The Impact of Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts on Substance Use, Mental Health, and Recidivism: Results from a Multisite Experimental Evaluation.

Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts (JDTC) emerged in the mid-1990s as a potential solution to concern about substance use among youth in the juvenile justice system (JJS). Despite substantial research, findings on the JDTC effectiveness for reducing recidivism and substance use remain inconsistent, hampered by methodological problems. In 2016, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention published research-based JDTC Guidelines for best practices, and funded technical assistance for implementation and a multisite national outcomes study among JDTCs implementing the Guidelines. Ten sites were originally selected for this study, with a JDTC and Traditional Juvenile Court (TJC) participating. In two sites, moderate- to high-risk youth were randomized to JDTC or TJC, and in eight sites, a regression discontinuity design assigned moderate- to high-risk youth to JDTC, and other youth to TJC. Findings from four sites with sufficient cases and follow-up rates indicated that JDTCs reduced cannabis use, increased access to mental health services, and reduced recidivism. However, the effects were small to moderate, with positive impacts mainly observed among high-risk youth. The impacts of JDTCs may have been attenuated because Guidelines implementation was inconsistent across courts, and some TJCs implemented elements of the Guidelines, blurring the distinction between JDTCs and TJCs.

The impact of Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts (JDTC) implementing Federal Evidence-Based Guidelines on recidivism and substance use: multisite Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) and Regression Discontinuity (RDD) Designs.

BACKGROUND: Juvenile drug treatment courts (JDTC) have struggled to define themselves since their inception in 1995. Early courts followed a format similar to adult drug courts, but these did not address the unique needs of juveniles, which led to the creation of 16 Strategies by a consensus panel of practitioners and researchers. But, like the first JDTCs, research with courts following these strategies failed to provide convincing evidence that this "model" was associated with significant reductions in recidivism or drug use. More recently, a new set of evidence-based guidelines were developed through meta-analyses commissioned by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP, 2016). METHOD: OJJDP provided funding for a rigorous multi-site evaluation of the guidelines. This study protocol paper for the Juvenile Drug Treatment Court (JDTC) Guidelines Cross-Site Evaluation presents research designs for the comparison of youth outcomes from 10 JDTCs compared with 10 Traditional Juvenile Courts (TJCs) in the same jurisdictions. Two sites opted into a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and eight sites chose to follow a regression discontinuity design (RDD). Youth data are captured at baseline, and at 6- and 12-month follow-ups using an interview comprised of several standardized assessments. The youths' official records also are abstracted for recidivism and substance use information. The degree to which the evidence-based guidelines are implemented at each site is assessed via an in-depth court self-assessment collected at baseline and again 2 years later and via structured site visits conducted once during implementation. DISCUSSION: As a field-based trial, using both RCT and RDD designs, findings will provide important, policy-relevant information regarding the implementation of the OJJDP evidence-based guidelines, including the degree to which JDTCs adopted and/or modified these practices, their relative impact on recidivism and substance use, as well as the degree to which JDTCs differ from TJCs. Specific inferences may be drawn about whether following or not following specific guidelines differentially impact youth outcomes, yielding recommendations about the translation of this information from research-to-practice for potentiating the broader adoption of these guidelines by JDTCs nationwide. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: This was not an NIH supported trial. The funder, OJJDP/NIJ, instead required publishing the design with even more information at https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/juvenile-drug-treatment-court-jdtc-guidelines-cross-site-evaluation .

A practical framework for regulating for-profit recreational marijuana in US States: Lessons from Colorado and Washington.

Despite the federal prohibition against marijuana, state-level recreational use appears to be moving forward. Public opinion is shifting. Following well-publicized state-legalization in Washington and Colorado, states across the US have begun considering similar measures. Since the 2016 election, over 21% of Americans now live in places where recreational marijuana is state-legal, and over 63% of the country permits medical or recreational use at the state level. This paper does not consider whether states should legalize marijuana nor does it weigh all regulatory options available to states. Instead, it considers how states can create a practical framework to regulate recreational marijuana, particularly in a climate of federal uncertainty where marijuana remains illegal. We draw lessons from Colorado and Washington-assuming that other states will adopt similar models and employ commercial, for-profit systems. Considering both the variety of goals that states could adopt and how they interact, we offer recommendations in five areas: cultivation, production, and processing; sale, consumption, and possession; taxes and finance; public health and safety; and governance. We recommend that states implement a relatively restrictive regulatory approach, with a single market for recreational and medical marijuana, if appropriate. This should make marijuana laws easier to enforce, help reduce diversion, and satisfy federal guidance. Moreover, drawing from Colorado and Washington's experience, we suggest a flexible system with robust data collection and performance monitoring that supports a thorough evaluation. This should allow states to "learn as they go"-a must, given the uncertainty surrounding such policy shifts. Of course, a tightly regulated approach will have drawbacks-including a significant illegal market. But political experience teaches that states will be better off loosening a tight market than attempting to tighten a loose one. We also consider a potential role for the federal government under the status quo.