: Recidivism Analysis. Kevin M.
Thompson, Dept. of Sociology. North Dakota State
University. [two drug courts: E. Central Jud District and
NE Central Jud District]
6 2000 Beckham County Juvenile Drug Court: Phase II
Analysis and Evaluation. right, David. Clymer, Bob.
7 February Evaluation of the Orange County Juvenile Substance
1999 Abuse Treatment Court Program
Applegate, Brandon. Reuter, David. McCarthy, Bernard.
Santana, Shannon.
Study focuses primarily on
evaluating adult drug courts in
Portland, Oregon and Las Vegas,
Nevada but provides summary
review of Clark Co. Juvenile Drug
Court.
Outcome evaluation of participants
in juvenile drug courts in E. Central
Jud District and NE Central Jud
District
Beckham County Juvenile Drug
Court graduates were monitored at
6,12, and 18 months after
graduation.
Youths processed by the DC
Program with a follow-up evaluation
of 180 days
Studies all 145 juveniles entering the N/A
Clark Co., Nevada juvenile drug court
in 1999
32 Participants for at least two months Juveniles referred to court from
in juvenile drug courts in E. Central 1995 - 1997
Jud District and NE Central Jud
District for the period May 2000 –
May 2001
Beckham County Juvenile Drug Court Beckham County’s Graduated
graduates were monitored at 6, 12, and Sanctions Program graduates
18 months after graduation. were monitored at 6, 12, and 18
months after graduation.
100 juveniles were admitted to the N/A
drug court program between August
20, 1997 and October 31, 1998.

8 September 18, Evaluation of Maine’s Statewide Juvenile Drug 246 youth admitted to Maine’s 6 juvenile drug courts in Maine (York, Matched comparison group
2003 Treatment Court Program. Fourth Year Outcome Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Cumblerland, Androscoggin,
Evaluation Report. Donald F. Anspach, Andrew S. studied; Kennehbec, Penobscott and Sagadahoc
Ferguson, Laura L. Phillps. College of Arts and Cos.)
Sciences. University of Southern Maine

Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Juvenile Drug Court Programs: 2000 - present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project.
School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated. February 11, 2005
 Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluation Reports of Juvenile
Drug Court Programs: 2000 – Present

# Publication Bibliographic Information Focus of Study Population Studied Comparison Group

Date
9 March 1998 Evaluation of the Juvenile Drug Court Diversion Juveniles admitted into the diversion 144 juveniles were admitted into the 90 juveniles that had been
Program [New Castle County, Delaware] program in Delaware were Diversion Program in Summer 1997 arrested for misdemeanor drug
Miller, Marsha. Scocas, Evelyn. O’Connell, John. monitored during program possession in New Castle County
N/A treatment. during the first half of 1995.
Equivalent criminal histories were
accounted for.
10 December Evaluation of Virginia’s Drug Treatment Court Process and outcome study of 371 youth admitted to Virginia n/a
2004 Programs (Phase I). Office of the Executive Secretary, Virginia’s adult and juvenile drug juvenile drug courts
Supreme Court of Virginia courts

Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Juvenile Drug Court Programs: 2000 - present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project.
School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated. February 11, 2005
 Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluation Reports of Juvenile
Drug Court Programs: 2000 – Present

# Publication Methodology Recidivism Results Other Results System Impact

Date Re-Arrests/drug use Convictions Time Followed Cost/Benefit
1 March 31, Reviewed program 53 graduates: 14 1 graduate n/a Cost savings of $ 28,200.00 for pretrial
2004 information regarding (26%) rearrested, half (1.8%) detention costs that would have been
participant demographics, (7) for drug related convicted of a incurred until arraignment hearing. ($
drug use history, recidivism, offenses drug related 200 for 2 days x 141 participants)
and other info. 43 terminated: 24 offense; 5
rearrested (56%), 9 (11.6%) of those
for drug-related terminated were
offenses; convicted of a
drug related
offense
2 February Analyzed characteristics and For participants n/a Recidivism for participants following one
2004 performance of 52 youth who had been year similar to recidivism of probationer
who entered drug court in out of the control group – both declined
Year 6 of its operation, program for at significantly; considered to reflect greater
making comparisons, where least one year, likelihood of success predicted for
applicable, with participants there was a control group
of prior years decrease in the
total number of
adjudicated
crimes between
the pre-program
year (180), the
in-program
period (reduced
to 69 – 62%)),
and the post-
program year
(reduced to 54-
70%)
3 March 2003 N/A -12.5% DC N/A N/A N/A Recidivism rates for the
-55.6% Control individual drug courts are shown.
Recidivism is defined
as re-arrest.

