Melissa ives msw kate moritz ma michael l dennis ph d chestnut health systems normal il
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 69

Melissa Ives, MSW, Kate Moritz, MA, Michael L. Dennis, Ph.D. Chestnut Health Systems, Normal, IL PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 90 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Characteristics, Needs, Services and Outcomes of Juvenile Treatment Drug Courts compared to Adolescent Outpatient and Adult Treatment Drug Courts. Melissa Ives, MSW, Kate Moritz, MA, Michael L. Dennis, Ph.D. Chestnut Health Systems, Normal, IL. Presentation at the

Download Presentation

Melissa Ives, MSW, Kate Moritz, MA, Michael L. Dennis, Ph.D. Chestnut Health Systems, Normal, IL

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Melissa ives msw kate moritz ma michael l dennis ph d chestnut health systems normal il

Characteristics, Needs, Services and Outcomes of Juvenile Treatment Drug Courts compared to Adolescent Outpatient and Adult Treatment Drug Courts

Melissa Ives, MSW, Kate Moritz, MA,

Michael L. Dennis, Ph.D.

Chestnut Health Systems, Normal, IL

Presentation at the

National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) Conference

Washington, DC, July 18, 2011


Notes

Notes

  • This presentation was supported by data and funds from SAMHSA/ CSAT contract no. 270-07-0191. It is available electronically at www.chestnut.org/li/posters

  • The opinions are those of the author and do not reflect official positions of the government. Please address comments or questions to the authors at [email protected] - 309-451-7819 or [email protected] – 309-451-7831


The goals of this presentation are to

The Goals of this Presentation are to:

  • Illustrate why it is so important to intervene with juvenile drug users

  • Review what we know about juvenile treatment drug courts (JTDC) so far

  • Compare JTDC to regular adolescent outpatient (AOP) in terms of who is served, what services they receive and their treatment outcomes

  • Examine initial comparison of JTDC to Adult Treatment Drug Courts (ATDC) and Family Drug Courts (FDC)


Alcohol and other drug abuse dependence and problem use peaks at age 20

Over 90% of use and problems start between the ages of 12-20

It takes decades before most recover or die

Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse, Dependence and Problem Use Peaks at Age 20

100

People with drug dependence die an average of 22.5 years sooner than those without a diagnosis

90

Percentage

80

70

60

Severity Category

50

Other drug or

heavy alcohol use

in the past year

40

30

Alcohol or Drug Use

(AOD) Abuse or

Dependence in the

past year

20

10

0

65+

21-29

30-34

35-49

50-64

12-13

14-15

16-17

18-20

Age

Source: 2002 NSDUH and Dennis & Scott, 2007, Neumark et al., 2000


Adolescents who use weekly or more often are more likely during the past year to have

Source: Dennis & McGeary, 1999

Adolescents who use weekly or more often are more likely during the past year to have ...


Melissa ives msw kate moritz ma michael l dennis ph d chestnut health systems normal il

pain

Adolescent Brain Development Occurs from the Inside to Out and

from Back to Front

Photo courtesy of the NIDA Web site. From A Slide Teaching Packet: The Brain and the Actions of Cocaine, Opiates, and Marijuana.


Life course reasons to focus on adolescents

Life Course Reasons to Focus on Adolescents

  • People who start using substances under age 15 use 60% more years than those who start over age 18.

  • Entering treatment within the first 9 years of initial use leads to 57% fewer years of substance use than those who do not start treatment until after 20 years of use.

  • Relapse is common and it takes an average of 3 to 4 treatment admissions over 8 to 9 years before half reach recovery.

  • Of all people with abuse or dependence 2/3rds do eventually reach a state of recovery.

  • Monitoring and early re-intervention with adults has been shown to cut the time from relapse to readmission by 65%, increase abstinence and improve long term outcomes.

