LATINO YOUTH IN THE WASHOE COUNTY JUVENILE DRUG COURT
Jorge Becerra
B.A., California State University, Sacramento, 2009
Alexander G. Young
B.A., University of Florida, 1993
M.A., American University, 1998
PROJECT
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2011

LATINO YOUTH IN THE WASHOE COUNTY JUVENILE DRUG COURT
A Project by
Jorge Becerra
Alexander G. Young
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Santos Torres, Jr., Ed.D.
Date ii

Students:
Jorge Becerra
Alexander G. Young
I certify that these students have met the requirements for format contained in the
University format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the project.
Teiahsha Bankhead, Ph.D., L.C.S.W.
Division of Social Work
, Graduate Coordinator
Date iii

Abstract of
LATINO YOUTH IN THE WASHOE COUNTY JUVENILE DRUG COURT by
Jorge Becerra
Alexander G. Young
Due to Latinos being the fastest growing population in America, and more Latino youths becoming incarcerated for drug offenses, better services need to be provided in terms of treatment. With the rise of juvenile drug courts nationally as an alternative to incarceration, juvenile drug courts need to improve services to be more effective.
Involving family members in programs, intervening earlier in a juvenile offender’s life, and providing culturally appropriate services will benefit both the juvenile drug courts, the families they serve, and local communities. The goal of this study is to provide a secondary data analysis of factors contributing to the graduation of Latino juveniles in the
Washoe County Juvenile Drug Court. Aggregated data from 95 participants was provided by the Washoe County Juvenile Drug Court. Recommendations for improving the Washoe County Juvenile Drug Court, and Juvenile Drug Courts across the nation will be made according to the findings.
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Santos Torres, Jr., Ed.D.
____________________________
Date iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank many people for supporting them in completing this project. First, we would like to thank our families for their continual support while they sacrificed their time to allow us to finish this project.
Next, the authors would like to acknowledge the Division of Social Work at
California State University, Sacramento, for their impact on us throughout our graduate studies. Special thanks to Dr. Santos Torres, Jr. for his advice, guidance, and support to complete this work. His wisdom and expertise were invaluable, and he truly was an inspiration for us.
The authors also want to thank the Second Judicial District Court of the State of
Nevada, Washoe County, for allowing us their records.
Finally, the authors also want to thank the anonymous adolescents who provided the data for this project. It is our hope that the findings will help improve treatment that will enable them to live wonderful and productive lives. v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii
Chapter
1. PROBLEM STATEMENT .............................................................................................1
Introduction ..............................................................................................................1
Background of Problem ...........................................................................................2
Statement of Problem ...............................................................................................6
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................6
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................7
Definition of Terms................................................................................................14
Assumptions ...........................................................................................................15
Justification ............................................................................................................15
Limitations .............................................................................................................16
Statement of Collaboration ....................................................................................16
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................................17
History of the Juvenile Drug Court ........................................................................17
Characteristics of Juvenile Drug Courts ................................................................19
Risk Factors of Adolescent Drug Use ....................................................................24
Treatment and Intervention of Adolescent Drug Offenders ..................................28 vi

Latino and Latino Adolescents in America ...........................................................32
Drug Use, Prevention, and Treatment Among Latino Adolescents.......................34
Theory ....................................................................................................................36
Conclusion .............................................................................................................39
3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................42
Research Design.....................................................................................................42
Sampling ................................................................................................................42
Instruments .............................................................................................................45
Data Collection and Analysis.................................................................................45
Protection of Human Subjects ...............................................................................45
4. FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................47
Means Comparison Using One-way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) .................49
5. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................60
Introduction ............................................................................................................60
Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................60
Contributions to the Field and Social Work Practice.............................................64
Limitations .............................................................................................................65
Future Research .....................................................................................................66
Summary ................................................................................................................67
Appendix A. Letter from Washoe County Second Judicial District Court........................68
References ..........................................................................................................................69 vii

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Correlations ...............................................................................................48
Table 2 Time in Program/Family Involvement .....................................................49
Table 3 Family Involvement Effect on Time in Program ......................................50
Table 4 Measures of Association/Time in Program ..............................................51
Table 5 Graduated/Family Involvement ................................................................51
Table 6 Family Involvement Effect on Graduation ...............................................52
Table 7 Measures of Association/Family Involvement .........................................52
8.
9.
Table 8 Graduation/Gender....................................................................................53
Table 9 Gender Effect on Graduation ....................................................................53
10. Table 10 Measures of Association/Gender ............................................................54
11. Table 11 Graduated/Ethnicity ................................................................................54
12. Table 12 Ethnicity Effect on Graduation ...............................................................55
13. Table 13 Measures of Association/Ethnicity .........................................................55
14. Table 14 Graduated/Drug of Choice ......................................................................56
15. Table 15 Drug of Choice Effect on Graduation .....................................................56
16. Table 16 Measures of Association/Drug of Choice ...............................................57
17. Table 17 Graduated/Number of Previous Arrests ..................................................57
18. Table 18 Effect of Prior Arrest on Graduation ......................................................58
19. Table 19 Measures of Association/Previous Arrests .............................................58 viii

1
Chapter 1
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Introduction
In the juvenile justice system, substance abuse and treatment services for adolescents is of critical importance. In the authors’ work in Northern California and
Nevada with adolescents, many adolescents become involved in the juvenile justice system through alcohol and drug related offenses. In turn, this affects a variety of other factors in an adolescent’s life. For example, educational and vocational opportunities can be disrupted, as well as family life. Many of the young people we work with who become incarcerated due to substance abuse, drop out of high school, can’t find employment, or struggle to earn their GEDs. Some offenders have to be placed in group homes or other treatment facilities, often living away from their families.
In many cases, the treatment services provided to those adolescents abusing substances appears to be either inadequate to fit their needs or unavailable. For example, it is common to have repeat offenders being detained in juvenile hall, then released, and then become incarcerated again. A part of the problem may lie with the types of treatment services being offered while the offender is incarcerated. Another factor may be in the way that the justice system has traditionally treated offenders. Although the juvenile justice system was established to promote rehabilitation of youth, it may be ill equipped to deal rehabilitatively with most cases and offenders coming before it today
(Cooper, 2002). To counteract such problems, many juvenile offenders may become

2 involved in the juvenile drug court, which offers more in-depth treatment, than traditional approaches.
For minorities, such as Latinos, treatment services may be ineffective not only due to system constraints, but also due to a lack of culturally competent services. For example, many approaches to treatment may not involve family or community members, which in turn build positive relationships that support adolescents. These relationships may be critical when adolescents are attempting to change behavioral patterns, so drug use and criminal offenses can be reduced during treatment and after the offenders are no longer involved in the juvenile justice system. As such, this study explores the factors affecting successful completion of the juvenile drug court, among Latino youth, in
Washoe, County, Nevada. Secondary data on the participants in the drug court is analyzed, as well as characteristics of the Washoe County Juvenile Drug Court.
Background of Problem
Although population estimates vary, there is a consensus that the Latino population is now the largest ethnic minority group in the United States. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2005), one in every seven Americans is Latino, and account for more than 41.8 million of the 288.3 million people living in the United States. In terms of growth, the Latino population grew between 1990 and 2005, climbing from 22.4 million to 41.8 million (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). The U.S Census Bureau release reports that the median age of the Latino population to be 27.2 years, as compared to 40.4 years for the non-Hispanic White population. The poverty rate for Latinos was about

3
22.4 % compared to 13.3 % for the general population, suggesting higher poverty rates
(http://www.census.gov).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2009, the population of Washoe county,
Nevada, was 414,820 residents. Reno is the largest city, with a population of 220,000, and is primarily the focal point of this study, since almost all participants live in or around Reno. The Hispanic population comprises 21.8% of the total population of this area (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). This percentage follows the statistics of the state of
Nevada, with Hispanics comprising 26.5% of the state population.
In terms of substance use among Latino youths, studies have found that youths who were born in the United States have a higher incident of alcohol and substance use than Latinos born outside the United States (SAMHSA, 2005). It is reported that 10.8% of Hispanics between the ages of 12 and 17 used drugs within a one-month period
(SAMHSA, 2005). This percentage is lower than that of non-Hispanic youth (11.6%) but still a cause of concern (SAMHSA, 2005). Breaking down substance use rates among
Hispanics is also important as well. Among Mexican youths, 16.5% used alcohol within the last month and 10.9% used illicit drugs (SAMHSA, 2005). These statistics are also alarming because of the high incidence of HIV/AIDS within the Hispanic population. In
2003, there were 28 reported cases of AIDS per 100,000 in the Hispanic population, compared with 7.9 per 100,000 in Whites (Fisher, Reynolds, Moreno, & Jaffe, 2004).
According to the Nevada County of Public Safety, there has been a slow increase with the number of juveniles arrested for drug and alcohol violations. In 2008 there were

4
4,018 juvenile arrests, and in 2009 there were 4,176 arrests (Nevada Department of
Public Safety, 2008). In addition, nearly 84% of all juvenile arrests in both years involved possession of illegal substances.
Nationally, drug arrests account for 17.1% of all juvenile arrests (Belenko &
Logan, 2003). In addition, among 35% of youths arrested for any offense, 70% reported some involvement with drugs, even though this was not the arresting offense (Belenko &
Logan, 2003). This statistic is hardly surprising, since in many cases, a person’s drug use is linked to other crimes including theft and violent crimes.
In examining juvenile drug courts, there has been an explosive growth in the number of programs operating. For instance, in 1995 there were five operating juvenile drug courts (Cooper, 2002). As of 2002, there were over 200 juvenile drug treatment courts operating in the United States, with over 100 more being planned (Cooper, 2002).
At that time, an estimated 12,500 youth have participated in juvenile drug treatment courts, with an estimated 4000 having graduated and an additional 4500 currently enrolled (Juvenile Drug Court Activity Update, 2001). Since 2004, there were a total of
357 juvenile drug courts implemented (Huddleston, Freeman-Wilson, Marlowe, &
Roussell, 2005), and these numbers have undoubtedly risen since this time. In addition, there was a 132% increase in the number of drug violation arrests per 100,000 juveniles between 1990 and 1999, and the rate of drug cases being formally handled in juvenile court increased by 121% between 1989 and 1998, compared with a 44% growth in the

5 total number of juvenile delinquency cases during the same period (Snyder & Strickland,
2000).
The Washoe County Juvenile Drug Court is part of the Specialty Courts Division in the Second Judicial District Court, of the State of Nevada. Among the other specialty courts comprising the Division are: the Adult Drug court, Family Drug Court, and Mental
Health Court. The juvenile drug court began in 1995, and has always been the smallest, in terms of numbers, of all specialty courts.
Although drug prevention strategies have been implemented in schools, and in the community since the 1980s, since 1990, courts were looking for a more effective way to deal with juvenile drug offenders, who were appearing in court in ever increasing numbers (Belenko, 1990). During this time, the juvenile justice system borrowed treatment strategies that were proven successful for adults from adult drug courts, which emphasized rehabilitation (Cooper, 2000). There were a couple of reasons for this. The first was to find a better way in treating those with substance abuse problems rather than incarcerating them. The second surrounds cost. It is more cost effective to treat juvenile offenders through the courts than to simply incarcerate them. In addition, residential based treatment programs are not only expensive, but have low retention rates, around
35% (Orlando, Chan, & Morral, 2003).
As mentioned earlier, although the juvenile justice system was established to rehabilitate youths, it may be ill equipped to deal rehabilitatvely with most cases and offenders coming before it today (Cooper, 2002). The formation of the juvenile drug

6 court helps in this regard, with its emphasis on more intensive treatment for the individual and their family, while also relying on community support.
Statement of Problem
The problem is that Latino youths may not be graduating the juvenile drug court in Washoe County at the same rates as non-Hispanic, White offenders. There may be a greater need for services to involve family members and community supports in treatment, to sustain long term rehabilitation goals. In addition, the juvenile drug courts also need to use culturally relevant techniques and strength based interventions in order to provide better services, and graduate, Latino offenders.
With these concepts in mind, this study analyzes factors that contribute to successful graduation of the Washoe County juvenile drug court. These include, but are not limited to differences in gender, family involvement, prior arrests, drug of choice, and age. It is our goal to identify the areas that the juvenile drug court can improve upon with their services, to better serve their clients.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine ways in which the juvenile drug courts can provide more effective ways of treating juvenile offenders, particularly Latinos. It also examines the characteristics of adolescents in the Juvenile Drug Court. This is needed due to the increase in the number of Latino youths entering juvenile drug courts, coupled with a low graduation rate. This implies that the juvenile drug courts may be struggling to find ways to rehabilitate offenders.

