S

Juvenile Drug Courts (Part I): Creating a Phase Structure that Makes

Sense for Youth and Families

Sandra J. Altshuler, Ph.D., L.I.C.S.W.Spokane County Behavioral Health Therapeutic Courts

With thanks toJacqueline van Wormer, Ph.D.Washington State University

andNATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

This I Believe

I believe juvenile drug court teams and professionals are

strengthened, enlightened, and

reinvigorated when I provide valuable training, technical assistance, and

resources, which improves their knowledge level and ability to maintain fidelity to the preferred model,

which, in turn, may increase positive

outcomes for youth and families in their

community.

Learning Objectives

Participants will review briefly the need for diversion programs for juveniles and the research on Juvenile Drug Courts (JDCs).

Participants will review and discuss proper phase structures in JDCs.

Participants will learn about JDC Incentives and Sanctions that DO and DO NOT work to promote positive behavior change in youth.

Participants will learn about contingency management (CM) and its use in JDCs for adolescent’s substance abuse and use.

Participants will learn how to develop behavior and activity contracts.

S

Overview

Juvenile Drug Courts: Why and How

Why We Want to Use Alternatives

Probation/court monitoring, group homes, and correctional facilities have, at best, only modest favorable effects on subsequent recidivism. Some studies show negative effects (Lipsey and Cullen, 2007; Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, and Guckenburg, 2010).

Deterrence-oriented programs that focus on discipline, surveillance, or threat of punitive consequences (e.g., prison visitation Scared Straight–type programs, boot camps, and intensive probation supervision) have no effect on recidivism and may actually increase it (Lipsey, 2009).

Because…

“Therapeutic” programs oriented toward facilitating constructive behavior change have shown very

positive effects—even for serious offenders (Lipsey, 2009; Lipsey and Cullen, 2007; Lipsey and

Wilson, 1998).

Are juvenile drug courts effective?

7

Yes! But not always….

Depends on how (and if) they implement the model

Are juvenile drug courts effective?

Early research: Small samples and poor designs. Negative effects found by Hartmann &

Rhineberger (2003); No effects on recidivism found by Wright and

Clymer (2001); Anspach et al., (2003) Positive Findings:

Lutze & Mason (2007); Latessa et al (2002), Rodriguez & Webb (2004), Shaffer et al., (2008) Hickert (2010), Hennegeler (2006, 2012), NPC Research (2006, 2010)

Latessa report (2013) Meta-Analysis:

Null-findings for both Wilson et al (2006); Shaffer (2006)

Small effect size – Mitchell et al (2012)

National Academy of Science(2012)

Juvenile justice programs are more likely to have a positive impact when they:

Focus on high-risk offenders

Connect sound risk/needs assessment with the treatment approach taken

Use a clearly specific program rooted in a theory of how adolescents change

Are tailored to the particular offender, demonstrate program integrity,

Involve the adolescent’s family, and take into account community context

New Key Findings

To strengthen outcomes: Engage families

Attend court & active involvement Support group method Engage entire family in services if able

Adopt evidence-based treatment practices Utilize contingency-management procedures Evaluate and continually monitor team for

adherence to 16 Strategies in Practice. Follow the model!!

S

Creating a Responsive Phase

Structure:

Making it Make Sense

Can We Strengthen Our Court Sessions to Bring About Stronger Behavior Change?

What do youth behaviors look like during phase one?

How do you want them to look by phase four?

The Teenage Brain

It begins with the phase structure

Phase One

Phase Two

Phase Three

Phase requirements for youth and family should start out small, increase, and then decrease again after the youth work through

treatment and court related goals.