Source: Dennis et al., 2005, 2007; Scott & Dennis 2009


While substance use disorders are common treatment participation rates are low

Few Get Treatment:

1 in 19 adolescents,

1 in 21 young adults,

1 in 14 adults

While Substance Use Disorders are Common, Treatment Participation Rates Are Low

Over 88% of adolescent and young adult treatment and

over 50% of adult treatment is publicly funded

Much of the private funding is limited to 30 days or less and authorized day by day or week by week

Source: OAS, 2009 – 2006, 2007, and 2008 NSDUH


What does an episode of treatment cost median

What does an episode of treatment cost (median)?

  • $750 per night in Detox

  • $1,115 per night in hospital

  • $13,000 per week in intensive

  • care for premature baby

  • $27,000 per robbery

  • $67,000 per assault

$22,000/year to incarcerate an adult

$70,000/year to keep a child in detention

$30,000/

child-year in foster care

Source: French et al., 2008; Chandler et al., 2009; Capriccioso, 2004


Investing in treatment has a positive annual return on investment roi

Investing in Treatment has a Positive Annual Return on Investment (ROI)

  • Substance abuse treatment has been shown to have a ROI within the year of between $1.28 to $7.26 per dollar invested.

  • Best estimates are that Treatment Drug Courts have an average ROI of $2.14 to $2.71 per dollar invested.

This also means that for every dollar treatment is cut, we lose more money than was saved.

Source: Bhati et al., 2008; Ettner et al., 2006


Background juvenile justice system and substance use

Background Juvenile Justice System and Substance Use

  • Between a quarter and two thirds of the youth in the juvenile justice system have drug related problems (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 2001; Teplin et al., 2002, Chassin, 2008, Wasserman et al. 2010).

  • Juvenile justice systems are the leading source of referral among adolescents entering treatment for substance use problems (Dennis et al., 2003; Dennis, White & Ives, 2009).

  • By late 2004, there were 357 juvenile treatment drug courts and the number of courts has continued to grow at a rate of 30-50% per year.

Source: Dennis, White & Ives, 2009


What level of evidence is available on the effectiveness of drug courts

What Level of Evidence is Available on the Effectiveness of Drug Courts?

Science

Law

Meta Analyses of Experiments/ Quasi Experiments (Summary v Predictive, Specificity, Replicated, Consistency)

Dismantling/ Matching study (What worked for whom)

Experimental Studies (Multi-site,Independent,Replicated, Fidelity, Consistency)

Quasi-Experiments (Quality of Matching, Multi-site,Independent,Replicated, Consistency)

Pre-Post (multiple waves), Expert Consensus

Correlation and Observational studies

Case Studies, Focus Groups

Pre-data Theories, Logic Models

Anecdotes, Analogies

STRONGER

Beyond a

Reasonable

Doubt

Clear and

Convincing

Evidence

Preponderance

of the Evidence

Probable

Cause

Reasonable

Suspicion

Source: Marlowe 2008


What level of evidence is available on the effectiveness of drug courts1

What Level of Evidence is Available on the Effectiveness of Drug Courts?

Science

Law

Meta Analyses of Experiments/ Quasi Experiments (Summary v Predictive, Specificity, Replicated, Consistency)

Dismantling/ Matching study (What worked for whom)

Experimental Studies (Multi-site,Independent,Replicated, Fidelity, Consistency)

Quasi-Experiments (Quality of Matching, Multi-site,Independent,Replicated, Consistency)

Pre-Post (multiple waves), Expert Consensus

Correlation and Observational studies

Case Studies, Focus Groups

Pre-data Theories, Logic Models

Anecdotes, Analogies

STRONGER

Beyond a

Reasonable

Doubt

Adult Drug Treatment Courts: 5 meta analyses of 76 studies found crime reduced 7-26% with $1.74 to $6.32 return on investment

Clear and

Convincing

Evidence

DWI Treatment Courts: one quasi experiment and five observational studies positive findings

Preponderance

of the Evidence

Family Drug Treatment Courts: one multisite quasi experiment with positive findings for parent and child

Probable

Cause

Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts – one 2006 experiment, one large multisite quasi-experiment, & several small studies with similar or better effects than regular adolescent outpatient treatment

Reasonable

Suspicion

Source: Marlowe 2008


Findings from ives et al 2010 multi site quasi experiment

Findings from Ives et al., (2010) Multi-Site Quasi Experiment

  • This article is available online at:

    http://www.ndci.org/publications/drug-court-review/fall-2010

  • Questions asked:

  • How do the severity & needs of youth in Juvenile Treatment Drug Courts (JTDC) compare to those in Adolescent Outpatient (AOP)

  • Controlling for these differences, how do these groups compare in terms of

    • The services they receive?

