
Juvenile drug courts were established in the late 1990s to provide specialized, rehabilitative services to youth with substance abuse disorders. Over time, research concerning the effectiveness of juvenile drug courts expanded and noted mixed, underwhelming results regarding return to substance use and reoffending. Some of these results could be attributed to the fact that many of these juvenile drug courts mirrored many of the characteristics of the adult drug court model. In response to these findings, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) created the Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Guidelines to aid juvenile drug courts in providing effective services tailored to the needs of juveniles.

These guidelines focus on the organization and implementation of juvenile drug courts. Still, even with the guidance of federal recommendations like the OJJDP’s Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Guidelines, juvenile drug courts in the United States continue to yield mixed results regarding effectiveness. My research addresses whether juvenile drug courts in Indiana reflect the federal recommendations provided by the OJJDP by asking: Do the Indiana juvenile drug courts’ standard operating procedures reflect federal recommendations regarding organization and implementation?
Methods and Analysis
To answer my research question, I examined and compared the language of the Indiana Problem-Solving Court Rules to the language of the OJJDP’s Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Guidelines. Because all juvenile drug courts in Indiana are required to adhere to the Indiana Problem-Solving Court Rules, it is important to determine whether these rules reflect the best practices for juvenile drug courts as provided by the OJJDP. To supplement my findings, I also analyzed and compared the language of the standard operating procedures from four juvenile drug courts in Indiana to that of the OJJDP’s Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Guidelines. For my analysis, I coded similarities between the language of the collected documents and the language of the OJJDP’s Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Guidelines. The documents were coded on the basis of whether or not the document fully reflected an OJJDP guideline, partially reflected a guideline, or failed to reflect an OJJDP guideline.
Key Findings
The tables below provide a broad overview of my findings and the collected documents’ ability to reflect the OJJDP’s Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Guidelines.

Based on my findings, there are a variety of inconsistencies in each document’s ability to reflect the OJJDP’s Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Guidelines. The most significant takeaway from my analysis is that the Indiana Problem-Solving Court Rules fail to reflect or only partially reflect sixteen of the thirty-eight guidelines provided by the OJJDP. Many of these poorly reflected guidelines are related to parental engagement, community involvement, and effective communication among juvenile drug court team members. This indicates that the Judicial Conference of Indiana, the authors of the Indiana Problem-Solving Court Rules, is not providing guidance consistent with the OJJDP’s recommendations. As previously stated, the OJJDP’s Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Guidelines were created to address inconsistencies in juvenile drug court programming. Furthermore, these guidelines were designed to help courts implement the most effective programs and services that are tailored to the needs of juveniles.
Recommendations
I recommend that the Indiana Judicial Conference amend the Indiana Problem-Solving Court Rules to reflect the recommendations of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Guidelines. The recommendations offered by the Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Guidelines were developed through a meta-analysis of the best practices employed by juvenile drug courts. Although the effectiveness of these guidelines is currently being studied, the recommendations provided in the guidelines are known to produce better outcomes.
Generally, I also recommend that other states consider reevaluating the guidance they provide to juvenile drug courts within their jurisdiction. By doing so, juvenile drug courts within the same state will be provided with consistent guidance on how to properly organize and implement their juvenile drug courts. Furthermore, by approaching this analysis from an input-focused lens, future research can expand upon whether the implementation of the OJJDP’s recommendations helps facilitate effective outcomes on a jurisdictional level. Overall, to examine and interpret the effectiveness of existing juvenile drug courts, scholars must focus on both the inputs and the outcomes of juvenile drug courts.
Sydney Benson is a senior majoring in Law and Public Policy and minoring in Homeland Security at the O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. She plans on attending law school with a special interest in criminal law and juvenile justice.
Leave a Reply