It is essential to learn as much as possible from justice interventions—even those that do not appear to be successful. Data came from a sample of youths participating in drug courts in nine sites across the United States and a comparison group of probationers (N = 1,372). Measures were drawn from case records. Path models with direct and indirect effects were analyzed. Aspects of the juvenile drug court process appear to heighten the likelihood of youth failure in the program and recidivism. The ratio of incentives to sanctions was protective as drug court youth who experienced more of the former had a reduced likelihood of recidivism. The article concludes that it is important to examine mechanisms that impact the success of justice interventions.
BelenkoS.DemboR. (2003). Treating adolescent substance abuse problems in the juvenile drug court. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 26, 87-110.
2.
BelenkoS.LoganT. K. (2003). Delivering more effective treatment to adolescents: Improving the juvenile drug court model. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 25, 189-211.
3.
BermanG.FoxA. (2010). Trial & error in criminal justice reform: Learning from failure. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
4.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation (User Report 2007-06). Ottawa, Ontario: Public Safety Canada.
5.
ButtsJ. A.RomanJ. (2004). Juvenile drug courts and teen substance abuse. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
6.
ButtsJ. A.RomanJ.RossmanS. B.HarrellA. V. (2004). Shaping the next generation of juvenile drug court evaluations. In ButtsJ. A.RomanJ. (Eds.), Juvenile drug courts and teen substance abuse (pp. 221-266). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
7.
ButtsJ. A.ZweigJ. M.MamalianC. (2004). Defining the mission of juvenile drug courts. In ButtsJ. A.RomanJ. (Eds.), Juvenile drug courts and teen substance abuse (pp. 137-184). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
8.
CaryP. L. (2011). The fundamentals of drug testing. In MarloweD. B.MeyerW. B. (Eds.), The drug court judicial benchbook (pp. 113-138). Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.
9.
CauffmanE.SteinbergL. (2012). Emerging findings from research on adolescent development and juvenile justice. Victims & Offenders, 7, 428-449.
10.
CooperC. S. (2001). Juvenile drug court programs (Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program Bulletin). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
11.
CooperC. S. (2002). Juvenile drug treatment courts in the United States: Initial lessons learned and issues being addressed. Substance Use & Misuse, 37, 1689-1722.
12.
DodgeK. A.DishionT. J.LansfordJ. E. (Eds.). (2007). Deviant peer influences in programs for youth: Problems and solutions. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
13.
FestingerD. S.MarloweD. B.LeeP. A.KirbyK. C.BovassoG.McLellanA. T. (2002). Status hearings in drug court: When more is less and less is more. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 68, 151-157.
14.
FrancoA.MalhotraN.SimonovitsG. (2014). Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science, 345, 1502-1504.
15.
GablerN. B.DuanN.LiaoD.ElmoreJ. G.GaniatsT. G.KravitzR. L. (2009). Dealing with heterogeneity of treatment effects: Is the literature up to the challenge?Trials, 10, 43-54.
16.
GattiU.TremblayR. E.VitaroF. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 50, 991-998.
17.
GendreauP. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In HarlandA. (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
GendreauP.AndrewsD. (2001). Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2000). Saint John: University of New Brunswick.
19.
GrahamJ. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549-576.
20.
HartwellS. (2004). Triple stigma: Persons with mental illness and substance abuse problems in the criminal justice system. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 15, 84-99.
21.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
22.
HedströmP. (2005). Dissecting the social: On the principles of analytical sociology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
HoraP. F.SchmaW. G.RosenthalJ. (1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system’s response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review, 74, 439-538.
24.
LatessaE. J.SullivanC.BlairL.SullivanC. J.SmithP. (2013). Final report: Outcome and process evaluation of juvenile drug courts (Technical Report). Cincinnati, OH: Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati.
25.
LaubJ.SampsonR. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
LesterD.BraswellM.Van VoorhisP. (2007). Radical behavioral interventions. In Van VoorhisP.BraswellM.LesterD. (Eds.), Correctional counseling and rehabilitation (7th ed., pp. 61-83), New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis Group.
27.
LiaoT. F. (1994). Interpreting probability models: Logit, probit, and other generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
LipseyM. W. (1999). Can intervention rehabilitate serious delinquents?The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 564(1), 142-166.
29.
ListwanS. J.SundtJ. L.HolsingerA. M.LatessaE. J. (2003). The effect of drug court programming on recidivism: The Cincinnati experience. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 389-411.
LongJ. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
MacKinnonD. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
33.
MacKinnonD. P.DwyerJ. H. (1993). Estimating mediating effects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17, 144-158.
34.
