1. Evaluating the impact of adding the reclaiming futures approach to juvenile treatment drug courts: Reclaiming Futures/Juvenile Drug Court Evaluation
Josephine Korchmaros, PhD
Southwest Institute for Research on Women University of Arizona
National Association of Drug Court Professionals Conference  July 15, 2013

2. Evaluation Team
University of Arizona’s Southwest Institute for Research on Women (SIROW)
Carnevale Associates, LLC
Chestnut Health Systems

3. Evaluation Overview
Multi-Site, four-year evaluation of the Juvenile Drug Court and Reclaiming Futures Initiative
Charged with evaluating the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the integration of the Juvenile Drug Court: Strategies in Practice and the Reclaiming Futures Models.

4. The Models Reclaiming Futures
Juvenile Drug Court: Strategies in Practice
1) Engage all stakeholders in creating an interdisciplinary, coordinated, and systemic approach to working with youth and their families. 2) Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants’ due process rights. 3) Define a target population and eligibility criteria that are aligned with the program’s goals and objectives. 4) Schedule frequent judicial reviews and be sensitive to the effect that court proceedings can have on youth and their families. 5) Establish a system for program monitoring and evaluation to maintain quality of service, assess program impact, and contribute to knowledge in the field. 6) Build partnerships with community organizations to expand the range of opportunities available to youth and their families. 7) Tailor interventions to the complex and varied needs of youth and their families. 8) Tailor treatment to the developmental needs of adolescents. 9) Design treatment to address the unique needs of each gender. 10) Create policies and procedures that are responsive to cultural differences and train personnel to be culturally competent. 11) Maintain a focus on the strengths of youth and their families during program planning and in every interaction between the court and those it serves. 12) Recognize and engage the family as a valued partner in all components of the program. 13) Coordinate with the school system to ensure that each participant enrolls. 14) Design drug testing to be frequent, random, and observed. Document testing policies and procedures in writing. 15) Respond to compliance and non-compliance with incentives and sanctions that are designed to reinforce or modify the behavior of youth and their families. 16) Establish a confidentiality policy and procedures that guard the privacy of the youth while allowing the drug court team to access key information.
1) Initial Screening 2) Initial Assessment 3)Service Coordination 4)Initiation 5)Engagement 6)Transition
1) All youth coming in to the jjs are screened for SU using a reputable tool
2) Those identified to have a poss SA problems assessed for AOD, indv & fam risks, needs, & strenghts. Using a reputable tool Measure severity and shape service plan.
3) Srvc plans desgined and coordinated by community teams, tx providers, po, etc-intervention plan should include AOD tx, educational services, include pro-social activites with assistance of natural helpers known to youth and family
4) Services should initiate with 14 days of assessment, monitered for inclusion of tx
5) Youth & families must be engaged in services. Engagement defined as 3 successful service contacts with 30 days of assessment, monitered for inclusion of tx
6) transition-described as completion of service plan and withdrawl of agency based services. Youth and families must be connected with long term supports-community resources & natural helpers.
What do you all think are advantages of implementing these two models? Of integrating tx into the jjs?
Later on we will ask you to brainstorm maybe some challenges in integrating these two models keep that in mind as we continue in our discussion

5. Objective 1: Assess the operations of Juvenile Drug Court/Reclaiming Futures models using established indices for performance, efficiencies and cost effectiveness
Critical factors to combining the models
System level effects that occurred by combining the models
Adaptations and modifications in integrating the models

6. Services provided Service recipients Who is missing
Objective 2: Improve the empirical knowledge base about Juvenile Drug Courts and the Reclaiming Futures Model.
Services provided
Service recipients
Who is missing

