1. Key Moments in NADCP History B EST P RACTICES IN J UVENILE D RUG C OURTS B EST P RACTICES IN J UVENILE D RUG C OURTS D OUGLAS B. M ARLOWE, J.D., P H.D. C HIEF OF S CIENCE, L AW & P OLICY N ATIONAL A SSOCIATION OF D RUG C OURT P ROFESSIONALS

2. Key Moments in NADCP History What, if anything, works? What, if anything, works?Harmful Irrelevant Slightly helpful

3. Key Moments in NADCP History JDC Meta-Analysis JDC Meta-Analysis Mitchell et al., 2012 (Campbell Collaborative)

4. 50% ~ 48% no effect JDC Meta-Analysis JDC Meta-Analysis Mitchell et al., 2012 (Campbell Collaborative)

5. 50% ~ 48% 44% * 50% no effect small effect JDC Meta-Analysis JDC Meta-Analysis Mitchell et al., 2012 (Campbell Collaborative) Also no effect: Shaffer (2006) Shaffer (2006) Wilson et al. (2006) Wilson et al. (2006) Madell et al. (2012) Madell et al. (2012) Small effect (8%): Stein et al. (2015) Stein et al. (2015)

6. OJJDP Multisite Study OJJDP Multisite Study Sullivan et al., 2014

7. 60% 49% 49% OJJDP Multisite Study OJJDP Multisite Study Sullivan et al., 2014 *

8. 60% 49% 49% 33% 45% * Increased recidivism! OJJDP Multisite Study OJJDP Multisite Study Sullivan et al., 2014 *

9. Key Moments in NADCP History Fidelity to Best Practices 0% Latessa et al., 2013 (OJJDP Evaluation)

10. Key Moments in NADCP History Fidelity to Best Practices 22% 0% Latessa et al., 2013 (OJJDP Evaluation)

11. Key Moments in NADCP History Fidelity to Best Practices 44% 22% 0% Latessa et al., 2013 (OJJDP Evaluation)

12. Key Moments in NADCP History Fidelity to Best Practices 44% 22% 0% Latessa et al., 2013 (OJJDP Evaluation) 33% 77% deficient programs

13. Key Moments in NADCP History Teen Characteristics Latessa et al., 2013 (OJJDP Evaluation)

14. Key Moments in NADCP History Teen Characteristics 71% Latessa et al., 2013 (OJJDP Evaluation) Low need & variable (mixed) risk 40% 51% 26% 24% 32%

15. Key Moments in NADCP History Community Panels (not judges) Cook et al., 2009

16. Re-arrest rates Community Panels (not judges)

17. Cook et al., 2009 Re-arrest rates Community Panels (not judges)

18. Cook et al., 2009 Re-arrest rates Community Panels (not judges) 32%33% 35% No effect

19. Cook et al., 2009 Re-arrest rates Community Panels (not judges) 32%33% 35% 52%52%52% No effect

20. Cook et al., 2009 Re-arrest rates Community Panels (not judges) 32%33% 35% 75% 72% 69% 52%52%52% No effect

21. Key Moments in NADCP History Structre Twice the cost benefit } Adult Drug Courts Carey et al. (2012) Bi-weekly Status Hearings

22. Key Moments in NADCP History Structre Twice the cost benefit } Length of Interactions Carey et al. (2012) 43% 17% Two and a half times the reduction in crime }

23. Key Moments in NADCP History Positive Judicial Qualities Positive Judicial Qualities 3.6 * 0.7 # Crimes averted Rossman et al., 2011; Zweig et al., 2012 4.2 * * p <.05 * p <.05

24. Key Moments in NADCP History Family at Hearings Salvatore et al., 2010

25. Key Moments in NADCP History Family at Hearings Salvatore et al., 2010 49% 11% 12% 39% Family at approx. half of hearings

26. Key Moments in NADCP History Family at Hearings Salvatore et al., 2010 49% 11% 12% 39%

27. Key Moments in NADCP History Family at Hearings Salvatore et al., 2010 49% 11% 12% 39% 21% 26% No family for fifth of kids

28. Juvenile outcomesFamily attendance Absent from treatment-.38** Late to treatment-.33* Absent from school-.21 Late to school-.31* Positive drug screen-.26 † Received a sanction -.38** † p <.10; * p <.05; ** p <.01 (Salvatore et al., 2010) Family and Outcomes

29. n=32n=29 n=37 Henggeler et al., 2006 Days of Substance Use Per Month at 12-Month Follow-Up Family-Based Treatment

30. n=33n=31 n=37 p <.05 * Days of Substance Use Per Month at 12-Month Follow-Up 2.70 1.32 0.19 Family-Based Treatment Henggeler et al., 2006

31. Parental attendance at status hearings Parental attendance at treatment sessions Juvenile attendance at status hearings Juvenile attendance at treatment sessions Decreased peer delinquency Decreased peer drug activity Increased parental supervision Consistent parental supervision Decreased Delinquency Decreased Alcohol Use Decreased Marijuana Use Decreased Polydrug Use Essential Services Mediating Changes Outcomes Schaeffer et al., 2010 Mediators of FDC Success

32. Treatment Plan Goals Achieved Mentor Training (Miller et al., 2012) Specialized Training & Supervision of Mentors

33. * * p <.05 * Treatment Plan Goals Achieved 1.75 2.04 2.38 Mentor Training (Miller et al., 2012) Specialized Training & Supervision of Mentors 2.77

34. Treatment Plan Goals Achieved Mentoring Frequency (Miller et al., 2012) No. Mentor/Mentee Meetings per Month

35. * * p <.05 * Treatment Plan Goals Achieved 2.18 2.55 2.97 Mentoring Frequency (Miller et al., 2012) No. Mentor/Mentee Meetings per Month

36. Treatment Plan Goals Achieved Mentoring Intensity (Miller et al., 2012) Duration of Mentor/Mentee Meetings

37. Treatment Plan Goals Achieved Mentoring Intensity (Miller et al., 2012) Duration of Mentor/Mentee Meetings * * p <.05 * 2.24 2.44 2.92 2.67

38. Target high-risk & high-need teens (don’t mix!)Target high-risk & high-need teens (don’t mix!) Judge presides over frequent status hearingsJudge presides over frequent status hearings Family attendance in treatment and courtFamily attendance in treatment and court Reduce associations with delinquent peersReduce associations with delinquent peers Enhance guardian supervision of teensEnhance guardian supervision of teens Model consistent disciplinary practicesModel consistent disciplinary practices Reduce reliance on detentionReduce reliance on detention Professionally trained mentorsProfessionally trained mentors Best Practices