MarloweD. B. (2012, September1-12). Behavior modification 101 for drug courts: Making the most of incentives and sanctions (Drug Court Practitioner Fact Sheet). Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.
35.
MarloweD. B.FestingerD. S.LeeP. A.SchepiseM. M.HazzardM. E. R.MerrillJ. C.. . . McLellanA. T. (2003). Are judicial status hearings a key component of drug court?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 141-162.
36.
MarloweD. B.KirbyK. C. (1999). Effective use of sanctions in drug courts: Lessons from behavioral research. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2, 1-31.
37.
McIntireR. L.LessengerJ. E.RoperG. F. (2007). The drug and alcohol testing process. In LessengerJ. E.RoperG. F. (Eds.), Drug courts: A new approach to treatment and rehabilitation (pp. 234-246). New York, NY: Springer.
38.
MitchellO.WisonD. B.EggersA.MacKenzieD. L. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 60-71.
39.
MoffittT. E. (2006). Life-course persistent versus adolescence-limited antisocial behavior. In CicchettiD.CohenD. J. (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology, risk, disorder, and adaptation (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 570-598). New York, NY: Wiley.
40.
MuthénB. O. (2004). Mplus technical appendices. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
41.
MuthénB. O.MuthénL. K. (2014). Mplus 7.0 user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
PetrosinoA. (2000). Mediators and moderators in the evaluation of programs for children: Current practice and agenda for improvement. Evaluation Review, 24, 47-72.
44.
RosenthalR. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641.
45.
RossmanS. B.ButtsJ. A.RomanJ.DeStefanoC.WhiteR. (2004). What juvenile drug courts do and how they do it. In ButtsJ. A.RomanJ. (Eds.), Juvenile drug courts and teen substance abuse (pp. 55-106). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
46.
RottmanD.CaseyP. (1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the emergence of problem-solving courts. National Institute of Justice Journal, 6, 12-19.
47.
RubinD. B. (2008). For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 2, 808-840.
SenjoS. R.LeipL. A. (2001). Testing and developing theory in Drug Court: A four-part logit model to predict program completion. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12, 66-87.
50.
ShafferD. K. (2006). Reconsidering drug court effectiveness: A meta-analytic review (Doctoral dissertation). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
51.
ShafferD. K. (2011). Looking inside the black box of drug courts: A meta-analytic review. Justice Quarterly, 28, 493-521.
52.
ShermanL. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 445-473.
53.
SloanJ. J.IIISmyklaJ. O. (2003). Juvenile drug courts: Understanding the importance of dimensional variability. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 13, 339-360.
54.
SpieglerM.GuevremontD. (1993). Contemporary behavior therapy. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole.
55.
SteinD. M.DeberardS.HomanK. (2013). Predicting success and failure in juvenile drug treatment court: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 44, 159-168.
56.
SteinbergL. (2014). Age of opportunity: Lessons from the new science of adolescence. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
57.
SullivanC. J.LatessaE. (2011). The coproduction of outcomes: An integrated assessment of youth and program effects on recidivism. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 9, 191-206.
58.
SullivanC. J.BlairL.LatessaE.SullivanC. C. (2016). Juvenile drug courts and recidivism: Results from a multisite outcome study. Justice Quarterly, 33, 291-318.
59.
SullivanC. J.PiqueroA. R.CullenF. T. (2012). Like before, but better: The lessons of developmental, life-course criminology for contemporary juvenile justice. Victims & Offenders, 7, 450-471.
60.
TeinJ. Y.SandlerI. N.MacKinnonD. P.WolchikS. A. (2004). How did it work? Who did it work for? Mediation in the context of a moderated prevention effect for children of divorce. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 617-624.
61.
WeissC. H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In ConnelJ. P.KubischA. C.SchorrL. B.WeissC. H. (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts (pp. 65-92). Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
62.
WelshB. C.SullivanC. J.OldsD. L. (2010). When early crime prevention goes to scale: A new look at the evidence. Prevention Science, 11, 115-125.
63.
WexlerD. (2000). Therapeutic jurisprudence: An overview. Thomas M. Cooley Law Review, 17, 125-134.
64.
WikströmP. (2008). In search of causes and explanations of crime. In KingR. D.WincupE. (Eds.), Doing research on crime and justice (2nd ed., pp. 117-139). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
65.
WilsonD. B.MitchellO.MacKenzieD. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459-487.
66.
WodahlE. J.GarlandB.CulhaneS. E.McCartyW. P. (2011). Utilizing behavioral interventions to improve supervision outcomes in community-based corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 386-405.
67.
WoodwardJ. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
