Public
Policy Center > Community
Program > Mini-Policy Forum Briefs
Drug Court as Diversion for Youthful Offenders
Juvenile
Drug Courts in Hawai`i: A Policy Brief
Introduction
. The problem of drug abuse among the
general population in the United States began to escalate
in the 1980s with the crack cocaine epidemic. The impact of
this epidemic not only affected the social welfare and the
health of these individuals and their families; but impacted
on the criminal justice system as well. Arrests, prosecutions,
and incarceration of drug offenders dramatically increased
and severely strained the courts, jails and prisons. In an
effort to address this problem, the concepts of therapeutic
jurisprudence were developed ö that justice and treatment
practitioners have the same goals for substance abusers. Out
of this partnership the drug court concepts were conceived,
formulated and implemented.
Although the increase in alcohol and drug use among juveniles
peaked later than the adult population, by 2000 half of the
students reported alcohol use, more than one-fourth of high
school students were marijuana users, 9.5 percent had used
cocaine by the end of high school, and 14.6 percent had used
inhalants. Because there is strong evidence of an association
between alcohol and drug use and delinquent behavior of juveniles,
it is not surprising that the number of juvenile drug offense
cases processed during 1995 was 145 percent greater than 1991
(U.S. Department of Justice, 2003).
Juvenile court judges found that dealing with substance abusing
juveniles within the traditional court systems often meant
long waiting lists for treatment, disjointed service delivery,
lack of family engagement, and no input into the nature or
extent of treatment. Consequently, in the mid-1990s innovative
juvenile courts started the drug court dockets that focused
on the problems of substance abuse among juveniles.
Building on the success of adult drug courts, juvenile courts
have emerged as a promising model for addressing the multiple
problems of drug-involved youths. In general, juvenile drug
courts share many of the attributes of the adult drug court
model; however differ in significant ways. In a juvenile drug
court the drug addiction is not the focus ö prevention of
addiction is addressed. Participants also confront other related
problems including chronic truancy, underachievement in school,
family conflict, gang involvement, and delinquency (U.S. Department
of Justice, 2003). Currently in Hawai`i, there is one Juvenile
Drug Court operating in Honolulu County and one being planned
for the Kailua-Kona District in Hawai`i County (American University,
2003).
Philosophy
of Juvenile Drug Courts. The mission
of the Hawai`i Juvenile Drug Court (JDC) is to reduce the
harm in the community by providing comprehensive treatment
opportunities to adolescents. The current program looks specifically
at the child offenders. While it is the child that the program
seeks to help by engaging the client in a drug abuse intervention,
it cannot be understated that one of the ulterior motives
of the program is to help stem the rising tide of Hawa`i's
burgeoning incarcerated population. The Family Courts in Hawai`i
currently have over 5,000 adolescents on probation; thereby
overloading the probation officers who serve these adolescents.
Often these juveniles with major drug problems are not in
treatment and continue to re-offend until they end up in prison.
Of the 5,000 adolescents in Hawai`i that need treatment, about
1,500 will receive any kind of treatment. (M.R. Browning,
Esq., personal communication, October 15 th , 2003).
The JDC program is
an abstinence based model and accepts relapse as part of the
recovery process. The JDC program gives the juveniles the
opportunity to be part of the treatment team by giving them
the chance to be responsible for their own choices in having
a part in their recovery. The program encourages life changes
instead of allowing the juvenile to get around the court process.
Juvenile Drug Court participants undergo long-term treatment
and counseling, sanctions, incentives, and frequent court
appearances. Successful completion of the treatment program
results in dismissal of the charges, reduced or set aside
sentences, lesser penalties, or a combination of these sanctions.
Most importantly, graduating participants gain the necessary
tools to rebuild their lives. Some professionals within the
field have stressed that the JDC program should take a Multi-Systemic
Therapy (MST) view in treating these adolescents. MST is a
family/home based program that supervises parents in helping
them to better monitor and communicate with their children.
MST has been successfully used in drug treatment programs
previously, but due to budget restrictions, this therapy is
not currently part of the JDC program in Hawai`i. (G. Chung,
personal communication, October 15 th , 2003).
When providing treatment
to the adolescent, the program relies on a large group of
professionals to holistically address the problem together.
