Hiller Matthew L, Belenko Steven, Dennis Michael, Estrada Barbara, Cain Chelsey, Mackin Juliette R, Kagan Raanan, Pappacena Lauren
Department of Criminal Justice, Temple University, Philadelphia, USA.
Chestnut Health Systems, Bloomington, IL, USA.
Health Justice. 2021 Dec 6;9(1):38. doi: 10.1186/s40352-021-00158-2.
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).
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.
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.
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 .
自1995年成立以来，青少年毒品治疗法庭（JDTC）一直在努力明确自身定位。早期的法庭采用了与成人毒品法庭类似的模式，但这些模式并未满足青少年的独特需求，这促使从业者和研究人员组成的共识小组制定了16项策略。但是，与最初的青少年毒品治疗法庭一样，遵循这些策略的法庭研究未能提供令人信服的证据，证明这种“模式”与累犯率或毒品使用的显著降低有关。最近，少年司法与犯罪预防办公室（OJJDP，2016年）委托进行的荟萃分析制定了一套新的循证指南。
OJJDP为对这些指南进行严格的多地点评估提供了资金。这份关于青少年毒品治疗法庭（JDTC）指南跨地点评估的研究方案文件介绍了研究设计，用于比较10个青少年毒品治疗法庭与同一司法管辖区内10个传统青少年法庭（TJC）的青少年结果。两个地点选择参与随机对照试验（RCT），八个地点选择采用回归间断设计（RDD）。在基线以及6个月和12个月随访时，通过包含多项标准化评估的访谈收集青少年数据。还提取青少年的官方记录以获取累犯和物质使用信息。通过在基线时以及两年后收集的深入法庭自我评估，以及在实施过程中进行一次的结构化实地考察，评估每个地点实施循证指南的程度。
作为一项基于实地的试验，采用随机对照试验和回归间断设计，研究结果将提供有关OJJDP循证指南实施情况的重要且与政策相关的信息，包括青少年毒品治疗法庭采用和/或修改这些做法的程度、它们对累犯和物质使用的相对影响，以及青少年毒品治疗法庭与传统青少年法庭的差异程度。可以得出关于遵循或不遵循特定指南是否会对青少年结果产生不同影响的具体推论，从而就如何将这些信息从研究转化为实践提出建议，以促进全国范围内青少年毒品治疗法庭更广泛地采用这些指南。
这不是一项由美国国立卫生研究院支持的试验。资助者OJJDP/NIJ要求在https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/juvenile-drug-treatment-court-jdtc-guidelines-cross-site-evaluation上发布包含更多信息的设计方案。