7
The purpose of this study therefore, benefits Latino youths in the system by examining the types of services that juvenile drug courts employ, that allow them to graduate and meet long-term goals. For the juvenile drug courts, the purpose of this study will improve overall effectiveness, in rehabilitating its participants. Although what may work in one juvenile drug court may not in another, there are characteristics that can be applied to improve graduation rates.
Theoretical Framework
Theories help us understand and address situations. The theoretical frameworks that best help us do so in this study include: General Systems theory, Eriksonian theory, ethnic identity development theory, labeling theory, and criminal theory. All of these theories work together to provide a better understanding of the nature of youths in the juvenile drug court, which in turn provides social workers with frameworks for interventions. General Systems theory is highly compatible with generalist practice, as it elucidates the many areas of commonality among individuals, families, groups, organizations, communities, and society as a whole and emphasizes the relationship between people and their environments (Queralt, 1996). Bronfenbrenner (1979) defined the ecology of human development as involving the study of mutual transactions between human beings and properties of the environmental systems in which they interact. The goodness of fit between the person and environment influences whether outcomes are successful or strained (Voisin, DiClemente, Salazar, Crosby, & Yarber, 2006 ) . For this study, the person-in environment perspective allows social workers to examine the

8 goodness of fit with the youths and their environment, and facilitate linkages to resources that juveniles and their families may be unaware of.
Features of the Washoe County juvenile drug court can be assessed and viewed through general systems theory. At the micro level, is the individual youth with a history of substance use. This youth will undergo counseling for substance use, and become more educated on the effects of their use.
At the meso level, the roles of family, peers, and schools is taken into consideration. Families must meet for family therapy while the youth is in the drug court, and abide by the rules of the court. In most cases, this means parents have to attend meetings, set curfews, participate in positive social activities, and monitor their children. Thus, the role of parents and family can be very important in keeping adolescents safe and deter them from using. Emerging evidence indicates that adolescents who perceive that their parents (or parent figure) know where they are and who they are with outside of school or work are substantially less likely to engage in risky behaviors (Jenson, Potter, & Howard, 2001).
Participants in the drug court are also required to do community service, pay restitution, and participate and make progress in school, which involves different settings.
School support can be particularly important. Adolescents who believe that they are receiving high levels of support in school and feel that they are connected to their teachers are less likely to engage in risky behaviors compared with peers reporting less school support (Resnick et al., 1997).

9
Usually there is a need for immediate intervention with the individual and family, as well as interactions between the courts, educational system, and mental health systems.
Representatives from probation, schools, law enforcement, treatment providers, and other community organizations convene to plan on what strategies can be applied to meet the goals of the drug court, which is rehabilitation. In most cases, the juvenile offender remains at home, and systems theory allows the practitioner to help families establish the best fit for their needs. This may include identifying local resources that can provide ongoing support for the offender and their family, as well as developing community networks and other supports for youth and families.
At the macro level, researchers can examine cultural values and larger societal factors that influence the individual. For example, the lack of treatment needs for individuals without health insurance may be an obstacle in receiving treatment before the adolescent becomes involved in the legal system. Likewise, many families may not have the resources to pay for treatment and counseling when there is a need. In addition to socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity also play a role. There may be a lack of culturally competent treatment services for Latinos, a lack of familiarity with the treatment system, and concerns surrounding racial or ethnic stigmatization (Zemore,
Muha, Ye, Borges, & Greenfield, 2009).
Eriksonian theory , and his perspectives on development and identity, as well as culture also provides us a framework to understand characteristics of juvenile drug offenders. Personal identity refers to one’s view of oneself in terms of goal, values, and

10 beliefs (Erikson, 1950, 1968). With adolescents, one can examine the identity coherence and the identity confusion poles of Erikson’s stage of development in adolescence. When young people have a stronger sense of personal identity, and a positive self-concept, they may be less like to engage in problematic behavior. This is important, since Erikson
(1968) considered identity formation such a crucial task and labeled its pursuit a “crisis.”
Failure to resolve the identity crisis may outwardly result in negative behaviors.
Using this lens with youth in the juvenile drug court, the participants are at a time in their life when there is a search for individuality. This search can involve the influences of family members and peers, with negative consequences. For example, if a youth explores different identities and surrounds themselves with those using substances, experimentation with substances can likely happen. In this instance, the youths are exploring different identities and making different choices than the directions of those set by their parents.
Likewise, an individual’s ethnic identity, following Erikson, may also be useful in examining substance abuse with adolescents, and in particular Latinos (Phinney, 2003).
Ethnic identity consists of two separate but closely related components: achievement and affirmation (Schwartz et al., 2009). Among ethnic minority adolescents, a strong sense of ethnic identity as shown to protect against conduct problems and substance abuse
(Marsiglia, Kulis, Hecht, & Sills, 2004). Not only are processes in the family and school contexts protective against problem behaviors in Hispanic adolescents, but family and school are especially important vis-à-vis the Hispanic population (Formoso, Gonzales, &

11
Aiken, 2000). This is an important factor when considering Latino youths in the juvenile drug court. Family participation can be mandatory, as well as school involvement. Prior to their experiences in the juvenile drug court, these protective factors may not be in place, resulting in low levels of achievement and affirmation.
Following Eriksonian theory, ethnic identity development theory also allows us to better understand the correlation between positive ethnic identity and adolescent mental health success. This model, drawing from social identity theory and developmental theory, and the works of Phinney (1989), proposes that ethnic identity development progresses over three stages: (a) an unexamined or received ethnic identity framed by the attitudes of family, communities, or society; (b) a crisis or exploration phase that involves a thorough reevaluation of the history and culture of the group; and (c) and achieved ethnic identity. This model defines achieved ethnic identity as a secure commitment to the group based on an understanding obtained through active exploration of the individual’s own ethnicity (Phinney, 1996). Minority individuals who have achieved the final stage of ethnicity develop a secure, confident sense of themselves as members of their group (Yasui, Dorham, & Dishion, 2004). They hold positive yet realistic views of their own group, abandoning their anger toward the majority group and being generally open to other groups (Cross, 1991). Thus, identity development during adolescence, particularly for adolescents of color, often involves the exploration of multiple social identities including ethnic and /or racial identity (Pahl & Way, 2006).

12
Next, labeling theory provides an understanding of how youths can identify with and perpetuate involvement in crime, substance use, and deviant behaviors. Labeling theory as applied to juvenile delinquency draws attention to the process, which adolescents come to integrate deviant labels in their self-concept (Ray & Downs, 1986).
According to labeling theory, youths labeled as drug abusers, for example, will over time perceive themselves as drug abusers. Thus the self is viewed as a social process subject to the reactions of agents of social control (Becker, 1963). As deviant behaviors become incorporated into self, a deviant identity or self is formed (Ray & Downs, 1986). Over time, this deviant identity will stabilize and can even increase levels of deviant behavior.
Labeling theorists also distinguish between “formal” and “informal” social reaction.
Formal reaction generally includes reaction by those representing human service agencies or agents of social control (Ray & Downs, 1986). Informal labeling of adolescents focuses on parents, teachers, and peers as labelers.
For youths in the juvenile drug court, and in particular Latinos exploring personal and social identity, labeling can have profound effects. At a time when youths may be well involved in the legal system, the legal system reinforces the label of the youth as deviant. This “formal” social reaction is repeated with each arrest or incarceration, which can lead to a formal labeling of the offender. As a result, processing juveniles through the legal system can produce a permanent negative effect on their self-concept (Schwartz
& Skolnick, 1962).

13
The General Theory of Crime states that crime can be explained by combining two factors: an opportunity to quick gains and an absence of self-control. According to this theory people who have less self-control are more likely to give in to their temptations to quick gains and commit criminal acts. People with less self-control
“exhibit a persistent tendency to act in their own short-term self interest, with little regard for the long term consequences of their behavior” (Stewart, Elifson, & Sterk, 2004).
These individuals react on their impulsivity, which affects their pro-social decisionmaking. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), individuals with low self-control are impulsive, shortsighted, risk seekers, physical, insensitive and easily frustrated.
General Theory of Crime can be applied to participants of Juvenile Drug Court.
Adolescents in the Juvenile Drug Court have found themselves as wards of the court due to the combining two factors of quick gains and lack of self-control. These adolescents usually react on impulse in search of intoxication with their drug of choice, not worrying about the consequences of their actions. Many participants of the juvenile drug court test positive on their weekly drug test since they are reacting on unreflective urge, in search of quick gratification without worrying about the repercussions. It is therefore appropriate to apply General Theory of Crime to adolescents participating in the juvenile drug court.

14
Definition of Terms
Acculturation
Is the exchange of cultural features that result when groups of individuals from different cultures come into contact with one another.
Illegal substances
In this study, illegal substances refer to any type of drugs, such as marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines, heroin and other drugs that are obtained illegally and used without medical prescription.
Juvenile Drug Court (JDC)
In this study, juvenile drug court refers to a special treatment program that is overseen by the courts. Juvenile drug courts are dockets that manage the cases of substance abusing juvenile offenders under the greater juvenile court system, which are staffed by social services, mental health, probation, law enforcement and other programs that work in unison to treat the participant.
Juvenile offender
In this study, this term is referring to a person who has been arrested for drug related charges and is under the age of 19 years old.
Latino
In this study, Latino refers to individuals whose origin stems from countries that were once under Spanish rule. This includes, but is not limited to, Mexico,
Central America, most of South America, and the Caribbean.