The problems of drug abuse and crime are too broad for any
single agency to tackle alone, drug courts rely on the daily
communication and cooperation of the judges, court personnel,
probation officers, and treatment providers. Most providers
stress the importance of having parent/guardian involvement
in the JDC program. It requires parents of a drug abusing
teen to refrain from using alcohol or drugs in the house,
and the judge may also require the parents to undergo treatment
if there are substance abuse issues. Family therapy is another
component of this holistic approach that enables the parents
to receive support and training on how to better structure
the home environment to help their child. In terms of making
parents responsible for their child's progress, the drug court
supports and encourages parents, sometimes threatened with
jail time, or removal of their children by the Child Protective
Services system in order for parents to make changes that
will benefit the lives of their children. Parents have to
engage in weekly hearings at court with the judge, which enables
the court to monitor the parent's progress.
Because the drug court
is so new, and Hawai`i JDC has graduated only 13 individuals,
the issue of cultural sensitivity has not yet been explored.
It will undoubtedly become an issue that will need to be addressed
as the program expands.
Processes
of the Juvenile Drug Courts in Hawai` i.
The mission of the Juvenile Drug Court (JDC) is ãto reduce
substance abuse and criminal behavior among juveniles and
empower juveniles and families to support a positive lifestyle
by providing strength-based intensive intervention and rehabilitation
services tailored to the needs of families and each individual
juvenile.ä (Seventh Judicial District-Juvenile Drug Court,
2001). The JDC will focus on gender specific, culturally competent
judicial treatment services in a warm environmental setting
in order to help juveniles overcome problems with substance
abuse.
The juveniles are referred by Family Court, prosecutor and
public defender's offices, the police, the Health Department
and other agencies. Previously these juveniles would be put
on probation and ordered into outpatient or residential substance
abuse counseling with infrequent checks, this program is much
more intensive. One of the major requirements is that an adult
participates with them at every level: the individualized
drug treatment programs, family counseling, the sanctions
and incentives, and appearances before the judge.
There are four phases in the JDC program. The initial phases
of the Juvenile Drug Court intervention are intensive, gradually
transitioning into less intensive intervention as the participant
progresses. The four phases are:
• Phase
I ö Stabilization, Orientation, Assessment and Family Intervention
• Phase
II ö Family Treatment Focused on Sobriety, Self-Esteem, and
Improved Family Communications
• Phase
III ö Transition Focused on Peer Relationships, Decision Making,
and Educational/Vocational Issues
• Phase
IV ö Aftercare .
Throughout the program,
participants are linked with appropriate specialized and supplementary
services. The court may also impose additional requirements
(Seventh Judicial District-Juvenile Drug Court, 2001). Parents,
probation officers, public defenders, therapists and the judge
randomly and frequently monitor the participants in the eight-month
Juvenile Drug Court program. A participant may be discharged
from the program if he/she is a habitual offender of the JDC
rules and regulations. The most serious violation, a new arrest,
does not automatically terminate a participant from the program. If
the charge is of a violent nature, and the state files the
charge, the program participation will be terminated and referred
to the prosecutor's office.
In order to complete
the Juvenile Drug Court Program juveniles must complete all
four phases of the program (refer to previous section), participate
in the program for no less than 11 months, complete court
sanctions, and achieve program goals (vocational and educational).
The average length of time for completion of the Juvenile
Drug Court Program is 15 months. Forty juveniles have
participated in the Drug Court Program since its opening two
years ago. Of the 40 juveniles, 13 juveniles graduated, 13
juveniles were terminated, and 5-6 more juveniles are expected
to graduate in November 2003.
After a juvenile completes
the Juvenile Drug Court program, an evaluator from the judiciary
court tracks his/her progress for 16 months. In other states,
an aftercare program is put into place for Juvenile Drug Court
graduates. Aftercare can be defined as, ãre-integrative
services that prepare out-of-home placed juveniles for reentry
into the community by establishing the necessary collaborative
arrangements with the community to ensure the delivery of
prescribed services and supervision.ä (Gies, 2003).
The Hawai`i Juvenile
Drug Court Program has received $900,000 in federal block
grants from the U.S. Department of Justice to provide services
for juveniles with substance abuse problems (Shapiro, 2001).
Unfortunately, there are no financial incentives for
success available for the Juvenile Drug Court Program.
Evaluation
. The retention rate for this type
of program ranges between 65 and 85 percent depending on what
individual program is examined ( Drug Court Clearinghouse
and Technical Assistance Project, 1999). Estimates by the
Office of National Drug Control (2003) state that recidivism
rates are as low as 16 percent one year after completion of
the program and 27 percent after two years; this is less than
half the percentage of those incarcerated for drug offenses.