    • Their treatment outcomes?


Juvenile treatment drug court jtdc sample

Juvenile Treatment Drug Court (JTDC) Sample

  • Cohort of 13 CSAT JTDC grantee sites using the GAIN in Laredo, TX, San Antonio, TX, Belmont, CA, Tarzana, CA, Pontiac, MI, Birmingham, AL, San Jose, CA, Austin, TX, Peabody, MA, Providence, RI, Detroit, MI, Philadelphia, PA, and Basin, WY.

  • Intake data collected from these sites on N=1,786 adolescents between January 2006 through March 31, 2009.

  • The records were limited to clients who:

    • Received outpatient treatment (N=1,445), and

    • Had attained 6 months post-intake (N=1,265)

  • For the analysis, only those with at least one follow-up assessment (89%) were used for a final N=1,120.

  • 86% received evidence-based treatment.

Source: Ives et al., 2010


Adolescent outpatient aop sample

Adolescent Outpatient (AOP) Sample

  • Clients receiving AOP treatment from 75 CSAT-funded sites using the GAIN and providing outpatient treatment in 29 states from five grant programs (N=10,037).

  • Intake data collected from these sites on N=10,037 adolescents between September 2002 and August 2008.

  • The records were limited to clients who:

    • Received outpatient treatment (all), and

    • Had attained 6 months post-intake (N=8,604)

  • For the analysis, only those with at least one follow-up assessment (88%) were used for a final N=7,560

  • 93% received evidence-based treatment.

JTDC & AOP were significantly different on 36 of 69 measures of characteristics, severity and treatment need

Source: Ives et al., 2010


Demographics

Demographics

JTDC less likely to be Caucasian, multiracial, older, employed, & in trouble at school/work;

more likely to be Hispanic, behind in school

Source: Ives et al., 2010* p<.05


Crime and violence

Crime and Violence

JTDC more likely have been in a controlled environment 13+ days, engaged in illegal activity (overall & drug related)

Source: Ives et al., 2010* p<.05


Intensity of juvenile justice system involvement

Intensity of Juvenile Justice System Involvement

JTDC more likely to be in other detention status and less likely to have no JJ status

Source: Ives et al., 2010 * p<.05 **< 1 year ago


Environmental risk factors

Environmental Risk Factors

JTDC less likely to have use in home and victimization

Source: Ives et al., 2010* p<.05


Substance use

Substance Use

JTDC more likely to have started younger, to use any drug or marijuana weekly; and less likely to use tobacco

Source: Ives et al., 2010* p<.05


Substance use disorders

Substance Use Disorders

JTDC similar on substance use disorders

Source: Ives et al., 2010* p<.05


Substance treatment history

Substance Treatment History

JTDC more likely to have been in treatment before, to see a need for treatment and to be ready to quit

Source: Ives et al., 2010* p<.05


Other major co occurring clinical problems

Other Major Co-Occurring Clinical Problems

JTDC less likely to have health or internalizing disorders and more likely to be/gotten someone pregnant

Source: Ives et al., 2010* p<.05


Hiv risk behaviors past 90 days

HIV Risk Behaviors (past 90 days)

JTDC more likely have multiple sexual partners

Source: Ives et al., 2010* p<.05


Number of major clinical problems

Number of Major Clinical Problems**

JTDC slightly less severe on psychopathology – relative to waiting for them to enter treatment on their own, JTDC is a form of early intervention

**Count of marijuana use disorder, alcohol use disorder, any other drug use disorder, internalizing problems including: depression, anxiety, homicidal/suicidal thoughts, and trauma, externalizing problems including conduct disorder and ADHD, Lifetime victimization, past year acts of physical violence or past year illegal activity.

