The juvenile drug court decision making process an analysis of operating styles, outcome decisions and disparities

The rapid expansion of drug courts throughout the United States ultimately has introduced a new approach to justice. They represent a change from the traditional juvenile court by having a team of professionals making decisions that are theoretic in nature with the goal of reducing the problems associated with juvenile crime and adolescent drug abuse. This study attempts to enhance the understanding of the effectiveness of a juvenile drug court by examining the decision-making process of a juvenile drug court team in the Northwest region of the United States. A process evaluation was conducted during its first year of implementation. Behavioral characteristics as they pertain to how the courtroom workgroup's team operated was observed and recorded, along with the team's outcome decisions to sanction, treat, or reward program participants. This study found that this juvenile drug court's approach to justice is normative, and one in which the courtroom workgroup interacted in a non-adversarial, collaborative and cooperative manner. Formality, Activeness, Reasonableness, and Talkativeness were the operational styles that had a significant influence on how the team sanctioned, treated, and rewarded the participants. This study also examined the demographic variables of gender, race and age of the JDC participants related to the outcome decisions. Statistically significant relationships were found between sanctions and race and sanctions and age. Non-whites were more likely to be sanctioned at the highest levels when sanctions were administered, and as the participants increased in age, they were less likely to be sanctioned. Policy implications and future research related to these findings are discussed