Encouragement, intensive treatment, and supervision are three
key factors to drug court success rates (An Honest Chance,
2002). Indicators show that approximately 80 percent of drug
court participants nation wide either return to or continue
full time school, a considerably larger number than for non-participants,
and this is due the emphasis the drug court programs puts
on developing and maintaining constructive relationships with
local schools (U.S. Department of Justice, 2001). Alternatives
to the drug court exist in the form of substance abuse treatment
programs, family counseling, family services, and of course
imprisonment in juvenile correction facilities, but none have
shown the same success rate as the drug court programs (U.S.
Department of Justice, 2001).
There are a few policies
changes that have recently taken place which have impacted
the Hawai`i Juvenile Drug Court. According to the National
Conference of State Legislatures (2003), legislation enacted
in Hawai`i in 2001 established a diversion program for adult
drug offenders. This set the stage for a similar program involving
adolescent offenders. Additionally, listed in the Juvenile
Justice Enactments, 2003, is the Hawai`i Bill (HB 1022). This
bill authorizes the court to expunge a juvenile arrest record
once the juvenile has become an adult if the juvenile was
counseled and released by the police (National Conference
of State Legislatures, 2003).
This law gives the
police the authority to work with a hands-on approach to their
community. Additionally, it allows the courts the discretion
to expunge the record of any adult who had a minor incident
with the law, as a juvenile. These policy changes appear to
be an effective way of curtailing a juvenile's criminal issues
during the preliminary phase and present as an intervention
to recidivism. These changes seem to be positive steps toward
dealing with juvenile drug offenders in a structured, therapeutic
manner.
Conclusion
. The increasing rates of substance use and
abuse among juveniles have had a tremendous impact on the
health and social welfare of these youths and their families.
With arrests, prosecutions, incarceration, and recidivism
increasing, the impact has also been felt by the criminal
justice system. To address these multi-system problems, the
concept of therapeutic jurisprudence was developed in the
form of Juvenile Drug Courts with a philosophy of prevention
of addiction, youth and family involvement to making life
changes, and a multi-systems holistic approach.
Hawai`i established its first Juvenile Drug Court in
2001 in which 40 youths and their families have participated
and 13 have graduated. Nationally, Juvenile Drug Courts have
been successful in that 80 percent of participants return
to school; however, the program in Hawai`i has yet to be evaluated
to determine recidivism of its participants or the long term
effectiveness of the program. It will be imperative
that the Juvenile Drug Courts be comprehensively evaluated
for effectiveness as a diversionary alternative as well as
for cost-effectiveness.
We believe, based on the early national results of the Juvenile
Drug Courts, that this type of therapeutic jurisprudence as
a diversion to incarceration should continue as a viable alternative
to providing our youths with a second chance to become productive
citizens.
References
American University
(2003, November 7 ). Summary of drug court activity by
state and county: Juvenile family drug courts . American
University, School of Public Affairs, OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse
and Technical Assistance Project. Washington DC: American
University.
An Honest Chance (2002).
Perspectives on drug courts. Retrieved November 28,
2003 from http://www.ncjrs.org/html/bja/honestchance/index.html
Drug Court Clearinghouse
and Technical Assistance Project (1999). Looking at a
decade of drug courts. Retrieved November 28, 2003 from
http://www.american.edu/academic.depts/spa/justice/publications/decade1.htm
Gies, S. (2003,
September 23). Aftercare services. Juvenile
Justice Bulletin . Retrieved October 10, 2003
from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/about/03juvjust/03923.html
National Conference of State Legislatures (2003, April 1). Health
policy tracking service issue brief summary: Drug courts and
diversion programs . Retrieved November 1, 2003 from http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/drugcourts.htm
Office of National
Drug Control (2003). Policy. Retrieved November 29,
2003 from
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/ndcs03/iiheal_amer_usr.html
Seventh Judicial District- Juvenile Drug Court. (2001). Copy
of juvenile drug court handbook. Bingham, ID: U.S. Seventh
Judicial District. Retrieved November 17, 2003 from http://www.bingham.id.us/Prosecutor
Shapiro, T. (2001, September 1). Court program monitors young
abusers of drugs. The Honolulu Star Bulletin . Retrieved
November 17, 2003 from http://starbulletin.com/2001/09/01/news/story5.html
U.S. Department of Justice (2001). Juvenile accountability
incentive block grants program.
|