Source: Ives et al., 2010* p<.05


Matching with propensity scores

Matching with Propensity Scores

  • Using logistic regression to predict the likelihood (propensity) of each AOP client being a JTDC client based on the 69 intake characteristics, we weighted the AOP group to match the JTDC group in terms of these characteristics and sample size.

  • This produced two groups with equal sample sizes (N=1,120).

  • The number of significant differences dropped from 39 to 3 of 69 intake variables.

  • Those in JTDC were still significantly:

    • Less likely to be African American (OR=0.77)

    • More likely to be Hispanic (OR=1.44) and on other probation, parole, or detention (OR=1.37)

Source: Ives et al., 2010


Treatment system involvement

Treatment System Involvement

JTDC less likely to initiate within 2 weeks, but more likely to be in treatment 6 weeks and 3 months later

Source: Ives et al., 2010* p<.05


Substance abuse treatment intake to 3 months

Substance Abuse Treatment (intake to 3 months)

JTDC received more days of any treatment & IOP,

also more satisfaction

Source: Ives et al., 2010* p<.05


Range of substance abuse treatment content intake to 3 months

Range of Substance Abuse Treatment Content(Intake to 3 months)

JTDC more likely to receive a broader range of services –

particularly family and external wrap-around services

Source: Ives et al., 2010* p<.05


Mental health treatment received intake to 3 months

Mental Health Treatment Received(intake to 3 months)

No differences in MH treatment—most is driven by medication

Source: Ives et al., 2010* p<.05


Other environmental interventions across systems intake to 3 months

Other Environmental Interventions Across Systems (intake to 3 months)

JTDC received more urine tests and went to self-help more often

Source: Ives et al., 2010* p<.05


Comparison of treatment outcomes days of

Substance

Use*

( d=-0.45, -0.57)

Illegal

Activity

(d=-0.11, -0.02)

Emotional

Problems

(d=-0.32, -0.22)

Trouble w/ Family

(d= -0.23, -0.18)

In Controlled Environment

(d=-0.02, -0.08)

Comparison of Treatment Outcomes(Days of ..)

Both Reduced Use;

JTDCmore than AOP

(d between= -0.24)

Both Meaningfully Reduced Emotional Problems

Others Outcomes

Not Significantly Different

Post-Pre d (AOP, JTDC)

Source: Ives et al., 2010 *p<.05 change greater for JTDC vs AOP (d=-0.24)


Strengths limits of ives et al 2010

Strengths & Limits ofIves et al., (2010)

  • Strengths

    • Multisite quasi experiment

    • Differences at intake eliminated on most variables

    • Replicable evidence-based practice

    • Multiple follow-up waves

    • Large sample size and high follow-up rates

  • Limits

    • Not randomized

    • Disproportionately Hispanic youth

    • Unknown fidelity of implementation

    • Not sufficient numbers of specific evidence-based practices to compare


Findings from jtdc and atdc fdc multi site quasi experiment

Findings from JTDC and ATDC/FDC Multi-Site Quasi Experiment

Initial Comparison


Findings from jtdc and atdc fdc multi site quasi experiment1

Findings from JTDC and ATDC/FDC Multi-Site Quasi Experiment

  • How adults in Adult or Family Treatment Drug Courts (ATDC/FDC) compare to adolescents in Juvenile Treatment Drug Courts (JTDC) in terms of

    • Their characteristics, severity & needs

    • The services they receive?

    • Their treatment outcomes?


Adult treatment drug court atdc and family drug court fdc sample

Adult Treatment Drug Court (ATDC) and Family Drug Court (FDC) Sample

  • Cohort of 7 CSAT ATDC and 2 FDC grantee sites using the GAIN in Jacksonville, FL, Clearwater, FL, Gallipolis, OH, Reno, NV, Miami, FL, Memphis, TN (ATDC sites) and Tampa, FL, Tucson, AZ (FDC sites).