15
Assumptions
The assumptions made in this paper is that there may be several contributing factors to Latinos not graduating from the juvenile drug court at the same rates compared to White participants. One reason may be that Latinos may not be as familiar with the
American court system, which might deter family involvement. As a result, Latino participants who have Spanish-speaking parents may be more likely to not graduate from the program due to their parents’ lack of involvement. Language barriers and culture differences can keep Latino parents from completely understanding their role in their children’s rehabilitation. When Spanish-speaking parents have a harder time understanding the American judicial system, this can decrease the chances of success for
Latino youth in the juvenile drug court. Latino youth must also deal with the stressors of acculturation by dealing with traditionally minded parents who do not understand their
American lifestyle. Other problems such as poverty and lack of health care can also promote low success rates for Latinos as well.
Justification
The justification for this study is that there is an increase in juveniles being charged with drug related crimes. Juvenile arrests for drug related crimes “in recent years are substantially above those of two decades ago” (Snyder & Sickmund as cited in
Fradella, Fischer, Kleinpeter, & Koob, 2009, p. 273). The age of experimentation of drugs by juveniles is decreasing every year, which is causing higher drug use and addiction among younger teenagers. Courts across California and the United States are

16 reacting to this by creating more juvenile drug courts in order to rehabilitate juveniles, since traditional approaches have not proven successful. As a result, juvenile drug courts are comprehensive in their approach to promote the well being of participants and their families. Mental illnesses are also a contributing factor in the increase in juvenile drug abuse. The frustrations of living with mental disorders can be stressful during times of pubescence and insecurity which can cause teens to want to escape their anxiety through the effects of drugs.
Limitations
The limitations of this paper are that our study is secondary analysis and we will not make use of interviews or surveys with the participants in drug court. Juvenile drug courts are confidential due to results pertaining to minors confidentiality. The authors will be basing this study on secondary data obtained from the statistical records of the drug court in Washoe County, Nevada. Another limitation may be the sample size of this study. In other juvenile drug courts within the United States, the number of participants can be far greater. In addition, the number of Latino juveniles involved in these courts can also be greater.
Statement of Collaboration
This project is a collaborative endeavor in which both authors participated equally in all stages of research and writing.

17
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
A compilation of literary works was gathered to explore why Latino youth may not be graduating the juvenile drug court at the same rates as non-Hispanics. These works give a history of the Juvenile Drug Court as well as the general characteristics of the
Juvenile Drug court Model in Washoe County and how it is organized to rehabilitate juvenile drug users. The compiled works also introduce general risk factors for adolescent drug use as well as risk factors for Latino Adolescent drug use in the United
States. Prevention and treatment for Latino, and non-Latino Whites are also presented to distinguish the differences and effectiveness of methods and treatment plans used for people of different cultures. These literary works relate to this study as it gives an in depth look into Juvenile Drug Courts and its participants, which can help understand why
Latinos have a lower graduation rate compared to non-Hispanic white offenders.
History of the Juvenile Drug Court
Beginning in the mid 1980s, with the increasing concern over drug related crime and the explosion of crack cocaine use, increased law enforcement activity on drug related crime focused on the apprehension of street level dealers, which flooded criminal courts with drug offenders (Belenko, 1990; Belenko & Dumanovsky, 1993). This influx of offenders required courts to find new ways of to reduce the cycle of drug use and crime, as the treatment services of traditional models lacked effectiveness. Accordingly, some state courts began experiments to provide dedicated courtrooms for drug cases,

18 mainly in an effort to speed the processing of cases (Belenko & Dumanovsky, 1993;
Cooper & Trotter, 1994). However, these strategies at first did not address the complex issues surrounding substance abuse—including family and mental health problems and did little to stem the tide of drug offenders flowing into the system, or reduce recidivism among released offenders (U.S. Department of Justice, 2003).
First implemented in Miami, Florida, drug courts quickly spread to other locations across the country (Finn & Newlyn, 1993). Following this, the Violent Crime Control and Law enforcement Act of 1994 provided federal funding for the planning, implementation, and enhancement of drug courts and created the Drug Courts Program
Office in the Office of Justice Programs to administer these grants (Belenko & Logan,
2003). This federal funding and policy focus helped fuel the rapid spread of drug courts, including the application of the drug court model to juvenile offenders. The rationale was that providing defendants with an opportunity for self-improvement and drug treatment would reduce the demand for illicit drugs, involvement in crime, and the reinvolvement in the court system (Belenko & Dumanovsky, 1993; U.S. Department of
Justice, 1995).
Although the juvenile justice system in the United States was established a century ago to promote rehabilitation of youth, many feel that the system, as it now evolved, is ill equipped to deal rehabilitatively with most cases and offenders coming before it (Cooper, 2002). The primary reason for this is that juvenile courts lack the resources to protect public safety. In addition, the emergence of juvenile drug courts

19 have also been a result of an influx of drug and alcohol offenders, increasingly punitive policies, and the positive experiences with adult drug courts (Cooper, 2001). As a result, juvenile drug treatment courts have sprung up since the early 1990’s in response to the growing need of treating cases involving substance use by juvenile offenders. Juvenile drug treatment courts are part of a growing therapeutic jurisprudential movement in the
United States, characterized by increased consideration to the potential for healing, in addition to punishment, which can be achieved through the case disposition process for both the individual and community (Hora & Shcma, 1999).
The early goals of drug treatment courts were designed to reduce drug use and recidivism by means of close monitoring each participant through frequent (usually weekly) court appearances, in-home contacts, supervision by probation officers/case managers, treatment services, and drug testing (Cooper, 2002). However, to achieve these goals it has now became necessary to take a more long term approach in reducing drug use and recidivism, by supporting youths after the period when they are no longer a part of juvenile drug treatment court. This is accomplished by promoting family systems to provide supervision and support of youth and working with youth to develop positive relationships within the school and community (Cooper, 2002).
Characteristics of Juvenile Drug Courts
Juvenile drug courts are intensive treatment programs established within and supervised by juvenile courts to provide specialized services for eligible drug involved youth and their families (U.S. Department of Justice, 2003). In general, juvenile drug

20 court programs promise many benefits over the traditional juvenile drug court: focused attention on the individual offender, the ability to address multiple issues, providing ongoing supervision and accountability, greater access to services, using better informed judges, and expanded community collaborations (Belenko & Logan, 2003). However, many juvenile drug courts are based on the adult drug models, and do not account for the substantial differences in adolescents, such as the critical impact that peers and the family environment have on juvenile substance use (Marshal & Chassin, 2000; Windie, 2000).
Although no two juvenile drug courts are alike, they do share some general characteristics. For example, there is a greater focus on the functioning of the family – as well as the juvenile – more intensive and broadly-focused support services, greater coordination between the court and school system and other community agencies
(including treatment centers), and an increased reliance on personal and skills development services (Cooper, 2002).
In this light, the juvenile drug court judge overseas each case through frequent
(often weekly) status hearings with the offender and parties involved. The judge both leads and works as a member of a team that comprises representatives from treatment, juvenile justice, social services, school and vocational programs, law enforcement, probation, the prosecution, and the defense (U.S. Department of Justice, 2003).
Together, the team determines how best to address the substance abuse and related problems of the youth and his or her family that have brought the youth into contact with the justice system (McGee, Parnham, & Smith, 2000).

21
The goals of the juvenile drug courts are multiple, but include five general components. The first is in providing immediate intervention, treatment, and structure in the lives of juveniles who use drugs through ongoing, active oversight and monitoring by the drug court judge (U.S. Department of Justice, 2003). The second is counteracting the negative influences of peers, gangs, and family members, and improving juveniles functioning in their environment (U.S Department of Justice, 1997). The next goal of the juvenile drug courts is providing the offenders with the skills they need to lead productive lives, including skills that relate to their educational development, sense of self worth, and capacity to develop positive relationships in the community (Kimbrough, 1998). The fourth goal involves addressing the needs of the family. The team works to strengthen families of drug involved youth by improving their capacity to provide structure and guidance to their children, and in facilitating necessary services (Belenko & Dembo,
2003; U.S. Department of Justice, 2003). Finally, the last goal is to provide accountability of both juvenile offenders and those who provide services to them
(Cooper, 2001).
To meet these goals, there are various strategies that the juvenile drug courts undertake. Although a few have already been mentioned, such as family involvement, teamwork, community partnerships, and educational linkages, strategies musts also meets the needs of the participants. For example, treatment design needs to address gender differences and cultural competence. With girls, substance abuse tends to result in more serious emotional and physical consequences than it does for boys (Acoca, 1998).

22
Because they appear to use drugs as a means of emotional escape, they also have to learn strategies that can help them cope with emotional stress (U.S. Department of Justice,
2003).
Strategies of an effective juvenile drug court must also create policies and procedures that are responsive to cultural differences. In doing so, drug courts must: incorporate an assessment of cross cultural relationships, recognize the dynamics that may result from cultural differences, require staff to expand cultural knowledge, and adapt services to meet culturally unique needs (Cooper, 2002).
In examining the rehabilitative measures juvenile drug courts undertake, it seems that programs that incorporate best practices intervention approaches like
Multisystematic Therapy have a better impact on youth (Henggeler, Halliday,
Cunningham, Shapiro, & Chapman, 2006). This means that rehabilitative approaches focus on the collaboration among criminal justice agencies, courts, treatment agencies, and community organizations (Belenko & Dembo, 2003). Many offenders have histories of multiple personal, educational, and family problems (Winters, 1999), and there is a need for holistic interventions. Offenders usually have a range of needs that need to be taken into account, which most drug treatment programs take into consideration including: mental health and learning disabilities, and vocational and school problems
(Belenko & Dembo, 2003). In terms of treatment, drug courts also emphasize individual and group therapy, family therapy, educational monitoring, life skills groups, and recreational activities (Hiller, Malluche, Bryan, Martin, & Payne, 2010).

23
Perhaps the most significant focus in rehabilitation concerns the juvenile’s family and family functioning; early assessment of substance abuse and related problems; and coordination between the court, treatment community, schools, and community agencies
(Belenko & Dembo, 2003). Almost all programs require parents or guardians to sign consent forms, and some programs require mandatory family participation, where family members receive consequences for noncompliance with the program (Belenko & Dembo,
2003).
In examining the punitive approaches to treating juvenile substance users, it is important to point out that approaches are different between adults and juveniles, and in most cases, sanctions are tailored to the individual juvenile participant (Belenko &
Dembo, 2003). However, a system of graduated sanctions and rewards is a key part of any drug court (Marlowe & Kirby, 1999). In general, sanctions include random drug testing, curfew restriction, home incarceration with monitoring, community service, increased intensity of substance abuse treatment and time in jail (HIller, et al., 2010).
Detention stays however are usually neither desirable nor effective. For some youths, detention is considered a “badge of honor” and/or a welcome reprieve from a difficult home situation or social environment (Cooper, 2002). Furthermore, detention stays as an available sanction may be constrained by overcrowding problems in the local youth detention facility (Belenko & Logan, 2003).

