About This Presentation This Power Point file is

About This Presentation This Power. Point file is designed to be read on screen, not displayed to a group during a presentation or lecture. If you would like to obtain a version of this file that is designed for group presentations, please contact the authors at the Urban Institute (202) 833 -7200. The file is configured as a Power. Point “show” file, meaning that it launches automatically in presentation mode. To advance through this file, use left mouse-clicks, the RIGHTARROW key, SPACEBAR, PAGE-DOWN or ENTER key. The PAGE-UP and LEFT-ARROW key reverses the presentation to the previous slide or to the previous view of the current slide. On the final slides portraying the Urban Institute’s conceptual framework, use mouse-clicks to read about each element. All rights reserved by the Urban Institute. For personal use only. Users may copy the contents of this file as needed to facilitate personal use, but the presentation cannot be sold or distributed for profit. This file is distributed "as is" without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The Urban Institute assumes no liability for any alleged or actual damages arising from the use of this presentation. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

A Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Juvenile Drug Courts Jeffrey Butts John Roman Shelli Rossman Adele Harrell July 30, 2003 Presented to the Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. National Evaluation of Juvenile Drug Courts A project of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), United States Department of Justice (DOJ) The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

About the Project The National Evaluation of Juvenile Drug Courts was funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and conducted by the Urban Institute’s Program on Youth Justice. A conceptual framework was produced by the project to focus future evaluations on key concepts in order to build a better knowledge base about the effectiveness of juvenile drug courts. Researchers from the Urban Institute worked with officials and practitioners in six jurisdictions to develop the conceptual framework: • • • Orlando, Florida Missoula, Montana Jersey City, New Jersey • • • Las Cruces/Anthony, New Mexico Dayton, Ohio Charleston, South Carolina The National Evaluation of Juvenile Drug Courts was managed by Janice Munsterman at the National Institute of Justice, and guided by the members of a national advisory committee: • • Dr. David Altschuler Dr. Steven Belenko Judge Sharon Chatman Dr. John Goldkamp The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. • • • Dr. Doris Mac. Kenzie Dr. David Rottman Dr. Howard Snyder PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Typical Drug Court Process Juvenile drug courts emerged during the 1990 s as an alternative approach to dealing with druginvolved, juvenile offenders. The programs supervise the court cases of these offenders and ensure the delivery of drug treatment and other services. Juvenile drug courts handle youth who are thought to have drug or alcohol problems, whether or not they originally come to the attention of authorities for drug-related reasons. Juvenile drug court procedures are similar to those of juvenile courts with two important differences — 1) juvenile drug courts involve greater judicial oversight of case progress, and 2) there are far more court appearances. As with most delinquency proceedings, cases referred to juvenile drug courts begin with an arrest, followed by some form of screening and assessment to determine program eligibility. Youth deemed eligible for juvenile drug court are offered referral to the program (often in lieu of formal prosecution), and upon entering the program they appear before the judge in a drug court hearing and begin to work with the program staff and treatment providers. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Program Entry Client/Court Contract, Program Orientation Screening, Assessment & Referral Judicial Hearing Sanctions, Incentives, & Rewards Drug Court Team Meeting, Case Review Case Management Drug Testing & Other Assessments Treatment & Collateral Services Arrest PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Typical Drug Court Process In a traditional delinquency process, a short series of court hearings is used to establish an offender’s responsibility (or guilt) and the juvenile court judge orders an appropriate mix of sanctions and services, which would be considered the final “disposition” of that case. The juvenile drug court process is a repeating cycle in which the court orders sanctions and services, assesses their effectiveness, and then makes needed modifications in the next court hearing, which may occur one week later. The process can be repeated as often and as long as necessary (often for up to 12 months), until the judge, the drug court staff, and all treatment providers believe the young offender has succeeded in changing his or her behavior. If youth successfully comply with the drug court program and modify their drug-related behavior, the court holds a formal graduation ceremony to celebrate this accomplishment. If cases end unsuccessfully, with youth failing to change their behavior, they will be terminated from the program, usually to face prosecution on the original charges. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Graduate Program Entry Client/Court Contract, Program Orientation Screening, Assessment & Referral or Terminate Resume regular process Judicial Hearing Sanctions, Incentives, & Rewards Drug Court Team Meeting, Case Review Case Management Drug Testing & Other Assessments Treatment & Collateral Services Arrest PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Conceptual Frameworks Researchers are investigating whether this drug court process is effective with juvenile offenders, but so far these studies have not developed clear hypotheses of cause and effect • One reason is that researchers have not yet developed an effective framework for evaluating juvenile drug courts • As a result, evaluations of juvenile drug courts (although few in number) have been highly variable and not well focused • To identify and test hypotheses about program effects, drug court evaluations should be guided by theoretically-informed conceptual frameworks • Conceptual frameworks help researchers to isolate elements of program effectiveness and to select the best methods for measuring those elements The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Conceptual Frameworks A conceptual framework is a formal statement of the chain of events generated by an intervention program and how those events combine to create outcomes Consider this simple example: Background Factors Inputs Outputs Intermediate Outcomes End Outcomes are or expected to produce associated particular with client effects, that combine or to create the shaped by certain. Program activities, “inputs” … program effects, or “outputs” “intermediate … outcomes”program’s … “end outcomes” … background factors … * The terms input, outputs, intermediate and end outcomes are adapted from Hatry (1999). The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Conceptual Frameworks • Of course, conceptual frameworks must be more complex than this to be applied in actual evaluations • Frameworks for evaluating juvenile drug courts have to be especially complex • Juvenile drug courts, like all drug courts, involve both the justice system and the service-delivery system • Some drug court activities affect youth directly while others are designed to change service delivery structures and agency arrangements The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. A useful conceptual framework for juvenile drug courts would, at a minimum: 1. Specify the most important elements of drug courts and their relationship to program outcomes – • 2. (i. e. , not portray drug court as an undifferentiated “black box” of activities) Recognize that drug courts operate at more than one level of intervention by – • overseeing organizational arrangements and • using their legal authority to affect the behavior of individual offenders PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Conceptual Frameworks • The following conceptual framework was developed by the National Evaluation of Juvenile Drug Courts at the Urban Institute • It is not a definitive guide for evaluating juvenile drug courts, but one possible model for evaluation • The framework encourages researchers to specify theoretical underpinnings of program activities and program outcomes • It also specifies the causal chain of events leading from program activities to program outcomes The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. On the following page, you may “click” on each element of the Conceptual Framework to read more about each topic. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References Organization Program Theory • capacity • coordination • accountabilit y Court / Jurisdiction • politics / policies • funding incentives • legal culture Authority • • formality consistency transparency engagement Quality of Intervention • comprehensiveness • intensity / duration • individualization • family focus • multi-problem focus Participation in Treatment Perceived Legitimacy • fairness • proportionalit y Therapeutic Catalyst Motivation to x Change x Perceived Self-Efficacy • information • encouragem ent • rewards Target Population • demographic • socio-economic • drug-use history • adjudication Inputs Outputs Key: status Start Over Perceived Deterrence • certainty • celerity • severity Drug Court Activities Context End Presentation Intermediate Outcomes The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Behavior Change Reduced Delinquency & Substance Abuse End Outcomes PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References Drug Court Activities End Presentation Start Over More about this topic The framework begins by identifying key program inputs, or the range of activities pursued as part of juvenile drug court programs, both in and out of the courtroom. Juvenile drug court activities are partly shaped by a theory of program impact, whether implicit or explicit, and partly by local context, including funding incentives and the client population being served. Identifying and disaggregating the individual activities comprising juvenile drug courts is a critical task in evaluation research. Each program component should be measured separately so that its relative impact on program and client outcomes can be isolated and compared. Key program components may include a wide variety of factors, including the scheduling of courtroom appearances, courtroom dynamics, legal procedures, judicial behavior, case management strategies, the delivery of treatment, the uses and timing of incentives and sanctions, parental participation, the use of detention, and virtually any other feature of the program believed to affect client outcomes. By tracking how these key components vary, or how they are applied differently in different cases, researchers will be able to identify which program components are most closely associated with positive client outcomes. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References Drug Court Activities End Presentation Start Over More about this topic The National Association of Drug Court Professionals (1997) developed a list of key components for drug courts based upon the work of an inter-disciplinary committee: 1. Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing. 2. Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants’ due process rights. 3. Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drug court program. 4. Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitative services. 5. Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing. 6. A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants’ compliance. 7. Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References Drug Court Activities End Presentation Start Over More about this topic 8. Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness. 9. Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations. 10. Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and communitybased organizations generates local support and enhances drug court program effectiveness. The NADCP “key components” provided a good starting point for researchers, but they are not theoretically derived, nor are they detailed enough to provide guidelines for measurement. It is not possible, for example, to infer from the list of key components exactly how each program mechanism is thought to affect client outcomes, if at all. Other frameworks have been developed specifically for juvenile drug courts. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References Drug Court Activities End Presentation Start Over More about this topic In 2003, the National Drug Court Institute collaborated with the National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges to draft a set of key components for juvenile drug courts. Their work resulted in a list of 16 elements, or “strategies in practice” that juvenile drug courts could include in their program operations. In devising this list of strategies, the committee responsible for the reported noted that there were at least three reasons why drug courts for adolescent offenders are different from adult drug courts: 1) young people are usually not addicted to drugs (even if they might regularly consume drugs) and treatment approaches used by juvenile drug courts need to account for this difference; 2) an adolescent’s reasons to use drugs may be different from those of an adult, and the court process needs to be cognizant of the complications introduced by an adolescent’s ongoing intellectual, emotional, and social development; 3) juvenile drug courts serve young offenders and their families. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References Drug Court Activities End Presentation Start Over More about this topic The NDCI/ NCJFCJ framework listed 16 “strategies in practice” for juvenile drug courts: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Collaborative planning Teamwork, non-adversarial, focused on youth rather than agency concerns Clearly defined target populations Judicial involvement and supervision Monitoring and evaluation Community partnerships to expand options for youth and families Comprehensive treatment planning tailored to needs of youth & families Developmentally appropriate services Gender-appropriate services The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) Culturally competent services Focus on strengths of youth & families Engage families as valued partners in all components of the program Coordinate with school systems Frequent, random, and observed drug testing Goal-oriented incentives and sanctions designed to motivate offender change Protect offender and family privacy while allowing the drug court team to access key information PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References End Presentation Start Over Drug Court Activities As with the adult drug court framework developed by the NADCP in 1997, the NDCI/NCJFCJ framework for juvenile drug courts was not directly conducive to evaluation and hypothesis testing. The framework did not suggest exactly how each of the basic elements would affect offender outcomes, but it asserted that they were related to program effectiveness. The framework provided another important starting point, however, for investigators who need to know what practitioners value the most about their programs and which elements of the juvenile drug court process may be related to effectiveness. The next step is for researchers and practitioners to work together to build the empirical evidence needed to establish the causal pathways between the basic elements of drug court programs and client outcomes. Measurement of program activities will have to rely largely on documentation and written descriptions, but whenever possible evaluators should include direct observations of courtroom procedures and agency practices. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References Organization • capacity • coordination • accountability End Presentation Start Over More about this topic Juvenile drug court programs produce two basic “outputs” – organization & authority. Organization: Juvenile drug courts use judicial leadership and the court’s community influence to improve the strength and diversity of drug treatment agencies and other service delivery agencies in the juvenile justice system. One of the principal ways that juvenile drug courts are different from traditional juvenile courts is in the extent to which they extend their reach beyond the courtroom. Juvenile drug courts, and especially the judges in juvenile drug courts, are often deeply involved in the design, development, and management of service-delivery systems for drug-involved juveniles. Instead of merely selecting from available programs and ordering youth to participate in them, juvenile drug courts work to develop needed resources and they hold treatment providers accountable by frequently reviewing the individual progress of court cases and determining whether each case is being properly managed. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References Organization • capacity • coordination • accountability End Presentation Start Over More about this topic By actively supervising and overseeing the adequacy of drug treatment and service delivery, juvenile drug courts ensure that clients receive whatever services and supports they need to begin and sustain a process of behavioral change. Some of the key elements in organizational oversight might include the frequency and thoroughness of inter-agency client staffings, the quality and specificity of communication between the court and other service providers, the interactions of judges and staff during courtroom hearings, judicial responses to failed service plans, and court management of the RFP process for new services. Researchers could measure these elements in a variety of ways, but they should at least assess the resource “capacity” of the service delivery system and how it responds to court intervention, the “coordination” of services (from the perspective of the judge, the youth, and the family), and the “accountability” of the entire system. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References End Presentation Start Over Organization • capacity • coordination • accountability Capacity The capacity of the service-delivery system refers to the size and diversity of treatment resources available for drug court clients, as well as the intensity and adequacy of treatment services. Measures of capacity could include the percentage of juvenile drug court cases in which a service ordered by the court is actually available. Coordination The coordination of the treatment and services system refers to the strength and frequency of inter-agency relationships among the network of service providers in the community, and the extent to which they respond to the supervision of the court. Accountability refers to the accountability of the services system to the juvenile drug court, whether drug court clients receive services as ordered by the court, and whether the court possesses and actually exercises the authority to enforce its orders for service. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References Authority • formality • consistency • transparency • engagement End Presentation Start Over More about this topic Juvenile drug court programs produce two basic “outputs” – organization & authority. Authority: The defining characteristic of juvenile drug courts is the manner in which they combine the authority of the court process with constructive social interventions and effective drug treatment. The use of legal authority is hypothesized to encourage young offenders to participate and remain in treatment, but it is also thought to exert an independent effect on offender behavior. In particular, juvenile drug courts are designed to motivate behavior change in offenders with dramatic, yet supportive courtroom routines and close, repeated attention from the judge and other courtroom participants. The ingredients of effective court authority are hypothesized to be: Formality Courtroom procedures and any other court activities witnessed by young offenders are formal in order to impress upon each youth that the court possesses legitimate legal and social authority to intervene and sanction their behavior. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References Authority • formality • consistency • transparency • engagement End Presentation Start Over More about this topic Consistency The imposition of sanctions, the granting of rewards, and other court procedures are as consistent and predictable as possible in order to shape offender behavior and to demonstrate (to offenders, family members, and other participants) that the court process is fair and equitable. Consistent implementation of court procedures also indicates to offenders that the imposition of sanctions will be a reliable, or even certain consequence of failures to follow program requirements. Transparency So that young offenders understand that juvenile drug court procedures are fair, equitable, and certain, the process itself is clear and easy to follow, with a minimum of legal jargon and procedural complexity. Decision-making about individual cases is conducted in open court whenever possible, and offenders are encouraged to ask questions in open court. Court sessions are held in groups, so that each participant sees not only his or her own hearing, but those of other youth as well. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References Authority • formality • consistency • transparency • engagement End Presentation Start Over More about this topic Engagement Juvenile drug courts are designed to be engaging, at times even entertaining for young offenders and their families. This element of the drug court process is sometimes referred to as “the theater effect. ” The court process is designed to hold the attention of offenders in order to facilitate behavioral change, and some researchers suggest that the quality and intensity of interaction between judges and offenders has an independent effect on offender behavior (Senjo and Leip, 2002). In juvenile drug courts, judges verbally praise or criticize offenders in open court, and they behave in dramatic ways to reinforce a specific message. Some particularly flamboyant judges have been known to jump on a witness table to announce to the court audience that a youth has succeeded in graduating from drug court. Tangible rewards are used to reinforce positive behavior. Graduates are brought to the front of the courtroom to receive certificates of completion and a round of applause. The process is designed to be memorable and visceral, both for successful youth and those failing to be successful. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References End Presentation Start Over Authority • formality • consistency • transparency • engagement Measurement strategies for juvenile drug court evaluations must include a variety of approaches. Particularly when measuring authority as a program output, researchers must observe courtroom procedures directly, but they should also measure the subjective perceptions of drug court participants. Surveys and interviews should be used to detect not only how the juvenile drug court process expresses legal authority, but how young offenders and their families experience that authority and the extent to which the court’s intended messages are received. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References Quality of Intervention End Presentation Start Over More about this topic • comprehensiven ess • intensity / duration • individualization • family focus • multi-problem By leveraging or establishing adequate services and supervision for drug-involved focus offenders, juvenile drug courts help to ensure that young offenders enter into, and remain in treatment. Effective systems of intervention are believed to exhibit the following characteristics: Comprehensiveness Services deal with all individual, family, and community problems thought to be associated with each offender’s substance abuse problems. Intensity / duration The service-delivery system is equipped to work with young offenders as long as, and as much as, each youth requires. Juvenile drug court judges do not routinely report an inability to secure adequate services. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References End Presentation Start Over Quality of Intervention • comprehensiven ess • intensity / duration • individualization • family focus • multi-problem Individualization focus Providers are able to supply services and supervision programs that meet the needs of a wide variety of individual offenders in varying family and community contexts. Family Focus At least some of the service providers available to the juvenile drug court employ methods with a family focus. Multi-Problem Focus Service providers employ methods that focus on range of potential problem areas that may be related to each youth’s situation as well as the factors that directly led them to become involved with the juvenile drug court program. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References End Presentation Start Over Perceived Deterrence • certainty • celerity • severity Classical deterrence theory suggests that sanctions and punishments will be more effective when they are delivered with the proper combination of certainty, severity, and celerity (or swiftness). To some extent, these elements can offset each other. Sanctions that are very certain may not have to be as severe or swift, and those that are very severe may not have to be as certain or swift, etc. Deterrence theory is premised on the view that, by nature, people act to minimize pain and are sufficiently rational to develop expectations about the consequences of their actions. They weigh the expected benefits of criminal or deviant acts against expected benefits and perform only those acts for which the benefits seem to exceed costs. Thus, increasing the certainty, swiftness, or severity of punishment should affect the cost-benefit calculus of would-be offenders and deter them from acting illegally. In making an empirical connection between the elements of deterrence and the outcomes of drug court programs, researchers must be careful to measure offender’s perceptions of the certainty, severity, and celerity of sanctions. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References End Presentation Start Over Perceived Legitimacy • fairness • proportionality To ensure their compliance with authority, individuals must perceive the exercise of authority to be legitimate (Milgram, 1974). An authority is recognized as legitimate when the person or agency of authority is seen as having a legitimate right to give commands or directions to others, and those receiving the commands or directions feel an obligation to obey. In the context of juvenile drug courts, one important view of authority — procedural justice — posits that the extent to which decisions are arrived at transparently and fairly will determine the extent to which participants accept those decisions as legitimate. Tyler (1997) identified four key dimensions of procedural justice: 1) trustworthiness of the decision making authority, 2) opportunity for personal participation in the proceedings, 3) being treated with respect/dignity by authorities, and 4) the neutrality of authority. Whether or not a court process (and the court’s authority) is perceived as legitimate can only be assessed by measuring the attitudes and opinions of individuals subject to the process. Thus, researchers must survey and/or interview clients to measure this dimension of drug court program outputs. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References End Presentation Start Over Perceived Self-Efficacy • information • encouragement • rewards Social psychological theory asserts that individuals attempt to shape their environment through action, and their willingness to engage in that action depends on their subjective beliefs about the likelihood of success. Bandura (1999) describes the role of “efficacy, ” or the belief that a desired outcome can be achieved through a particular action. Perceived self-efficacy is the foundation of human agency. A person who believes that action will dependably produce a desired outcome is more likely to act. Perceived self-efficacy would naturally be associated with motivation, goals, aspirations, outcome expectancies, and perceptions of opportunity in the social environment (Bandura 2000). This theory might posit that the clients of a juvenile drug court will be successful in changing their behavior (reducing their use of drugs and alcohol), when they: • have information supportive of making changes; • believe that they have the ability to change; • are encouraged and supported in making change; and • receive timely and tangible inducements or rewards for making change. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References End Presentation Start Over Motivation to Change Behavior specialists once viewed the motivation for behavioral change as an inherently internal phenomenon, coming solely from within the individual. Failure to change, therefore, was entirely the responsibility of the person attempting to change, and there was little reason for social programs to seek change other than through individual-level, internally focused assistance. More recent thinking accepts that there are two types of motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic, and that either may suffice for achieving change. Extrinsic motivation comes from forces outside the individual. These forces can be positive (e. g. , rewards for participation in treatment) or negative (e. g. , jail for refusing to participate). Juvenile drug courts employ both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to foster behavior change. Researchers must specify the form of motivation that is the target of particular drug court activities. By establishing the connection between those activities and changes in individual behavior, evaluations will begin to identify the most effective pathways to behavior change. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References Participation in Treatment End Presentation Start Over More about this topic The principal goal of the juvenile drug court process is to ensure that clients persist through the stages of change. When effective systems of intervention are employed, the treatment and service-delivery system as a whole should be able to ensure that young offenders participate and remain in treatment. Coerced treatment is often the vehicle by which juvenile drug court clients reach the goal of behavioral change. Miller and Flaherty (2000) defined coerced treatment for substance abuse and addiction as treatment with “alternative consequences” — e. g. loss of rewards and benefits, legal penalties, incarceration. Coercion is rarely effective on its own, but coercion can entice or restrain a client to continue in a program of treatment, and the longer a client remains in treatment the greater chance the treatment has to facilitate and sustain the process of change. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References End Presentation Start Over Participation in Treatment Researchers seeking to measure the influence of client participation and retention on behavioral change should collect detailed, event-level tracking data that follows each client through various levels of agency involvement and that identifies each client’s attendance and engagement in drug treatment and other service delivery. Evaluators should also assess the extent to which coercion plays a role in the treatment experiences of each client, and whether the strength of coercion varies according to the client’s position in the stages of change. For example, justice programs would traditionally increase the severity of coercion with each successive attempt at coercion, but the stages of change model (Prochaska et al. ) may suggest the opposite — individuals at the latter stages of change may require less, not more severe coercion, as their motivation becomes more intrinsic. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References End Presentation Start Over Therapeutic Catalyst For some offenders, the effective exercise of the court’s authority may be sufficient to motivate behavioral change. For such offenders, regular appearances in juvenile drug court will serve as an effective catalyst for change, independently of any treatment regimen provided by the program. For other offenders, the court process may not be enough to begin and sustain change. They will require the additional catalyst of therapeutic services provided by the intervention system. To measure the influence of treatment participation as a therapeutic catalyst, evaluators must measure each client’s subjective experiences and beliefs about treatment and how they compare with the client’s beliefs and experiences about the courtroom procedures in which they participated. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References Behavior Change End Presentation Start Over More about this topic The primary goal of juvenile drug court is to facilitate behavioral change. This may involve several cycles of success and relapse as offenders move through the process of change. Experts in substance abuse once believed that the best way to promote behavioral change was an aggressive process to break through “denial” and confront individuals with the consequences of their behavior. In practice, however, this technique usually accelerated the process of failure and withdrawal for most clients (perhaps 80%), while only those remaining were defined as successful. Current thinking accepts the cyclical nature of change and sees treatment as a method of moving clients through the stages of change — often several times — on their way to lasting improvement. A recurrence of unwanted behavior (i. e. , relapse) is not seen as “failure, ” but as the end of one cycle and the beginning of the next. By moving young offenders through the stages of change with a combination of services and sanctions, juvenile drug courts work to achieve their ultimate goal of reducing delinquency and substance abuse. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References End Presentation Start Over More about this topic Behavior Change In their “Transtheoretical Model of Change, ” Prochaska and his colleagues describe how people go through several stages on their way to lasting change: Pre-contemplation No intention to take action to achieve long-term change. Contemplation Intending to take action in the near future. Preparation Intending to take action immediately and already taking some steps in that direction. Action Completed changes in overt behavior during recent past. Maintenance Completed long-term changes in overt behavior. Termination Overt behavior will never return and individuals have can function without fear of relapse. Some practitioners have cautioned that the stages of change may be slightly different for chemically dependent populations, but the Prochaska model is a useful framework for considering the cyclical process of behavior change. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References Behavior Change End Presentation Start Over More about this topic Fishbein (1997) focused on the relationship between intentions and behavior since intentions are the underlying fabric of behavior. An individual’s intentions, in turn, are determined by three factors: 1) attitudes toward the behavior; 2) norms (i. e. , societal constraints) concerning the behavior; and 3) perceived behavioral control (i. e. , self-efficacy beliefs, or one’s confidence in his or her ability to perform the behavior). Fishbein suggested that intentions could be an accurate predictor of behavior if an actor perceives the behavior to be reasonable and achievable, but intentions may be a less-than-accurate predictor if an actor believes he or she cannot or should not perform the desired behavior for a variety of reasons (e. g. , lack of ability; negative environmental factors). An effort to change behavior needs to start by changing intentions, but it must also recognize whether those intentions involve normative, attitudinal, or self-efficacy considerations. For example, intentions that spring from personal attitudes may be easier to modify than those rooted in societal norms or cultural expectations. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References Behavior Change End Presentation Start Over More about this topic Other models could serve as a lens with which to view the behavioral change goals of juvenile drug courts. Rosenstock, Strecher, and Becker’s (1988) health belief model, for example, sees perception as a key factor in behavior change. The first stage in the model starts with a person who may or may not have concern about a health issue or health-related behavior. A specific and salient motivator (either internal or external) is necessary to make a potential health issue relevant. The second stage begins with the onset of risk perception, when either the individual (or someone close to the individual) becomes aware that a specific issue makes the individual vulnerable to illness or harm. For example, a perceived threat of illness often galvanizes people to assist their loved ones to lose weight, stop smoking, or quit drinking alcohol. Finally, the third stage in the model emerges with the belief that a given plan of action will be sufficient to reduce the perceived threat at a subjectively acceptable cost (i. e. perceived barriers that must be overcome to reach the health goal). The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Elements in the UI Framework Back to Elements View References End Presentation Start Over Behavior Change Each of the preceding models includes some notion of self-efficacy, or the subjective belief in one’s ability to change. Successful change efforts depend on each individual receiving considerable support and encouragement to change, as well as direct experience in making successful (often incremental) changes. Another key concept in each model suggests that individuals are more likely to succeed when they believe they will get some tangible benefit from changing. These “outcome expectations” can be defined as a person’s estimate that a given behavior will lead to a particular outcome. Each model has something to offer practitioners seeking more systematic methods of conceptualizing the change process for program design and client impact assessment. Regardless which model seems to fit best, it is important that conceptual frameworks include some formal model of behavior change and that evaluators measure the components of that model at the individual client level so that variations in the model can be tied to variations in client outcomes. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