  • Intake data collected from these sites on N=697 adults between April 2007 and October 2010.

  • Mean age 31.21 (s.d. 9.57; range: 18-58; median=28; mode=24)

  • The records were limited to clients who:

    • Had attained 6 months post-intake (N=457) , and

    • Received outpatient treatment (N=407)

  • For the analysis, only those with at least one follow-up assessment (88%) were used for a final N=359

  • 42% received evidence-based treatment

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites


Juvenile treatment drug court jtdc sample1

Juvenile Treatment Drug Court (JTDC) Sample

  • Cohort of 11 CSAT JTDC grantee sites using the GAIN in Laredo, TX, San Antonio, TX, Belmont, CA, Tarzana, CA, Pontiac, MI, San Jose, CA, Austin, TX, Peabody, MA, Providence, RI, Detroit, MI, and Philadelphia, PA.

  • Intake data collected from these sites on N=1,771 adolescents between January 2006 through June 2010.

  • Mean age 15.37 (s.d. 1.17; range: 11-18; median=16; mode=16)

  • The records were limited to clients who:

    • Had attained 6 months post-intake (N=1,560)

    • Received outpatient treatment (N=1,319), and

  • For the analysis, only those with at least one follow-up assessment (86%) were used for a final N=1,134

  • 81% received evidence-based treatment

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites


Demographics1

Demographics

JTDC less likely to be female, Caucasian, employed, in CWS, behind in school;

JTDC more likely to be Hispanic, in school, in trouble at school/work.

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites * p<.05 **Not HSgrad=ATDC/FDC; Behind =JTDC


Crime and violence1

Crime and Violence

JTDC less likely to have been in a controlled environment.

JTDC more likely have engaged in physical violence and illegal activity (overall interpersonal and property related).

No difference in drug crime or 13+ days in a controlled environment.

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites* p<.05


Intensity of juvenile justice system involvement1

Intensity of Juvenile Justice System Involvement

JTDC more likely be in long-term detention or on probation/parole

and less likely to be in other JJ status.

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites* p<.05


Environmental risk factors1

Environmental Risk Factors

JTDC more likely to have social or vocational peer use.

ATDC more likely to have drug use in home, homelessness and victimization.

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites* p<.05


Substance use1

Substance Use

JTDC more likely to have started sooner, use more often and to use marijuana; Less likely to use heroin, cocaine or other drugs or tobacco.

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites * p<.05 +pre-controlled environment


Substance use disorders1

Substance Use Disorders

JTDC more likely to report lifetime or past year abuse and past week withdrawal.

JTDC less likely to report any lifetime or past year dependence or lifetime withdrawal.

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites* p<.05


Substance treatment history1

Substance Treatment History

JTDC less likely to report each of these treatment history items.

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites* p<.05


Other major co occurring clinical problems1

Other Major Co-Occurring Clinical Problems

JTDC less likely to have health problems, internalizing disorders or prior treatment;

More likely to have externalizing disorders.

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites* p<.05


Hiv risk behaviors past 90 days1

HIV Risk Behaviors (past 90 days)

JTDC more likely to have multiple partners, and less likely to have had risky or unprotected sex or needle use.

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites* p<.05


Number of major clinical problems1

Number of Major Clinical Problems*

*Count of marijuana use disorder, alcohol use disorder, any other drug use disorder, internalizing problems including: depression, anxiety, homicidal/suicidal thoughts, and trauma, externalizing problems including conduct disorder and ADHD, Lifetime victimization, past year acts of physical violence or past year illegal activity.

JTDC slightly less severe on psychopathology.

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites* p<.05


Jtdc and atdc fdc comparison treatment

JTDC and ATDC/FDC Comparison: Treatment


Type of treatment provided

Evidence-based protocols

Type of Treatment provided

JTDC more likely to be treated with wider variety of evidence-based protocols.

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites* p<.05


Treatment system involvement1

Treatment System Involvement

JTDC less likely to initiate within 2 weeks, to be in any treatment 3 months post-admission, or to have completed or still be in treatment.