24
Risk Factors of Adolescent Drug Use
Drug use is usually initiated during adolescence, and the adverse consequences include an increased likelihood of sexual risk taking (i.e., earlier sexual debut, multiple partners, and unprotected sex), driving while intoxicated, and delinquency (Cook et al,
2006). Reviews of the psychosocial risk factors of adolescent alcohol and drug use suggest the highest risks can be summarized as: psychological functioning, family environment, peer relationships, and stressful life events (Nation & Heflinger, 2006).
It the individual level, there have been many studies correlating adolescent drug use with psychiatric diagnoses, to problems with self esteem and identity, as well as individual personality and youth development (Brook, Brook, Richter, & Whiteman,
2003; Pagliaro & Pagliaro, 1996). Studies of psychological factors, for example, suggest that the problems most frequently associated with substance abuse are Conduct Disorder
(CD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In one study of adolescents entering treatment, it was found that 95% of the participants met the criteria for CD
(Brown, Gleghorn, Schuckit, Myers, & Mott, 1996). In another study on ADHD, Molina and Pelham (2003) found that attention problems were associated with earlier and heavier use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. In fact, their results suggested that more severe attention deficit resulted in more pronounced substance use (Molina & Pelham, 2001).
Levels of self-esteem and conceptions of identity are also other factors relating to an adolescents substance use, and to criminal behavior. Many prevention programs have include these components in treatment. The idea is that high levels of self-esteem will

25 serve as a protective factor, decreasing the motivation for and increasing the resistance to drugs (Donnelly, Young, Pearson, Penhollow, & Hernandez, 2008). According to
Dalgas-Pelish (2006), high levels of self-esteem are necessary too effectively manage social and peer pressures, family stresses, and decisions that affect children’s health and their development throughout childhood. Likewise, in addressing the issue of substance use and area specific self esteem, researchers have also found high home and school selfesteem to be a protective factor against the use of a number of different substances
(Young & Werch, 1990).
Low levels of self-esteem have been correlated with increased risk behaviors such as deviant behaviors, poor health, substance use, and depression (Donnellan,
Trzesniewski, Robins, Moffi, & Caspi, 2005). In examining area specific self-esteem, research suggests that youth with low levels of parental and school attachments were at an increased risk for depression, substance use, and other mental and physical problems
(Trzesniewski et al., 2006).
Adolescent’s concepts of identity, from a personal and ethnic viewpoint have also been correlated with adolescent drug use. Personal identity, and identity theory focuses on various aspects of self and their relationships to adolescent functioning (Schwartz et al., 2009). According to some research, identity confusion, following Erikson’s works, is related to conduct problems, alcohol, use, illicit drug use, and sexual behavior (Schwartz et al., 2009). In conjunction, a sense of ethnic identity also serves as a factor in adolescent drug use and behavior. Ethnic identity consists of two separate but closely

26 related components: achievement and affirmation (Schwartz et al., 2009). Among ethnic minority adolescents, a strong sense of ethnic identity has shown to protect against conduct problems (Yasui et al., 2004), substance use (Marsiglia et al., 2004), and sexual risk taking (Belgrave, Marin, & Chambers, 2000).
Studies of family environment have repeatedly shown that family structural characteristics and communication patterns are related to adolescent alcohol and drug use
(Nation & Hefinger, 2006). One of the most significant family factors is the quality of relationships between family members. When the quality of the relationship is high it acts as a protective factor in reducing drug use. In addition, family environments with high levels of adversity, including violence, stress, parental drug use, ineffective communication and discipline, and poor sibling relationships have also been linked to adolescent drug use (Vakalahi, 2001). The importance of family monitoring of adolescents has also been demonstrated as a protective factor (Stewart, 2002), as has family “hardiness: (i.e., the ability to use family strengths to cope with family stressors)
(Duncan & Tildesley, 1995). Parental involvement in an adolescent’s life is another factor. In one study by Stoker and Swadi (1990), research showed that adolescents who used drugs reported that their parents were less involved, and had more problems with communication than non-drug users. Collectively, these studies show that there is little doubt that family environment is important in adolescents’ decisions regarding alcohol and drug use (Nation & Heflinger, 2006).

27
Peer relationships are also important to consider when examining adolescent drug use. Through research, it appears that drug and alcohol use among close friends and peers influences the initiation and maintenance of drug use among adolescents (Nation &
Heflinger, 2006). In one study by Bailey and Hubbard (1991), the onset of marijuana use by adolescents could be predicted by their beliefs about the number of friends using and the frequency of their friend’s usage. In addition, Wills, Sandy, Yeager, Cleary, and
Shinar (2001) found significant correlations between the adolescents alcohol and marijuana use and the number of friends who were using these substances. Finally, in examining different ages of adolescents, Choi, Harachi, Gillmore, and Catalano (2006) examined attitudes and peer influences on substance abuse. Of the risk factors considered, usage by friends was the only factor that was found to be significant across age groups, gender, and substances. They found that peer influences, including the perceived number of peers using drugs and peers’ attitudes toward drug use, were more important among those in their mid to late teens. The presence then of peer influences on an adolescent’s substance use is prevalent. This may also be one reason why prevention and treatment programs are integrating more peer related components in their programs.
Lastly, stressful life events and trauma have also been correlated with adolescent substance use. Previous studies suggest that early childhood trauma can lead to an array of negative health outcomes and behaviors, including substance abuse, among both adolescents and adults (Osofsky, 1999; van der Kolk, Perry, & Herman, 1991). Among these negative events studied are divorce, witnessing violence, personal or familial health

28 problems, and personal or familial victimization (Nation & Heflinger, 2006). Wills et al.
(2001) found that negative life events were associated with the initial level of substance abuse and increases in use over time. The results of these numerous studies are clear, there appears to be a strong correlation between trauma and substance use among adolescents.
Treatment and Intervention of Adolescent Drug Offenders
Because the casual processes involved in the etiology, maintenance, and escalation of serious substance use and delinquency are multiple and complex, interventions developed to reduce these problems must be multifaceted and theory driven, and must target a broad range of empirically supported risk and protective factors
(Catalano & Hawkins, 1996; Dembo & Williams, 1994; Dodge & Petit, 2003). To be most effective, interventions must target multiple risk factors because multiple risk factors are likely to produce and maintain the co-occurring behaviors of serious substance abuse and delinquency (Dodge & Petit, 2003). Interventions that address only a narrow set of risk factors may be insufficient for addressing the scope of the problem
(Sukhodolsky & Ruchkin, 2006), and single-component interventions (i.e., those focusing on one problem at a time) are likely to be unsuccessful, given the multiple of forces that operate to produce antisocial behaviors (Dembo & Williams, 1994; Dodge & Pettit,
2003). In addition, treatment for female adolescents may differ from their male counterparts. This is largely due to the risk factors found to be more prevalent with girls, including trauma associated with physical or sexual victimization, poor or damaged self

29 image, social maladjustment, and anxiety (Hubbard & Pratt, 2002). Given this research, multi-component interventions appear promising (Rutter, Giller, & Hagell, 1998).
Some of the earliest treatment and intervention efforts focused on family therapy approaches based on conceptual models derived from family systems perspectives, as well as evidence based practices developed using behavioral and CBT approaches
(Waldron & Turner, 2008). Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT), for example, provided some of the first systematic efforts to establish an empirical basis for support for adolescent substance abuse treatment (Waldron & Turner, 2008). BSFT’s premise is that adolescent substance abuse stems from maladaptive family interactions; and focuses on inappropriate family alliances, overly rigid or permeable family boundaries, and the identification of family members (typically the adolescent) as the source of dysfunction
(Waldron & Turner, 2008). It uses strategies such as “joining” the family to enhance engagement, identifying repeated maladaptive interaction patterns, and “restructuring” to develop more adaptive patterns (Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1989).
Functional family therapy (FFT) and Multisystemic Therapy (MST) are two other types of therapies employed in addressing adolescent substance abusers. FFT is an integrative ecological model that combines a family systems view of family functioning with behavioral techniques and a multisystematic emphasis (Waldron & Turner, 2008).
Treatment focuses on enhancing treatment engagement, the family’s motivation for change, communication, and problem solving to establish new patterns of family interaction (Alexander & Parsons, 1982). Therapists also begin to work with

30 extrafamilial systems such as juvenile justice and school systems to facilitate generalization of change to the home and community environments (Waldron & Turner,
2008).
Multisystemic therapy (MST) has much in common with BSFT and FFT in its approach. It uses structural family approaches, yet is also ecological focused in intervention. MST views individuals as nested within a complex of interconnected systems that encompass individual, family, and extra-familial (peer, school, neighborhood) factors, and treatment focuses on changing the dysfunction processes that occur in these other systems (Henggeler et al., 1991).
Two other approaches, popular in addressing adolescent substance abuse treatment are behavioral therapy and Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Within this framework, substance use is viewed as behavior that is learned in the context of social interactions (e.g., observing parents, siblings, peers, or other models in the media) and established as a result of the contingencies in the environment (Akers, Krohn, Lanza-
Kaduce, & Radosevich, 1979). Cognitive strategies (e.g., identifying distorted thinking patterns) are typically combined with behavioral strategies (e.g., coping with cravings to use; communication; problem solving; and substance refusal skills training, in which strategies for avoiding high risk drug use situations are learned) (Waldron & Turner,
2008).
Lastly, in examining treatment of juvenile substance abusers, distinctions and interventions need to be addressed concerning female substance abusers. Recent years

31 reflect a documented increase in the number of women and girls entering substance abuse treatment programs (McCarty, Caspi, Panas, Krakow, & Mulligan, 2000). Although male substance abusers have been more visible and more studied, the extent literature relating specifically to women indicates that there are significant physiological and psychosocial differences between women substance abusers and their male counterparts
(Shelton, 2000). Women’s bodies, because of higher percentages of body fat and hormonal differences, are more dramatically affected by the ingestion of psychotropic substances, resulting in greater effects from use, more rapid addiction upon use, and greater organ damage from substance abuse even when smaller amounts are used (Davis
& DiNitto, 1998; Gordis, 1990).
Psychosocial differences are also apparent between male and female substance abusers. For example, there is a far more likelihood that female abusers will be more depressed, will come from families of substance abuse and family dysfunction, and will have been victims of sexual abuse including incest (Molidar, Nissen, & Watkins, 2002).
Females, more than males will have experienced devastating relationship loss, and will have much higher levels of shame and self esteem problems (Corrigan, 1980). The result of these differences then, strongly supports the argument that female substance abusers require different treatment from, or at least separate from, that which is available to their male counterparts (Anglin, Hser, & Booth, 1987; Davis & DiNitto, 1998; Kauffman,
Silver, & Poulin, 1997).

