In the criminal justice system, problem-solving courts incorporate a therapeutic ideology to address a specific problem outside the traditional adversarial court. Drug courts are problem-solving courts for youth whose substance-abuse issues underlie criminal behavior. Youth typically enter into a contract with the drug court and agree to comply with treatment and supervision requirements. While each drug court is unique in its operations and eligibility criteria, these courts share similar programmatic characteristics. Drug courts typically involve a team of stakeholders (e.g., youth, guardian, judge, treatment provider, case manager, and probation officer). Components of the drug court model may include drug treatment; judicial monitoring; random drug testing; incentives, rewards, and sanctions; and progressive stages (e.g., less monitoring with compliance). Drug courts can be pre- or post-adjudication models and the length of the program may vary from 6 to 18 months.

In this analysis, drug court youth were diverted from the traditional court and instead were adjudicated in drug court. Youth in the comparison group were adjudicated in traditional juvenile court and received probation and treatment as usual services. Participants spent an average of seven months in drug court with a range of 6 to 16 months. Although risk level was not reported in the majority of studies, nearly all studies report that youth had some degree of prior involvement with the justice system. Among included studies that report demographics, 31% of participants were youth of color and 25% were female.

Key Terms

Court-involved youth: Youth who are processed through the juvenile justice system but who are not ordered to a period of confinement in a residential or correctional facility. This includes populations of arrested youth, diverted youth, charged youth, adjudicated youth, and youth on probation or formal supervision.

Youth in state institutions: Youth who are confined in a residential or correctional facility when they participate in the program.

Youth post-release: Youth who are returning to the community following a period of confinement in a residential or correctional facility and who participate in the program after release to the community.

 

^{^}WSIPP’s benefit-cost model does not monetize this outcome.

^{^^}WSIPP does not include this outcome when conducting benefit-cost analysis for this program.

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the program impacts measured in the research literature (for example, impacts on crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information on how we estimate effect sizes.

The effect size may be adjusted from the unadjusted effect size estimated in the meta-analysis. Historically, WSIPP adjusted effect sizes to some programs based on the methodological characteristics of the study. For programs reviewed in 2024 or later, we do not make additional adjustments, and we use the unadjusted effect size whenever we run a benefit-cost analysis.

Research shows the magnitude of effects may change over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments, which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured	Treatment age	Primary or secondary participant	No. of effect sizes	Treatment N	Effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE) used in the benefit-cost analysis						Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
					First time ES is estimated			Second time ES is estimated
					ES	SE	Age	ES	SE	Age	ES	p-value
Crime Any criminal conviction according to court records, sometimes measured through charges, arrests, incarceration, or self-report.	16	Primary	14	2784	-0.036	0.082	17	-0.036	0.082	25	-0.036	0.662
Alcohol use disorder^^ Clinical diagnosis of alcohol use disorder or symptoms measured on a validated scale.	16	Primary	1	31	-0.079	0.250	16	n/a	n/a	n/a	-0.079	0.751
Cannabis use disorder^^ Clinical diagnosis of cannabis use disorder or symptoms measured on a validated scale.	16	Primary	1	31	-0.144	0.250	16	n/a	n/a	n/a	-0.144	0.564
Problem alcohol use^^ Alcohol use reflecting problem behaviors (e.g., high frequency drinking, binge drinking, or drinking that has a high impact on daily life) for individuals who do not have an alcohol use disorder.	16	Primary	1	31	-0.015	0.250	16	n/a	n/a	n/a	-0.015	0.951
Drug-related offense^ Criminal offenses that are drug-related (e.g., illegal drug possession or drug trafficking).	16	Primary	3	759	0.061	0.334	17	n/a	n/a	n/a	0.061	0.856

Byrnes, E.C., & Hickert, A.O. (2004). Process and outcome evaluation of the third district juvenile drug court in Dona Ana County, New Mexico. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting.

Carey, S.M. (2004). Clackamas County Juvenile Drug Court outcome evaluation: Final report. Portland, OR: NPC Research.

Cook, M.D., Watson, L., & Stageberg, P. (2009). Statewide process and comparative outcomes study of 2003 Iowa adult and juvenile drug courts. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Human Rights.

Crumpton, D., Carey, S.m., Mackin, J.R., Finigan, M.W., Pukstas, K., Weller, J.M., Linhares, R., & Brekhus, J. (2006). Harford County juvenile drug court performance evaluation: Program, process, outcome and cost analysis. Portland, OR: NPC Research.

Henggeler, S.W., Halliday-Boykins, C.A., Cunningham, P.B., Randall, J., Shapiro, S.B, & Chapman, J.E. (2006). Juvenile drug court: Enhancing outcomes by integrating evidence-based treatments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(1), 42-54.

Hickert, A.O., Becker, E., Próspero, M., & Moleni, K. (2011). Impact of juvenile drug courts on drug use and criminal behavior. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 1(1), 60-77.

Kralstein, D. (2008) Evaluation of the Suffolk County Juvenile Treatment Court: Process and impact findings. New York NY: Center for Court Innovation.

Latessa, E.J., Shaffer, D.K., & Lowenkamp C. (2002). Outcome evaluation of Ohio’s drug court efforts: Final report. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research, Division of Criminal Justice.

LeGrice, L.N. (2004). Effectiveness of juvenile drug court on reducing delinquency. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(12), 4626A.

O'Connell, J.P., Nestlerode, E., & Miller, M.L. (1999). Evaluation of the Delaware juvenile drug court diversion program. Dover: State of Delaware Executive Department, Statistical Analysis Center.

Organizational Research Services (ORS). (2007). King County Juvenile Drug Court Program: Program evaluation. Seattle, WA: Organizational Research Services.

Parsons, B.V., Byrnes, E.C. (n.d.). Byrne evaluation partnership program: Final report. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, Social Research Institute.

Picard-Fritsche, S., & Kralstein, D. (2012). The Nassau juvenile treatment court: Program outcomes and impact evaluation. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

Sullivan, C.J., Blair, L., Latessa, E., & Sullivan, C.C. (2014). Juvenile drug courts and recidivism: Results from a multisite outcome study. Justice Quarterly, online publication doi: 10.1080/07418825.2014.908937.

110 FIFTH AVENUE SE, SUITE 214
P O BOX 40999
OLYMPIA, WA 98501