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites* p<.05


Substance abuse treatment intake to 3 months1

Substance Abuse Treatment (intake to 3 months+)

JTDC received fewer days of any treatment – esp. IOP days or medication.

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites* p<.05 +or 6-month if missing 3-month


Range of substance abuse treatment content intake to 3 months1

Range of Substance Abuse Treatment Content(Intake to 3 months)

JTDC more likely to receive a broader range of services – particularly family and external wrap around services

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites* p<.05 +or 6-month if missing 3-month


Mental health treatment received intake to 3 months1

Mental Health Treatment Received(intake to 3 months+)

JTDC less likely to receive mental health services – particularly medication

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites* p<.05 +or 6-month if missing 3-month


Other environmental interventions across systems intake to 3 months1

Other Environmental Interventions Across Systems (intake to 3 months)

JTDC received fewer urine tests and went to self-help less often, but were more likely to be involved in substance-free structured activities

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites* p<.05 +or 6-month if missing 3-month


Jtdc and atdc fdc comparison outcomes

JTDC and ATDC/FDC Comparison: Outcomes


Comparison of treatment outcomes days of1

ATDC/FDC greater reduction than JTDC*

Comparison of Treatment Outcomes(Days of ..)

ATDC/FDC meaningfully reduced at 6m**

Intake and 6m not significantly different.

JTDC differs from ATDC/FDC at Intake and 6m for all other outcomes

Both significantly reduced days of substance use.

Post-Pre d (ATDC/ FDC, JTDC)

Illegal Activity

(d=-0.15, -0.06)

Substance

Use*

(d=-0.77, -0.60)

Emotional

Problems

(d=-0. 22, -0.17)

Trouble w/ Family

(d= -0.17, -0.19)

In Controlled Environment

(d=0.08, -0.07)

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites *p<.05 **or 3 months if missing 6 mo.


Outcome status across waves

Outcome Status Across Waves

ATDC/FDC

JTDC

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites * p<.05 +or 6-month if missing 3-month


In recovery

In Recovery*

N (ATDC/ FDC, JTDC)

*No past month substance use or problems while living in the community.

Source: CSAT 2010 Horizontal dataset: ATDC and FDC sites


Strengths limits of this information

Strengths & Limits ofthis information

  • Strengths

    • Multisite quasi assignment

    • Multiple follow-up waves

    • Large sample size and high follow-up rates

  • Limits

    • Not randomized

    • Differences at intake not controlled

    • Adult sites are mostly in the first or second grant year

    • Disproportionately male in JTDC, female in ATDC

    • Disproportionately Hispanic youth in JTDC, Caucasian in ATDC

    • Unknown fidelity of implementation

    • Not sufficient numbers of specific evidence-based practices to compare


Major predictors of bigger effects found in multiple meta analyses lipsey 1997 2005

Major Predictors of Bigger Effects Found in Multiple Meta Analyses (Lipsey, 1997, 2005)

  • A strong intervention protocol based on prior evidence

  • Quality assurance to ensure protocol adherence and project implementation

  • Proactive case supervision of individual

  • Triage to focus on the highest severity subgroup


Melissa ives msw kate moritz ma michael l dennis ph d chestnut health systems normal il

Impact of the numbers of these Favorable features on Recidivism in 509 Juvenile Justice Studies in Lipsey Meta Analysis

The more features, the lower the recidivism

Average Practice

Source: Adapted from Lipsey, 1997, 2005


Melissa ives msw kate moritz ma michael l dennis ph d chestnut health systems normal il

Evidence-Based Treatment (EBT) that Typically do Better than Usual Practice in Reducing Juvenile Use & Recidivism

  • Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA)

  • Aggression Replacement Training (ART)

  • Assertive Continuing Care (ACC)

  • Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT)

  • Functional Family Therapy (FFT)

  • Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT)

  • Thinking for a Change (TFC)

  • Interpersonal Social Problem Solving (ISPS)