7. Approaches to keeping target population involved
Objective 3: Analyze the efficacy of combined efforts of Juvenile Drug Courts and the Reclaiming Futures Model.
Approaches to keeping target population involved
Interventions that support matching clients to services
System-level approaches, training, & resources associated with changes in services
Level and appropriateness of services related to client and program performance
Logic Model of the integrated models-compare all sites to it, to each other similarities & diff.
Q7 To what extent are some approaches more effective in reaching and keeping the target population involved or engaged
utilize sites original proposals & strategic plans to determine intended site population, screening procedures and eligibility criteria
Q8 -What system-level interventions would better support matching services to clients/participants
1) determine what community srvcs are available in area to support client needs, web search & assess site referrals
2)Determine what each site what tools assessments or other tools sites use to match clients to services if & how those are used.
3)individual case study of four staff member with regards to client matching-ability to match and if matching occurs.-
Q9-To what extent are different system-level approaches, training, and/or resources associated with changes in the services delivered
From sites gather informal-learning collaborative & formal training, from NPO & soon NCJFCJ trainings, coaches calls, TA. Resources-number of staff, client staff caseloads, examine diff & similarities in site-specific trainings and resources & w/in sites to describe relationship btwn training & resources & changes in service provision
Q10-How are changes in the level and appropriateness of services related to changes in client/participant and program performance? (CSAT RFP PG. 9 SITES COLLECTING PERFORMANCE MEASURES IN THE AREAS OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT AND DIRECT SERVICES)-GAIN items to describe client performance, examine recruitment, retention & F/U rates as additional indicators of program perf.

8. Individual Case Studies System/Organizational Case Studies
Objective 4: Conduct case studies using Administrative, Collaboration, and Quality Indices and the sixteen key elements of Juvenile Drug Courts
Individual Case Studies
System/Organizational Case Studies

9. Objective 5: Evaluate the potential for replication of these models
Cost-effectiveness of different approaches

10. Who Was Served Gender N Percent Male 381 76% Female 123 24%
Race/Ethnicity
African American\ Black 48
10%
Caucasian\White
163
32%
Hispanic
198
39%
Other 94
19%
Violence and Illegal Activity N
Percent
Past Year Acts of Physical Violence
352
70%
Any Illegal Activity - Past Year
387
77%
Current Juvenile Justice Involvement
490
97%
Internal and External Mental Health Problems N
Percent
Only External Mental Health Problems in Past Year
116
23%
Only Internal Mental Health Problems in Past Year 36 7%
Both External and Internal Mental Health Problems in Past Year
177
35%
Lifetime History of Victimization
333
66%

11. Who Was Served
Age of First Use
Years of Use
Severity of Use

12. Clients’ Program Status
Program Status Across Evaluation Sites
Program Status
Evaluation Site 1 2 3 4 5
All Sites
Positive Status
70%
90%
94%
60%
65%
73%
Still in Treatment
14%
20%
23% 1%
33%
21%
Discharged to Community
28% 9% 3%
25%
Transferred for Further Treatment
29%
26%
68%
38% 7%
31%
Negative Status 8% 4%
32%
17%
Status Unknown 2%
36%
10%

13. Questions?
Questions: For questions about this presentation or the National Cross-Site Evaluation, contact Monica Davis, Evaluation Coordinator at x211 or
Disclaimer: The development of this report is funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) through an interagency agreement with the Library of Congress – contract number LCFRD11C0007. The views expressed here are the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policies of OJJDP or the Library of Congress; nor does mention of trade names, commercial practices, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Acknowledgements: SIROW wishes to acknowledge the contributions of the evaluation sites and the evaluation partners, Chestnut Health Systems (CHS) and Carnevale Associates, LLC (CALLC) to this National Cross-Site Evaluation. In addition, SIROW is appreciative of support from the Library of Congress - Federal Research Division, OJJDP, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and the Reclaiming Futures National Program Office.
Individual Site Program Funding: Federal funding for these JDC/RF sites is provided by OJJDP and SAMHSA.
Suggested Citation: University of Arizona - Southwest Institute for Research on Women (July, 2013). Evaluating the Impact of Adding the Reclaiming Futures Approach to Juvenile Treatment Drug Courts: Reclaiming Futures/Juvenile Drug Court Evaluation. Paper presented at National Association of Drug Court Professionals 19th Annual Training Conference, Washington, DC.