32
Latino and Latino Adolescents in America
Latinos are the fastest growing minority in the United States with one-third of the group being under the age of 18 years old. Since 2000, Latinos account for half of the
United States population increase. With high Latino immigration and birthrates in the
United States, it is believed that by 2020 1 in 5 teens will be Latino (Armstrong, 2006). It is important to understand that Latino culture is very diverse with different languages, traditions and cultures from all over the world.
Acculturation is a determining factor for substance abuse among Latino adolescents. Research has shown that drug use among adolescents is far greater in the
United States than it is in Mexico, which means that along with acculturation Latino adolescents are experimenting and becoming familiar with illicit substances (Caetano &
Mora, 1988). In addition, Latino parents and adolescents are faced with a society in which attitudes toward use of substances are more permissive than in their native countries (Fisher, Reynolds, Moreno, & Jaffe, 2004). Fisher et al. (2004) stress that
Latino youth are at a greater risk for substance abuse than White youth due to contextual risk factors, such as perception of easy access to drugs and exposure to illegal drug sales and alcohol in impoverished communities.
A major additional risk factor for these adolescents is the economic reality of needing to settle in poor, disadvantaged urban areas (Pantin, Schwartz, Sullivan, &
Coatsworth, 2003). It is approximated that one fourth of Latinos under the age of 18 live in poverty, which increases the chances of negative psychological effects (Buriel et al.,

33
2004). High levels of stress and anxiety are not uncommon for Latino adolescents living in financial instability (Dumka, Jackson, & Roosa, 1997). This can push adolescents to experiment or abuse illegal substances as a coping mechanism to deal with familial and community stressors. According to Armstrong (2006), Latinos compose 12% of the population in the U.S. and comprise over 20% of those living in destitution.
While most Latino children from age 5 to 15 years old attend school, drop out rates remain very high (Raigoza, 1988). Risk factors such as poverty and discrimination play a significant role in contributing to the high rates of both illicit drug use and high school dropouts within the Latino community. Not being able to complete general education perpetuates poverty by keeping Latinos in “low paying blue collar, semiskilled jobs in fields like construction or manufacturing with attendant seasonal or cyclical unemployment (Raigoza, 1988).
Latino immigrants face a variety of stressors related to leaving their country of origin and adapting to a new country and culture (Canon & Levy, 2008). Immigrants often leave behind important sources of social support, and parents are faced with monitoring their adolescents without the built-in support of the community and in ways with which they are unfamiliar (Pantin et al., 2003). The impact of immigration and acculturation can be direct on the youth or indirect through stresses in the family
(Santisteban, Szapocznik, Perez, & Murray, 2003).
As the time in the United States increases for immigrant families the greater the chances their children will be immersed in its culture. Children of immigrant families

34 adjust faster to culture in the U.S compared to their parents, and see their parents’ demands as unreasonable or over controlling; moreover, the parents may not know how to interact with their acculturated and more independent adolescents, which can result in increased family conflict (Bray, Getz, & McQueen, 2003). Families can encounter these conflicts when children begin to live by the cultural norms of their new country rather than live according to the traditional values of their parents. Despite its conflicts with acculturation, the Latino family is a very influential and developmental tool, which if used effectively, can bring lasting positive change through its powerful support system
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1986; Szapocznik & Coatsworth, 1999).
Drug Use, Prevention, and Treatment Among Latino Adolescents
Ethnic and racial groups have their own risk factors that affect their adolescents.
One of the risk factors for Latino teens is refraining from drugs in their communities.
Latinos more than any other minority are more likely to live in poverty and have higher drop out rates, which correlates to higher drug use. As claimed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), 10.8% of Hispanics between the ages of 12 and 17 used drugs within 1-month period. SAMHSA studies have shown that teens in middle school have the highest rates of illegal drug use- preferring drugs such as alcohol, marijuana, non-medical pain relievers, inhalants, hallucinogens and cocaine
(SAMHSA, 2005).
More so compared to any other ethnicity, Latino youth have a higher chance of being offered drugs in their communities according to studies by the National Institute on

35
Drug Abuse. Latino adolescents living in the U.S. are at a high risk of abusing drugs and alcohol compared to adolescents who were born outside of the U.S. Research has shown that “increased levels acculturation” among Latinos “have been associated with increased abuse of alcohol and other substances” (Canon & Levy, 2008). It is important to understand that the longer immigrants stay in the United States, the more likely it is for them to use drugs. An increase in drug use among Latino adolescents is sure to happen as population of Latinos in United States increases. In a study by Carvajal, Photiades, Nash, and Evans (1997) Latino adolescents who increase interactions with non-Latino peers develop positive attitudes and peer standards against drugs abuse. Building pro-social relationships in communities that are plagued with poverty, gang activity, drug use can also be very effective to help adolescents develop preventative measures against drugs use. The problem in finding pro-social relationships in impoverished communities is that they are more difficult to find due to the high rates of crime and drug use.
Effective methods of prevention for Latino adolescent have proved themselves to be effective with the help of parents, schools, and the media (SAMHSA, 2005).
According to Caetano (1988), family customs, obligations and expectations have a deep psychological factor that controls the behavior and choices of most Latinos. Messages of anti-drug use from parents have proven lower rates of drug use among Latino adolescents compared to non-Latino youth. Latinos families “may possess specific strengths that may not be present in people of the mainstream culture. These include the ability of families or communities to pressure their members to stop using substances and seek help”

36
(Canon & Levy, 2008). Research has shown that one of the most effective methods for a person to end drug use is having the support of their family (Stanton, 2004).
Theory
Although the authors have reviewed some of the theories in examining the phenomenon of Latino youths in the juvenile drug in the proceeding sections, more in depth analysis is needed to better understand the complexities. In doing so, ethnic identity development theory, labeling theory, and criminal theory will be examined briefly, as they relate to our study.
Previous studies of ethnic identity development have focused on the influences and role of ethnic identity towards behavior. Studies suggest that for ethnic minority youths, retaining the cultural values of their ethnic group and having a strong sense of ethnic identity are likely to operate as protective factors in development (Castro &
Morgan-Lopez, 1999; Zickler, 1999). For instance, Asian Indian American children who affiliate with their own ethnic group and adhere to traditional values have higher levels of psychological well being and academic achievement that those who are assimilated to the mainstream culture and identity, in spite of poverty, disadvantaged school location, and parent’s lack of education (Steinberg, Brown, & Dornbusch, 1996). Similar findings have been reported for Southeast Asian migrant youths (Rumbaut & Portes, 2001). The
National Institute of Drug Abuse reported that adolescents who strongly identify with their ethnic community and culture are less vulnerable to risk factors for drug use
(Zickler, 1999). Castro and Morgan-Lopez (1999) reported that Mexican American

37 adolescents with strong ethnic pride were more responsive to tobacco preventive programs than those with weak ethnic pride. These studies agree with the notion that when youths develop a strong sense of ethnic identity and retain cultural ties, there is reduced risk of deviant behavior, and an enhancement of resiliency.
In examining labeling theory, as mentioned earlier, there are differences between formal and informal labelers, but both can have negative impacts on adolescents. Bliss
(1977) conducted a study on the impact of judicial processing on youth self-esteem. He concluded that youths in detention had the most negative self-concepts, followed by delinquents on detention. Non-delinquents had the most positive self-concepts. Elliot and Ageton (1978) concluded from data collected in a study of diversions alternatives that negative labeling effects were more likely to occur when treatment followed official processing than when official processing was not followed by treatment. Haney and
Gold (1973) found that apprehended offenders were more likely to engage in subsequent delinquent behavior, suggesting that apprehension by the police increases as opposed to decreases the number of future offenses.
Most research on informal labeling of adolescents focuses on parents, friends, and teachers as labelers. Wenz (1978) obtained data on informal labeling of multiple suicide attempt subjects by their parents and close friends, and found that the more intense labeling by each set of significant others, the greater likelihood of additional attempts of suicide. More recently, Adams, Robertson, Gray-Ray, and Ray (2003) conducted a study among incarcerated youths measuring of perceived labeling from the perspective of

38 parents, teachers, and peers. The results provided partial support for the hypothesis that juveniles who chose a greater number of negative labels for their self-concepts reported more frequent delinquent involvement. Labeling variables were significant predictors of general and serious delinquency but did not predict drug related offenses (Adams et al.,
2003).
The General Theory of Crime, developed by criminologists Travis Hirschi and
Michael Gottfredson, states that an opportunity to quick gains and an absence of self- control are the two characteristics that lead to criminal activity. Those who fit the characteristics of the crime theory do not like settings that require discipline such as: schools, home and work (Gottfredson & Hisrschi, 1990). People with lower self-control usually tend to lack “diligence, tenacity and persistence” and seek activities that are risky and abnormal to most people (Schreck, 1999).
Behavioral measures such as the General Theory of Crime are becoming popular to assess the behaviors from those of different populations. For adolescents it is common for impulsivity to be of normal behavior during childhood development, but some engage in abnormally high levels of impulsivity that can be defined as Conduct Disorder
(Gorenstein & Newman, 1980). According to Mathias, Marsh-Richards, and Dougherty
(2008) the prevalence of the disorder range from 6-16% in boys and 2-9% in girls, which makes conduct disorder one of the most diagnosed disorders among children and adolescents. Childhood onset Conduct Disorder is related strongly to aggressive behaviors during childhood and an increased risk for chronic antisocial behavior,

39
Personality Disorders and Substance Use Disorders by young adulthood (Lahey &
Loeber, 1994). Juveniles with adolescent onset Conduct Disorder tend to be less aggressive, have more pro-social peers, less likely to have persistent Conduct Disorder and less likely to develop Adult Antisocial Personality Disorder (Moffitt, 1993). The childhood onset group of Conduct Disorder is more susceptible to coming into contact with the legal system from childhood through adulthood; therefore it is considered more severe.
A study was done in the greater metropolitan area of Houston, Texas that measured impulsivity on mentally healthy adolescents and adolescents diagnosed with childhood onset and adolescent onset Conduct disorder. Adolescents were given three tests to measure impulsivity: response initiation, response inhibition and consequence sensitivity. In the response initiation and response inhibition test, those with childhood onset Conduct disorder measured the most impulsive while those in the adolescent onset group had the most impulsive performance on consequence sensitivity measurement
(Mathias et al., 2008). In summation, the test results highlight high impulsive behavior among adolescents with Conduct disorder. According to the General Theory of Crime, adolescents with Conduct Disorder run a very large risk of becoming violent criminals and illegal drug users.
Conclusion
The literature review provides a comprehensive understanding of juvenile drug courts, it participants, and theories employed to understand the nature of adolescent drug

40 use and delinquency. The history and characteristics of juvenile courts is important to understand since each juvenile drug court is unique, including Washoe County.
Furthermore, since juvenile drug courts have recently been growing throughout the country, this review helps understand how they operate.
Integrating how juvenile drug courts operate with the nature of adolescent drug use, and in particular Latino adolescent drug use was also examined. Factors that place
Latino youth at high risk for using drugs, and being placed in the juvenile drug court were also identified. By using various theories such as ethnic identity development, labeling, and criminal theory, it allows for a more complete understanding of why Latino youth may be caught up in delinquent behavior, such as substance use. This in turn aids in interventions, not only with juvenile court participants, but also their families and outside systems.
As affective as Juvenile Drug Courts may be compared to traditional means of intervening with juvenile offenders, improvement is necessary in order for Latino adolescents to successfully graduate from the drug court program. White adolescents participants in Juvenile Drug Court may have a higher rate of completion compared to
Latinos, which makes it necessary to improve drug court models to better serve Latino participants. The risk factors that Latino adolescents are faced with are directly related to their graduation rates. According to the compiled literary works, treatment and interventions for adolescents in the juvenile drug court are more effective when applied in a culturally sensitive and more comprehensive manner. Applying culturally sensitive

41 treatments and interventions to the Latino participants of Juvenile Drug Courts is crucial in order for their graduation rates to increase.