  • Motivational Enhancement Therapy/Cognitive Behavior Therapy (MET/CBT)

  • Motivational Interviewing (MI)

  • Multi Systemic Therapy (MST)

  • Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT)

  • Reasoning & Rehabilitation (RR)

  • Seven Challenges (7C)

Small or no differences in mean effect size between these brand names

Source: Adapted from Lipsey et al., 2001, 2010; Waldron et al., 2001, Dennis et al., 2004


Melissa ives msw kate moritz ma michael l dennis ph d chestnut health systems normal il

(Godley et al. 2002) and Scott & Dennis 2009

Evidence-Based Practices Can be SIMPLE: On-site proactive urine testing can be used to reduce false negatives by more than half


Implementation is essential reduction in recidivism from 50 control group rate

The best is to have a strong program implemented well

The effect of a well implemented weak program is as big as a strong program implemented poorly

Implementation is Essential (Reduction in Recidivism from .50 Control Group Rate)

Thus one should optimally pick the strongest intervention that one can implement well

Source: Adapted from Lipsey, 1997, 2005


References

References

  • Bhati et al. (2008) To Treat or Not To Treat: Evidence on the Prospects of Expanding Treatment to Drug-Involved Offenders.  Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

  • Capriccioso, R. (2004).  Foster care: No cure for mental illness.  Connect for Kids. http://www.connectforkids.org/node/571

  • Chandler, R.K., Fletcher, B.W., Volkow, N.D. (2009).  Treating drug abuse and addiction in the criminal justice system: Improving public health and safety.  Journal American Medical Association, 301(2), 183-190.

  • Chassin, L. (2008) Juvenile Justice and Substance Abuse. Juvenile Justice. 18(2) 165-183. http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=31&articleid=46&sectionid=153

  • Dennis, M. L., Godley, S. H., Diamond, G., Tims, F. M., Babor, T., Donaldson, J., Liddle, H., Titus, J. C., Kaminer, Y., Webb, C., Hamilton, N., & Funk, R. (2004). The Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) Study: Main Findings from Two Randomized Trials. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 27, 197-213.

  • Dennis, M. L., & McGeary, K. A. (1999, fall). Adolescent alcohol and marijuana treatment: Kids need it now. TIE Communique, 10–12. http://www.chestnut.org/li/trends/Adolescent%20Problems/youth_need_treat.html

  • Dennis, M. L., Scott, C. K. (2007). Managing Addiction as a Chronic Condition. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice , 4(1), 45-55.

  • Dennis, M. L., White, M., & Ives, M. I. (2009). Individual characteristics and needs associated with substance misuse of adolescents and young adults in addiction treatment. In C. Leukefeld, T. Gullotta, & M. Staton Tindall, Handbook on adolescent substance abuse prevention and treatment: Evidence-based practice (pp. 45-72). New London, CT: Child and Family Agency.

  • Ettner, S.L., Huang, D., Evans, E., Ash, D.R., Hardy, M., Jourabchi, M., & Hser, Y.I. (2006).  Benefit Cost in the California Treatment Outcome Project: Does Substance Abuse Treatment Pay for Itself?.  Health Services Research, 41(1), 192-213.

  • French, M.T., Popovici, I., & Tapsell, L. (2008). The economic costs of substance abuse treatment: Updated estimates of cost bands for program assessment and reimbursement. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 35, 462-469.


References continued

References (continued)

  • Godley, M.D., Godley, S.H., Dennis, M.L., Funk, R.R. & Passetti, L.L. (2002). Preliminary outcomes from the assertive continuing care experiment for adolescents discharged from residential treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 23 (1), 21-32.

  • Ives, M. L., Chan, Y-F., Modisette, K. C. and Dennis, M. L., (2010). Characteristics, needs, services, and outcomes of youths in Juvenile Treatment Drug Courts as compared to adolescent outpatient treatment. Drug Court Review VII(1) 10-56.

  • Lipsey, M. W. (2010). The effects of community-based group treatment for delinquency: A meta-analytic search for cross-study generalizations. In Deviant by design: Interventions and policies that aggregate deviant youth, and strategies to optimize outcomes. New York: Guilford Press.