4 May 5, 2002 -tracked rearrests of 2/3 of youth N/A 12 months

juveniles during 12 months rearrested for new following
following their enrollment offense within 12 enrollment
months of program
enrollment

Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Juvenile Drug Court Programs: 2000 - present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project.
School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated. February 11, 2005
 Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluation Reports of Juvenile
Drug Court Programs: 2000 – Present

# Publication Methodology Recidivism Results Other Results System Impact

Date Re-Arrests/drug use Convictions Time Followed Cost/Benefit
5 June 10, 2001 Tracked recidivism for 32 16% of juv. Drug 12 months Also found that recidivism rate of juv Separate report addresses impact
participants enrolled in two court partics following drug court participants was 19% lower of program participation on
juvenile drug courts for at recidivated within enrollment (for than recidivism rate of juveniles referred school achievement (August 12,
least two months for a one one year compared participants with for first time alcohol violation (2,016 2002), which noted: (1) average
year period with 57% of a minimum of 2 during 1995-97 period), although juv GPA increased from 1.78 to 2.08
comparison group months drug court participants had average of 3+ in two quarters of participation;
participation) prior referrals, and significantly lower class periods missed reduced from
than recidivism rates for 112 juveniles for 73 to 53; and many qualitative
first offense drug charges; no significant improvements, including one
differences for program completers vs. student elected to student council;
noncompleters though only 11 graduates one achieved perfect grade point
at the time of the study. average; another increased very
low ACT score to 82nd percentile;
and a few considering or going to
college
6 2000 N/A 6 months N/A 6 months, 12 N/A N/A
-33% DC months, and 18
-33% Comp. months
12 months
-44% DC
-33% Comp.
18 months
-55% DC
-55% Comp.
- Recidivism was
measured as re-arrest.
7 February Individuals were compared 180 days N/A 180 days - Weakness in case processing- slow and N/A
1999 within the program using -15% overall understaffed.
different variables in order to -11% graduates - 82% of graduates had “improved rate of
draw conclusions. -21% non-graduates functioning”
Recidivism defined
as re-arrest.

Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Juvenile Drug Court Programs: 2000 - present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project.
School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated. February 11, 2005
 Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluation Reports of Juvenile
# Publication Methodology
Date
8 November 3, Traced 246 youth admitted
2003 to Maine’s juvenile Drug
Court and compared to
matched comparison group,
resulting in study of 105
drug court participants; 30
graduates; and 105
comparison groups
9 March 1998 - Initial non-compliance did
not result in termination
from the program.
- Non-compliance during the
program was analyzed only.
10 December Review of drug court info
2004 and post program rearrest
info
Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Juvenile Drug Court Programs: 2000 - present. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project.
School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated. February 11, 2005
Drug Court Programs: 2000 – Present
Recidivism Results Other Results System Impact
Re-Arrests/drug use Convictions Time Followed Cost/Benefit
Fewer Juvenile drug Rate of in-program positive drug tests for Cost of juvenile drug court is$
curt participants juvenile drug court participants was 23.83/day ,; cost for 64
arrested than control lower (24%) than rate of positive drug participants was “$ 853,379
group and graduates tests for other youth in Maine’s cjs compared with 760,161 for
least likely to re- system (35%) traditional adjudication (93,218
offend; juvenile drug more for the juvenile drug court
court participants less Participants who are more frequently BUT if increased to 90 clients,
likely than control tested have lower rates of positive drug would be 44,877 less for the drug
group to be rearrested tests court (1,207,579) than traditional
for alcohol or drug process (1,252,456)
related offenses, or
for felonies or violent
crime
During Treatment N/A During Marijuana was the drug of choice. N/A
-21% DTC treatment, 6,9,
-30% Comp. and 12 months
- Recidivism is after treatment
defined as a new
arrest.
Average statewide n/a n/a Significantly lower recidivism for n/a
recidivism rates of juvenile drug court participants if they
juvenile drug court complete the treatment program and
graduates is 12.6% graduate
(felonies) and 12.6%
(Misdemeanors).
Average statewide
recidivism rates of
juvenile
nongraudates (those
who withdrew or
were expelled from
the programs) is
26.9% (felony) and
11.9%
(misdemeanor).