42
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This is a descriptive study using data supplied by the Specialty Courts coordinator for the Second Judicial court of Washoe County, Nevada. Demographic data was taken from Non-Latino White and Latino participants.
There are no human subject participants in the study and no identifying data was collected. This study employs a secondary analysis of extant data. Secondary data analysis is “any further analysis of a survey or social dataset that presents interpretations, conclusions or knowledge as additional to, or different from those presented in the first report on the enquiry as a whole and its main results” (Hakim, 1982, p. 12). The data examines the association between graduating the juvenile drug court and factors such as: ethnicity, age, sex, days in the program and drug of choice. Participants who were part of the sample data remained anonymous and represented only by their initials. The personal information of the participants was not revealed to the researchers. The advantages of this design are that the harmful effects of this study are completely eliminated. In addition, the extant data received can be used to analyze the needs of adolescents in the Washoe
Juvenile Drug Court.
Sampling
The type of sampling used in this study is stratified sampling. Using this method allows for a smaller sampling error and organizes populations into homogeneous subsets.

43
The population for this study that was used consisted of Latino and non-Latino White adolescents who took part in the Washoe County Juvenile Drug Court program.
Adolescents who completed or were terminated from the Juvenile Drug Court were used for this study. The supplied data received was confidential, in which participants were represented by their names initials. For this study, sample size consisted of 70 Latino youth and 120 Non-Latino White who were between the ages of 12 and 17 years old.
Data for the participants are from the years 2006 to 2010.
Secondary data is information collected by someone other than the person using the data. This type of data helps researchers save a lot of time by studying data from other researchers in order to gain large, high quality data bases. By having large data collections, researchers using this type of data, can begin moving into analyzing their collected data without worrying about the validity and reliability of it (Royse, 1991).
Generally, secondary data does not need to be re-examined for dependability since other researchers have already used the data. Secondary data is also essential when it comes to social and economic change, as it is impractical to conduct surveys that capture the effects of past change or developments (Royse, 1991).
In our study we are using secondary data that has been provided by the Washoe
County Juvenile Drug Court. Using secondary data was necessary in our study since we will be studying the graduation rates of participants since 2006. Interviews and surveys for this study were nonessential since the secondary data provided by the drug court was

44 sufficient and allowed for us to have no human subjects. This made sure that there was no risk factor for this study.
In statistics the most effective method of sampling from a population is the stratified sampling method. Instead of choosing a sample from the total population, researchers can divide members of the population into homogenous subgroups before sampling (Rubin & Babbie, 2008). This sampling method improves the representations of the subgroups by reducing the sampling error. For example, a researcher seeks clients from a homeless shelter and wants to measure their satisfaction with the services they receive. The researcher takes into account that ethnic minority groups in the shelter may be more dissatisfied with services received and wants to make sure that they are equally represented in the study. Using the stratified sampling method, the researcher would organize clients of the same ethnicity together and draw appropriate numbers from each group. In a sample stratified by ethnic background, the sampling error on the variable is reduced to zero because all subgroups were equally represented (Rubin & Babbie, 2008).
For this study we are using stratified sampling to examine different characteristics of the participants in Juvenile Drug Court in Washoe County, such as: sex, completion of program, drug of choice and ethnicity. Using this method of sampling is going to reduce our sampling error to zero and will ensure that all subgroups in our study are accurately represented and compared with equal statistical power.

45
Instruments
Data was obtained from the Juvenile Probation Department and the Second
Judicial Court of Washoe County from intake documents and exit surveys. The instruments include evaluations by the Juvenile Drug Court and exit interviews. The evaluations are psychosocial instruments used to assess each participant. The instruments pertain to drug and alcohol history, social factors, criminal history, and family details.
The Drug Court Exit Interviews are instruments that survey participants about the effectiveness of the program. Most questions are open-ended or of a Likert-type scale.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data for this study was received from the Specialty Courts coordinator for the
Second Judicial Court in Washoe County, Nevada. The Drug Court Judge Master Sue
Edmonson granted permission for the data received. A copy of the approval letter is in the Appendix. Researchers of this present study will make use of extant data from the
Juvenile Drug Court and analyze it using SPSS to determine whether or not ethnicity, age, sex, days in the program and drug of choice have any influence on graduations rate of youth in the program.
Protection of Human Subjects
The human subjects application was completed by the researchers and submitted to the California State University, Sacramento Division of Social Work committee for the protection of human subjects. This study did not use any human subjects and relied on

46 secondary data analysis provided by Washoe County. There was no risk of any human subjects during this study since all data was collected from extant secondary sources.
Confidential files received by Washoe County were stored on a personal computer owned by one of the researchers that is encrypted with three different passwords. A token pass is also required to log into the computer. When the researchers complete the study, all files received by Washoe County will be deleted from the computer and all physical copies of extant secondary data will be burned in order to secure confidentiality.

47
Chapter 4
FINDINGS
The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the data gathered in the study done in
Washoe County. This study did not require human subjects and was analyzed using secondary data. The subjects used for this study come from previous research conducted by the Washoe Juvenile Drug Court. Both Aggregated and disaggregated data can be used for the purposes of research. Aggregated Data describes data that is put together from various measurements. Disaggregated data shows patterns, shifts and other significant information from the statistics of the study. The secondary analysis used disaggregated extant data from research previously completed in Washoe County,
Nevada. Disaggregated data was used in this study to identify the significant correlations of characteristics for Latinos in the Washoe Juvenile Drug. Characteristics such as: ethnicity, sex, time in program, drug of choice, family involvement were studied to find significant correlations with graduations rates among Latinos in the Washoe Juvenile
Drug Court.

48
Table 1
Correlations
Sex Ethnicity Graduated
1 .110 .106
Time in
Program
.035
Drug of
Choice
.053 Sex
Ethnicity
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Graduated Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
Time in
Program
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
110
.110
.251
110
.106
.307
95
.035
.733
.251
110
1
110
.035
.737
95
.037
.722
.307
95
.035
.737
95
1 .466
**
95
.466
**
.000
.733
95
.037
.722
95
.000
95
1
.580
110
.101
.296
110
.066
.526
95
.174
.091
Drug of
Choice
Number of
Previous
Arrests
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
Family
Involvement
N
Pearson
Correlation
95
.053
.580
110
-.227
*
.017
110
.033
95
.101
.296
110
.072
.457
110
-.010
95
.066
.526
95
-.736
** -.355
**
.000
95
95
.174
95
1
110
.011
.650
** .294
** -.037
Sig. (2tailed)
.755 .925 .000
N 91 91
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
90
.091
95
.000
95
.005
90
.913
110
.730
91
Number of
Previous
Arrests
-.227
*
Family
Involvement
.033
.017
110
.072
.457
110
-.736
**
.000
95
-.355
**
.000
95
.011
.913
110
1
110
-.462
**
.000
91
.755
91
-.010
.925
91
.650
**
.000
90
.294
**
.005
90
-.037
.730
91
-.462
**
.000
91
1
91

49
The above table shows the correlation coefficients, statistical significance and number of participants. The correlation was highly significant for graduated and time in program (r (95)=0.466, p=0.0001), Number of previous arrests (r (95)=-0.736, p=0.0001) and Family involvement (r (90)=0.650, p=0.0001). Sex is negatively correlated with number of arrests (r (110)=-0.227: p<0.05 or p = 0.017). Family involvement is negatively correlated with ethnicity (r (110)=-227: p>0.05 or p = 0.925), drug of choice (r
(91)=-227: p>0.05 or p = 0.730) and Number of previous arrests (r (91)=-0.462: p<0.05 or p = 0.000). The graduation was more strongly negatively correlated with no prior arrests indicating that the graduation is more likely with fewer arrests (r (95)=-0.227: p<0.05 or p = 0.000).
Means Comparison Using One-way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance)
DV= time in program/length
Table 2
Time in Program/Family Involvement
Family Involvement Mean
Never 228.61
N
36
Occasionally
Usually
Always
Total
241.78
297.77
352.56
255.68
32
13
9
90
Std. Deviation
132.678
123.528
124.048
76.376
128.103

50
The average time in the program for 90 participants was 255.68 days
(SD=128.10). The average time in the program for the nine participants whose family was always involved was highest with 352.56 days (SD=76.38) and lowest (M= 228.61,
SD=132.68 days) for those whose family was never involved. The juvenile drug court meets once a week, and not all families attend drug court. In describing attendance,
“usually” in this study means once a month, and “occasionally” is less than once month.
However a juvenile is a drug court participant for at least nine months. The average time in the program in our study was 8.5 months which is at par with the standard of nine months. The reason for the shortfall of time in the program may be due to participants who have not completed the full trial of the juvenile drug court.
A one way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of family involvement on the conditions of time in program fall under Never, Occasionally,
Usually and Always.
Table 3
Family Involvement Effect on Time in Program
Time in
Program *
Family
Involvement
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between
Groups
(Combined)
Within Groups
Total
140053.101
1320472.554
1460525.656
3
86
89
46684.367 3.040 .033
15354.332

51
Table 4
Measures of Association/Time in Program
Eta Eta Squared
Time in Program * Family Involvement .310 .096
There was a significant effect of family involvement on time in program at 0.05 level for the five conditions F
(3, 86) = 3.04, p = .033, η
2
= .096. The results suggests that family involvement does have influence on time in program. Our results suggest that when family was always involved the duration of time in program will be better. When family is not involved and occasionally involved, the average duration of the program was not better.
DV= if the participant graduated or not
Table 5
Graduated/Family Involvement
Family Involvement Mean
Never
Occasionally
Usually
Always
Total
.11
.53
.92
1.00
.47
N
36
32
13
9
90
Std. Deviation
.319
.507
.277
.000
.502

52
The average graduation of the 90 participants was 0.47 (SD=0.50. The average graduation of nine participants whose family was always involved was highest with 1.0
(SD=0.0) and lowest (M= 0.11) for 36 participants whose family was never involved. A one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of family involvement on graduation under Never, Occasionally, Usually and Always conditions.
Table 6
Family Involvement Effect on Graduation
Graduated *
Family
Between Groups (Combined)
Within Groups
Involvement Total
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square
9.953
12.447
22.400
3
86
89
3.318
.145
F Sig.
22.921 .000
Table 7
Measures of Association/Family Involvement
Graduated * Family Involvement
Eta
.667
Eta Squared
.444
A one way ANOVA showed that the family involvement had a significant effect on graduation, F
(3, 86) = 3.318, p = 0.000, η
2
= 0.444. Since the p-value of the test statistic is less than 0.05, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a significant difference between Time in program of the participants and their family involvement.