Phase I: setting the stage

Phase II: learning skills

Phase III: maintaining the change

Readiness and engagement

Involvement, stabilization

Reflection, enrichment

Focus on compliance Beyond compliance Maintain drug testing, court appearance

High level of structure Skill development Expanded development activities

Clarifying expectations, building trust

Completing assignments

Enriching community connections

Phase StructureSource: Betty Gurnell

The Four Steps in Addressing Problem

Behaviors

Identify (define) the targeted behavior

Identify (define) the current behavior

Identify (define) the desired behavior

Use small, achievable increments

Decision Matrix – Phase I

Behavior Incentives Sanctions

Attend school at least ?? out of 20 days

• Teacher signs attendance card each day present and acknowledges

•Small prize or coupon for each week with no absences

• After school study hall for each day absent over the limit to make up all missed work

Decision Matrix – Phase II

Behavior Incentives Sanctions

Attend regularly

Complete all assignments

•Select a book , notebook, pen after two weeks of success•Praise from teacher, family, court•Grades improve

•After school study hall to complete assignments (with help as needed)

Decision Matrix – Phase III

Behavior Incentives Sanctions

Attend regularly

Complete all assignments

Improve grades

•Praise from teacher, family, court for improvement•Certificate of achievement•Select school related gift: tuition, book

•Determine if tutor is needed

•Attend extra class or session for help

•Tighten curfew

What do we mean by individual responses?

Comprehensive Treatment Planning

Developmentally Appropriate

Services

Gender-Appropriate

Services

Cultural Competence

Focus on Strengths

Educational Linkages

Family Engagement

Goal-Oriented Incentives and

Sanctions

7 (Easy) Steps to Individualizing Your Juvenile Drug CourtStart with…

1. Screening and assessmentAnd

2. Use the results to drive case planningSo we can…

3. Emphasize individualized responses over generic, pre-determined requirementsWhich should help us…

4. Work with youth and families to provide input into the process (and get more buy-in)

And

5. Focus on strengthsAnd

6. Create lasting educational linkagesAnd

7. Develop individualized incentives and sanctions

Example of a Predetermined Phase One

  Court Appearance

 Requirements

Expected Duration

Phase I 1 per week 3 Individual sessions per week (one of which will be substituted for a family session – one per month)

2 Group sessions per week 3 AA meetings per week Random urinalysis, 2-3 per week Attend school daily / no referrals /

active participation Abide by court-ordered curfew Start a JournalFor advancement to Phase II – completion of all Phase I assignments and 60 days of consecutive, CLEAN urinalysis testing.

2 Months

Develop a structure that promotes individualized case

planning.   Court

Appearance Requirements

Expected Duration

Orientation

1 per week Youth/caregiver and team work to set goals and develop a treatment and case plan (based on the assessment) before the youth moves into Phase II (Engagement) As measured by # / % treatment /

case plans developed

Follow a random urinalysis, 2-3 per week As measured by # / % followed UA

schedule

Youth/caregiver and team work to set attainable school/work related goals As measured by # / % attainable

goals set

Based on completion of case plans and goals

Develop a structure that promotes individualized case planning.

  Court Appearance

 Requirements

Expected Duration

Engagement

1 per week Engage in treatment and case plan. Demonstrate progress, as measured by: # / % behavior contracts completed

based on treatment, case, and school plans

Engage in providing negative UAs according to the UA schedule• As measured by:

• # / % followed UA schedule• # / % dropping clean UAs

Engage in pro-social activities as approved by the JTDC team and self-selected by youth/caregivers. As measured by:

# / % pro-social activities attended

Consider using points or a token economy to measure progress, rather than a fixed duration of time.

Albuquerque, New Mexico

One of 12 Learning Collaborative sites funded by NCJFJC/OJJDP

Engaged in full application of 16 Strategies, use of data to drive program and adoption of standardized screening.

Entails intensive support to restructure program to align with best practices

Albuquerque, New Mexico

1st step: Surveyed youth re: what they wanted from the JDC

2nd step: To restructure phases to be more responsive to youth and families

Removed the “checklist” system and flipped to a reward system.

Youth earn points for various activities and earn their way out of a phase.

Example

Example

Points needed to phase: Move to Phase 2: 100 points Move to Phase 3: 70 points Move to Aftercare: 70 points Graduate from program: 40 points

Contact Information

Sandra J. Altshuler, Ph.D., L.I.C.S.W.Spokane County Superior Court1116 W. BroadwaySpokane WA 99203(509) 477 6355saltshuler@spokanecounty.org sandyaltshuler@gmail.com

Ncjfcj.org