References Back to Elements View References End Presentation Start Over § Bandura, Albert (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. § Bandura, Albert (1999). A sociocognitive analysis of substance abuse: An agentic perspective. Psychological Science, 10(3), 214217. § Bandura, Albert (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75 -78. § Fishbein, Martin (1999). Predicting, understanding, and changing socially relevant behaviors: Lessons learned, in Craig Mc. Garty (ed. ), The Message from Social Psychology: Perceptions on Mind and Society, 77 -91. Malden, MA. Blackwell Publishers, Inc. § Hatry, Harry (1999). Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. § Milgram, Stanley (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper and Row. § Miller, Norman S. and Joseph A. Flaherty (2000). Effectiveness of coerced addiction treatment (alternative consequences): A review of the clinical research. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18, 9 -16. § Prochaska, James O. , & Carlo C. Di. Clemente (1982). Transtheoretical therapy toward a more integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 19(3), 276 -287. § Prochaska, James O. , Carlo C. Di. Clemente & John C. Norcross (1992). In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47(9), 1102 -1114. § Prochaska James O. , John C. Norcross & Carlo C. Di. Clemente (1994). Changing for Good. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc. § Rosenstock, Irwin M. , Victor J. Strecher, and Marshall H. Becker (1988). Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Education Quarterly, 15(2), 175 -183. § Senjo, Scott R. and Leslie A. Leip (2002). Testing and developing theory in drug court: A four-part Logit model to predict program completion. Criminal Justice Policy Review 12(1). § Tyler, Thomas R. (1997). Social Justice in a Diverse Society. Boulder, CO: Westview. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

For More Information A Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Juvenile Drug Courts by Jeffrey A. Butts John Roman Shelli B. Rossman Adele V. Harrell About the Authors A product of the URBAN INSTITUTE’S Program on Youth Justice http: //youth. urban. org To receive monthly email updates of research from the Justice Policy Center, send an email to jpc@ui. urban. org The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

About the Authors § Jeffrey A. Butts is director of the Program on Youth Justice in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute. In addition to the National Evaluation of Juvenile Drug Courts, his recent work has included projects on the effectiveness of teen courts, methods used to anticipate the demand for bed space in juvenile corrections facilities, and community-wide initiatives to improve services for drug-involved juvenile offenders. Before joining the Urban Institute in 1997, he was a senior research associate at the National Center for Juvenile Justice in Pittsburgh. He is a graduate of the University of Oregon and holds a Ph. D. from the University of Michigan. § John Roman is a research associate in the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, where his work focuses on evaluating criminal justice policies and programs. He was the principal investigator for a national study of drug court recidivism rates, and worked on evaluations for the Jefferson County (Birmingham, AL) Drug Court, the Fulton County (Atlanta, GA) Drug Court, and community court programs in Portland, Oregon. Mr. Roman prepared a systematic review of drug court research for the Campbell Collaboration’s Crime and Justice Group, and has participated in developing curricula for the National Drug Court Institute’s research and evaluation workshops. He is a graduate of Kenyon College, holds a Masters of Public Policy from the University of Michigan, and is pursuing a Ph. D. in public policy at the University of Maryland. § Shelli B. Rossman is a senior research associate in the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, where she works on projects dealing with at-risk youth, substance abuse, community intervention strategies, and prevention programs. She directed the national evaluation of the Safe. Futures initiative for the U. S. Department of Justice as well as the impact evaluation of Opportunity to Succeed (OPTS), a program of community-based aftercare services for substance abusing adult offenders. She is a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh and holds an MA in sociology from Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. § Adele V. Harrell is a principal research associate at the Urban Institute and was the founding director of the Justice Policy Center. Her recent studies have included an evaluation of the Brooklyn Treatment Court services for female offenders, an evaluation of the "Breaking the Cycle" program that links the court process with treatment services for drug-involved defendants, a five-year experimental evaluation of the Washington, D. C. Drug Court, and an experimental evaluation of Children at Risk, a comprehensive drug prevention program for youth ages 11 to 13. Dr. Harrell earned the Ph. D. in sociology from George Washington University. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. PROGRAM ON youth justice URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center