53
The results suggest that family involvement does have influence on graduation. Our results also reveal that when family was always involved the graduation was better. When family is never involved and occasionally involved the average graduation was not better.
Table 8
Graduation/Gender
Gender Mean
Male
Female
Total
.42
.54
.45
N
69
26
95
Std. Deviation
.497
.508
.500
The average graduation for the 69 male participants was 0.42 (SD=0.50), but the mean graduation was 0.54 (SD=0.51) for the 26 Females participants. A one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of gender on graduation for male and female participants.
Table 9
Gender Effect on Graduation
Graduated * Between Groups
Gender Within Groups
Total
(Combined)
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
.264 1 .264 1.054 .307
23.273 93 .250
23.537 94

54
Table 10
Measures of Association/Gender
Eta Eta Squared
Graduated * Sex .106 .011
A one-way ANOVA showed that gender does not have a significant effect on graduation of the participants, F
(1,93) =1.054, p = 0.307, η
2
= 0.011. Since the p-value of the test statistic is more than 0.05, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is no significant difference between graduation of the participants and their gender.
Table 11
Graduated/Ethnicity
Ethnicity Mean
Latino
White
.46
.42
Asian
Black
Pi
.67
.75
.00
N
39
48
3
4
1
Std. Deviation
.505
.498
.577
.500
.
Total .45 95 .500
The average graduation for the four Black participants was highest with 0.75
(SD=0.5) and lowest (M= 0.42, SD=0.50) for Whites. A one-way between subjects

55
ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of ethnicity on graduation for Latino,
White, Asian, Black and Pacific Islander participants.
Table 12
Ethnicity Effect on Graduation
Graduated *
Ethnicity
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
(Combined) .761 4 .190 .752 .559
22.776 90 .253
23.537 94
Table 13
Measures of Association/Ethnicity
Eta Eta Squared
.180 .032
Graduated * Ethnicity
A one-way ANOVA showed that the ethnicity does not had a significant effect on graduation, F (4, 90) = 1.312, p = 0.272, η
2
= 0.055. Since the p-value of the test statistic is more than 0.05, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is no significant difference between the graduation of the participants and ethnicity. Our results also suggest that the average graduation was better for Asians and Blacks. Latinos and
Whites had less average graduation.

56
Table 14
Graduated/Drug of Choice
Drug of Choice Mean N Std. Deviation
Marijuana
Alcohol
Methamphetamine
.38
.71
.00
61
28
6
.489
.460
.000
Total .45 95 .500
The average graduation of 28 participants with Alcohol as a drug of choice was highest with 0.71 (SD=0.460) and was lowest (M=00, SD=0.0) for the six participants whose drug of choice was Methamphetamine. A one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of drug of choice on graduation of participants whose drug of choice was Marijuana, Alcohol or Methamphetamine.
Table 15
Drug of Choice Effect on Graduation
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Graduated * Drug Between Groups (Combined) 3.495 2 1.747 8.021 .001 of Choice Within Groups
Total
20.042 92 .218
23.537 94

57
Table 16
Measures of Association/Drug of Choice
Eta Eta Squared
4
5
6
2
3
Total
Graduated * Drug of Choice .385 .148
A one way ANOVA showed that the drug of choice had a significant effect on graduation, F
(2, 92) = 8.021, p = 0.001, η
2
= 0.148. Since the p-value of the test statistic is less than 0.05, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a significant difference between graduation of the participants and their drug of choice. Our results also reveal that the average graduation was better for alcoholics compared to participants who were using Marijuana or Methamphetamine.
Table 17
Graduated/Number of Previous Arrests
Number of Previous Arrests Mean
0
1
.67
1.00
N
3
17
Std. Deviation
.577
.000
.82
.03
.00
.00
.00
.45
28
29
14
3
1
95
.390
.186
.000
.000
.
.500

58
The average graduation of the 17 participants with one arrest was highest with a mean of 1.00 (SD=0.0) and lowest (M= 0.0, SD=0.0) for participants who were arrested for four and five times. A one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of prior arrest on graduation of the participants who were not arrested and arrested for each of 1-6 times.
Table 18
Effect of Prior Arrest on Graduation
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Graduated *
Number of
Between Groups (Combined)
Within Groups
Previous Arrests Total
17.798
5.739
23.537
6
88
94
2.966
.065
45.481 .000
Table 19
Measures of Association/Previous Arrests
Graduated * Number of Previous Arrests
Eta
.870
Eta Squared
.756
A one-way ANOVA showed that graduation had a significant effect on number of arrests, F (6, 88) = 2.966, p = 0.001, η
2
= 0.756. Since the p-value of the test statistic is less than 0.05, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a significant difference

59 between graduation of the participants and their family involvement. The results suggests that the lower the number of prior arrests the higher the average graduation and vice versa. The factors having significant difference with graduation are family involvement, drug of choice and number of prior arrests. But there was no significant difference between graduation and gender, ethnicity, time in the program and school year.

60
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION
Introduction
This chapter discusses the findings of this study by connecting the results and the research question stated as well as research findings in earlier chapters. Additionally, recommendations for improving the graduation rates of juvenile drug court participants and the Washoe County juvenile drug court will be made according to the results of analyzing extant data. Limitations of the study will also be assessed.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The most important factors contributing to successful graduation of the Washoe
County juvenile drug court are family involvement and the number of prior arrests.
Simply stated, the more that a youth’s family attends weekly drug court meetings, and is involved in the program, the more likely it is that that youth will graduate from the program. In addition, if the youth enters the juvenile drug court with two or fewer prior arrests, the more likely they are to graduate. This finding is significant and suggests a greater need for earlier intervention with youths who abuse substances and become involved in the legal system.
Time in the program is also significant and relates to family involvement. The longer the youth is in the program, the more likely he or she will graduate. Likewise, the more involved the family is with time spent supporting the youth in the program, the more likely he or she will graduate.

61
Participants’ drug of choice also had an impact on graduation rate. Juveniles whose drug of choice was alcohol, were more likely to graduate that those preferring marijuana or methamphetamines. Although alcohol is the main drug of choice with participants, it is not surprising. Many adolescents experiment and drink alcohol prior to using other substances.
The researchers expected that there would be greater differences between the graduation rates of Latinos and their non-white counterparts. As evidenced by this study, this assumption was not supported. The researchers were surprised that ethnicity and gender differences did not impact graduation rates to the same extent as the previous mentioned factors. However, family involvement is still crucial to the success of Latino youth.
Comparing our results to previous research among adolescent substance abusers,
Latino youth, and juvenile drug court programs, the researchers suggest at least six recommendations for improved functioning of juvenile drug courts and their participants.
The first is a need to intervene with youths and place them in a juvenile drug court program soon after they become involved in the legal system due to using substances.
Since it was already mentioned that incarceration does little to rehabilitate youths, by placing them in the drug court initially, youths will be better served in improving all aspects of their life, including building self esteem, positive relationships, and outside support. Intervening early may also act as a deterrent in breaking established patterns of drug use, which have led to negative consequences.

62
Secondly, juvenile drug courts need to increase family involvement of their participants. Research with the drug courts suggests that most juvenile drug courts attempt to do this and acknowledge the importance of successful family functioning.
However, there should be more guidelines in place to make this happen. For example, guardians and parents of the participants should be required to undergo more family therapy and counseling sessions than the minimal amount offered. In addition, families should also be required to attend the weekly drug court meetings, supervised by the
Judge. This may mean increasing the times that drug court meetings are held to accommodate the schedules of the parents and guardians. Parents could also become more involved by signing contracts holding themselves responsible with these requirements, to further support their children and family.
The third recommendation would be to establish bilingual programs within the juvenile drug court, which may also improve family involvement. Research indicates
Latinos identify strongly with their extended family and consider the total family system as a supportive, integrated network; the family as a group has priority over individual interest (Antshel, 2002). This is crucial becomes when it comes to being involved in the juvenile drug court, many Latino families may be turned of from participating due to language and cultural barriers. Thus, to improve family involvement, the structure of the juvenile drug court should be altered to meet their needs. This may include providing bilingual staff, affective interpreters, and support systems such as counselors, who speak
Spanish.

63
The fourth recommendation would be to provide services that address the needs of female participants and those who are dually diagnosed. Although our research found that females were graduating rather successfully, their needs can be different than their male counterparts. In other juvenile drug courts across the country, there may be a higher percentage of female participants than Washoe County, which is important to consider.
In conjunction with this need, the mental well being of the youth should also be addressed. There are many adolescents in the juvenile justice system that have cooccurring disorders in addition to their substance abuse. For example, disorders such as: addiction, conduct, anxiety and depression are linked to almost half of all kids in the juvenile justice system. There are some adolescent who have experienced or witness physical or sexual abuse, which are thought to be responsible for the psychological problems for juvenile drug use (Belenko & Logan, 2003). As a result, services within the juvenile drug court need to be comprehensive and address the complexities of the health of its participants to improve functioning.
The fifth recommendation would be to establish youth mentoring programs from participants who have already graduated. In doing so, youths can identify with positive peer relationships, and minimize the negative consequences of identity confusion, that may have led to their becoming involved with using substances.
Lastly, juvenile drug courts need to take a more long-term approach in reducing drug use and recidivism, by supporting youths after the period when they are no longer a

64 part of the juvenile drug court. Promoting family systems is an integral part, but positive relationships within the school and community also play a role.
Contributions to the Field and Social Work Practice
Since the field of social work concerns itself with a person-in-environment perspective, a social worker is very well trained to give a professional treatment approach that includes family, court system, education and behavioral/mental health. Social workers play an important role in being advocates and connecting resources to juvenile offenders, who may be too preoccupied with meeting the demands of the court. Given that there has been an increase with the number of juvenile drug courts across the country and their participants, social workers are likely to encounter clients involved with the drug court. As such, there will be an increased demand for social workers who are knowledgeable about the programs to assist in improving them and meeting the needs of their clients. The goal of juvenile drug court is to find a successful ways to rehabilitate juvenile drug offenders rather than incarcerating them, which corresponds with social work values.
The mental health services adolescents need, can be provided by social workers in order for adolescents to be successful in the juvenile drug court program. Working with the social workers will help juvenile offenders gain accountability for their actions, which will help them improve their behavior and their decision-making skills.
People in the public believe that it is not worth the time or money to rehabilitate juvenile offenders since there are many of them being tried as adults. Because of this it is