  • Lipsey, M. W. (1997). What can you build with thousands of bricks? Musings on the cumulation of knowledge in program evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 76, 7-23.

  • Lipsey, M. W. (2005). What works with juvenile offenders: Translating research into practice. Paper presented at the presented at the Adolescent Treatment Issues Conference, Tampa.

  • Lipsey, M. W., Chapman, G. L., & Landenberger, N. A. (2001). Cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 144-157.

  • Marlowe, D. B., (2008). Recent Studies of Drug Courts and DWI Courts: Crime Reduction and Cost Savings. NADCP.

  • Neumark, Y.D., Van Etten, M.L., & Anthony, J.C. (2000). Drug dependence and death: Survival analysis of the Baltimore ECA sample from 1981 to 1995. Substance Use and Misuse, 35, 313-327.

  • Office of Applied Studies. 2002. Summary of findings from the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Office of Applied Studies.

  • Office of Applied Studies (2006). Results from the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings Rockville, MD:  Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.  http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k5NSDUH/2k5results.htm#7.3.1


References continued1

References (continued)

  • Office of Applied Studies. 2002. Summary of findings from the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Office of Applied Studies.

  • Office of Applied Studies (2006). Results from the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings Rockville, MD:  Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.  http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k5NSDUH/2k5results.htm#7.3.1

  • Office of Applied Studies (OAS, 2006). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.(SAMHSA) National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2006 [Computer file]. ICPSR21240-v4. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2009-08-12.

  • Office of Applied Studies. 2008. Substate estimates from the 2004-2006 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

  • Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). (May 2001). Juvenile Drug Court Program. Department of Justice, OJJDP, Washington, DC. NCJ 184744.

  • Scott, C. K., & Dennis, M. L. (2009). Results from Two Randomized Clinical Trials evaluating the impact of Quarterly Recovery Management Checkups with Adult Chronic Substance Users. Addiction.

  • Scott, C. K., Dennis, M. L., & Funk, R.R. (2008). Predicting the relative risk of death over 9 years based on treatment completion and duration of abstinence . Poster 119 at the College of Problems on Drug Dependence (CPDD) Annual Meeting, San Juan, PR, June 16, 2008. Available at http://www.chestnut.org/li/posters

  • Scott, C. K., Foss, M. A., & Dennis, M. L. (2005). Pathways in the relapse, treatment, and recovery cycle over three years. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 28, S61-S70.

  • Waldron, H. B., Slesnick, N., Brody, J. L., Turner, C. W., & Peterson, T. R. (2001). Treatment outcomes for adolescent substance abuse at four- and seven-month assessments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(5), 802-813.

  • Wasserman, G. A., McReynolds, L. S. Schwalbe, C. S. Keating, J. M. & Jones, S. A. (2010) Psychiatric Disorder, Comorbidity, and Suicidal Behavior in Juvenile Justice Youth. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 37(12): 1361-1376.


Resources you can use now

Resources you can use now

  • Cost-Effective evidence-based practices A-CRA & MET/CBT tracks here, more at www.chestnut.org/li/apss or http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/

  • Most withdrawal symptoms appeared more appropriate for ambulatory/outpatient detoxification, see http://www.aafp.org/afp/2005/0201/p495.html

  • Trauma informed therapy and suicide prevention at http://www.nctsn.org/nccts and http://www.sprc.org/

  • Externalizing disorders medication & practices http://systemsofcare.samhsa.gov/ResourceGuide/ebp.html

  • Tobacco cessation protocols for youth http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/quit_smoking/cessation/youth_tobacco_cessation/index.htm

  • HIV prevention with more focus on sexual risk and interpersonal victimization at http://www.who.int/gender/violence/en/ or http://www.effectiveinterventions.org/en/home.aspx

  • For individual level strengths see http://www.chestnut.org/li/apss/CSAT/protocols/index.html

  • For improving customer services http://www.niatx.net


  • Login