65 important to continue to show the public that rehabilitation programs do work for juveniles. Rehabilitation programs for adolescents are far more cost efficient in dealing with societal problems and are far more humane compared to traditional incarceration methods.
Limitations
Although the extant data was useful to our study there are improvements that could be made for future studies on juvenile drug courts. Since the purpose of this study was to explore the graduations rates of Latinos compared to non-Latinos in the juvenile drug court in Washoe County, it is important to consider a higher sampling size for future studies. Higher sample size for this study will increase the statistical accuracy of significant data produced. Information on dual diagnosis was also insufficient in the data; therefore we could not analyze the affect it might have had on graduations rates. Having more information on the co-occurring disorders of participants allows future research include effects that dual diagnosis has on successful completion of the juvenile drug court program. Furthermore, Juvenile drug courts in California are young in existence and therefore not much research has been done with them compared to adult drug courts.
Scholarly sources on the topic of juvenile drug courts in California are limited, which makes it a hard to compare programs throughout the state.
It is important to note that reasons for participants not graduating were not fully explained in the extant data. In order to develop better assessments for juvenile drug court participants it is important to have specific information regarding the reasons why

66 participants were unsuccessful in the program. Assessments could be created to meet the precise needs of the participants in the juvenile drug court in order to increase graduation rates. Additionally, the frequency of drug use for participants in Washoe County juvenile drug court was not presented in the extant data. Having the frequency of use in the data would have allowed us to analyze how frequency of use affects graduation rates. Lastly, it would also be important to determine if there are differences between those juveniles who use single substances compared with those who are poly-substance abusers. This may also be a factor in graduation status.
Future Research
Future research can be completed to assess the involvement of the schools, and outside support systems (such as employers, the church and social organizations, and sobriety groups), with participants in the juvenile drug court. Although Washoe County, and juvenile drug courts across the country adhere to a comprehensive approach with treatment, it would be important to consider their effectiveness with increased outside involvement, and how they are involved. This could be completed by social workers becoming part of the juvenile drug court team and facilitating the involvement of outside support systems.
It would also be important to follow up studies with the graduates of juvenile drug courts to assess their performance in rehabilitating juvenile offenders. Not only would this improve the services that the courts deliver, but to the authors’ knowledge no such

67 studies have been done. If the goal is to improve the lives of juveniles and strengthen family dynamics, studies should be done to examine the extent to which it happens.
Finally, more research would also include studies pertaining to the theories we used with juvenile offenders. For example, labeling theory and identity theory could be analyzed in terms of the effects of being in a ‘juvenile drug court’ has on its participants.
Increased involvement with the system and being labeled a drug court participant could have negative consequences with youth behavior.
Summary
The researchers began this study with an interest in exploring the needs of Latino youth in the Washoe County juvenile drug court, and what factors contribute to their graduation. Although there has been limited research done with the juvenile drug courts, the researchers found significant themes that relate to the current study. In Chapter 3, the researchers described the methodology and how gathered data was used for the purpose of this study. Furthermore, the collected data also assisted in completing the data analysis. The data analysis presented findings that strongly suggest there needs to be more family involvement with the juvenile drug court program, and courts need to intervene earlier in the lives of juvenile offenders to be most effective. In addition, bilingual programs and gender sensitive services and interventions are also extremely important. It is hoped that these recommendations and the results of this study can be used to promote better services for Latino youth involved, and enhance the effectiveness of juvenile drug courts nationally.

APPENDIX A
Letter from Washoe County Second Judicial District Court
68

69
REFERENCES
Acoca, L. (1998). No place to hide: Understanding and meeting the needs of girls in
California’s juvenile justice system
. Washington, DC: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
Adams, M., Robertson, C., Gray-Ray, P., & Ray, M. (2003). Labeling and delinquency.
Adolescence, 38 , 171-186.
Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and deviant behavior: a specific test of a general theory. American Sociological
Review, 44 , 636-655.
Alexander, J. F., & Parsons, B. V. (1982). Functional family therapy: Principles and procedures. Carmel, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Anglin, M. D., Hser, Y., & Booth, M. W. (1987). Sex differences in addict careers.
American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse, 13 (3), 253-280.
Antshel, K. M. (2002). Integrating culture as a means of improving treatment adherence in the Latino population. Psychiatry, Health & Medicine, 7 , 435-449.
Armstrong, E. H. (2006). Latino youth in the Orange County juvenile drug court .
Master’s thesis, California State University, Long Beach. Retrieved from
Dissertations & Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection.
(Publication No. AAT 1434670)

70
Bailey, S. L., & Hubbard, R. L. (1991). Developmental changes in peer factors and the influence on marijuana initiation among secondary school students. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 20 , 330-360.
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free
Press.
Belenko, S. (1990). The impact of drug offenders on the criminal justice system. In R.
Weisheit (Ed.), Drugs, crime, and the criminal justice system. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Publishing.
Belenko, S., & Dembo, R. (2003). Treating adolescent substance abuse problems in the juvenile drug court. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 26 , 87-110.
Belenko, S., & Logan, T. K. (2003). Delivering more effective treatment to adolescents:
Improving the juvenile drug court model. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,
25 , 189-211. doi:10.16/S0740-5472(03)00123-5
Belgrave, F., Marin, B., Chambers, D. (2000). Cultural, contextual, and intrapersonal predictors of risky sexual attitudes among urban African American girls in early adolescence. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 6 , 309-322. doi:
10.1037/1099-9809.6.3.309
Belnko, S., & Dumanovsky, T. (1993). Special drug courts: Program brief . Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Bliss, D. C. (1977). The effects of the juvenile justice system on self-concept. Criminal
Justice Abstracts, 10 , 297-298.

71
Bray, J. H., Getz, J. G., & McQueen, A. (2003). Acculturation, substance abuse and deviant behavior: Examining separation and family conflict as mediators. Child
Development, 74 (6), 1737-1750. doi:10.1046/j.1467-8624.2003.00635.x
Brofenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brofenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development.
American Psychologist, 32 , 513-531.
Brook, J. S., Brook, D. W., Richter, L., & Whiteman, M. (2003). Risk and protective factors of adolescent drug use: Implications for prevention programs. In Z.
Solboda & W. J. Bukowski (Eds.), Handbook of drug abuse prevention: Theory, science and practice (pp. 265-287). New York: Plenum.
Brown, S. A., Gleghorn, A., Schuckit, M. A., Myers, M. G., & Mott, M. A. (1996).
Conduct disorder among adolescent alcohol drug users. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, 57, 314-324.
Buriel, R., Coltrane, S., Dennis, J., Duffy S., French, S., Park, R. D., Powers, J., &
Widaman, K. F. (2004). Economic stress, parenting, and child adjustment in
Mexican American and European American families. Child Development, 75 (6),
1632-1656 . doi:10.111/j.1467-8624.2004.00807.x
Caetano, R. (1988). Alcohol use among Hispanic groups in the United States. American
Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse , 14 , 293-308.

72
Caetano, R., & Mora, M. E. (1988) Acculturation and drinking among people of Mexican descent in Mexico and the United States. Journal of Studies on Alcohol , 49 , 462-
471.
Canon, E., & Levy, M. (2008). Substance-using Hispanic youth and their families:
Review of engagement and treatment strategies. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 16 (3), 199-203. doi:
10.1177/1066480708317496.
Carvajal, S. C., Photiades, J. R., Nash, S. G., & Evans, R. I. (1997). Relating a social influence model to the role of acculturation in substance use among Latino adolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27 (18), 1,617-1,628. doi:10-
1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb.01614.x
Castro, F. G., & Morgan-Lopez, A. (1999, June). Influence o f ethnic pride in tobacco prevention with Mexican American adolescents. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, New Orleans, LA.
Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 149-197). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Choi, Y., Harachi, T., Gillmore, M, & Catalano, R. (2006). Are multiracial adolescents at greater risk? Comparisons of rates, patterns, and correlates of substance use and violence between monoracial and multiracial adolescents. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 76 , 86-97.

73
Cook, R. I., Conner, D. M., Wiesenfeld, H. C., Chang, C. C., Tarter, R., Lave, J. R., &
Clark, D. B. (2006). Alcohol and drug use and related disorders: An underrecognized health issue among adolescents and young adults attending sexually transmitted disease clinics. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 33 , 565-570.
Cooper, C. (2000). Juvenile drug user treatment courts in the U.S.: Initial lessons learned and issues being addressed. Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston State University Press.
Cooper, C. (2001). Juvenile drug court programs. Washington, DC: Office of Justice
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Cooper, C. (2002). Juvenile drug treatment courts in the United States: Initial lessons learned and issues being addressed. Substance Use and Misuse 37 (12 &13), 1689-
1722.
Cooper, C., & Trotter, J. (1994). Recent developments in drug case management: Reengineering the judicial process. Justice System Journal, 17 (1), 83-98.
Corrigan, E. M. (1980). Alcoholic women in treatment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cross, W. (1991). Shades of Black: diversity in African American identity. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Dalgas-Pelish, P. (2006). Effects of a self esteem intervention program on school-age children. Pediatric Nursing, 32 (4), 341-348.
Davis, D. R., & DiNitto, D. M. (1998). Gender and drugs: fact, fiction, and unanswered questions. In C. A. McNeece & D. M. DiNitto (Eds.), Chemical dependency: A systems approach (pp. 31-56). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

74
Dembo, R., & Williams, L. (1994). Development and assessment of a classification of high risk youths. Journal of Drug Issues, 24 , 25-54.
Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic conduct problems in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 39 (2), 347-
371. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.2.349
Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., Moffi, T. E, & Caspi, A. (2005).
Low self esteem is related to aggression, antisocial behavior and delinquency.
Psychological Science, 16 (4), 328-335. doi:10.111/j.0956-7976.2005.01535.x
Donnelly, J., Young, M., Pearson, R., Penhollow, T., Hernandez, A. (2008). Area
Specific self esteem, values, and adolescent substance use . Journal of Drug
Education, 38 (4), 389-403.
Dumka, L. E., Jackson, K. M., & Roosa, M. W. (1997). Risk, conflict, mothers’ parenting, and children’s adjustment in low-income, Mexican immigrant, and
Mexican American families. Journal of Marriage and Family , 59 (2), 309-323.
Duncan, T., & Tildesly, E. (1995). The consistency of family and peer influences on the development of substance use in adolescents. Addiction, 90 , 1647-1651.
Elliott, D. S., & Ageton, S. (1978). The social correlates of delinquent behavior in a national youth panel. Project No. 4: The Dynamics of Delinquent Behavior-a
National SurveyMH 27552. Boulder, CO: Behavioral Research Institute.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis.
New York: Norton.

75
Finn, P., & Newlyn, A. K. (1993).
Miami’s “drug court”: A different approach.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Fisher, D. G., Reynolds, G., Moreno, C., & Jaffe, A. (2004). Drug treatment needs of
Hispanic users in Long, Beach, California. Journal of Drug Issues, 34 (4), 879-
894.
Formoso, D., Gonzales, N.A., & Aiken, L. S. (2000). Family conflict and children’s
Internalizing and externalizing behavior: Protective factors. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 28 , 175-199.
Fradella, H. F., Fischer, R. G., Kleinpeter, C. H., & Koob, J. J. (2009). Latino youth in the juvenile drug court of Orange County, California. Journal of Ethnicity in
Criminal Justice, 7 (4), 271-292. doi: 10.1080/15377930903382142
Gorenstein, E. E., & Newman, J. P. (1980). Disinhibitory psychopathology: A new perspective and a model for research. Psychological Review , 87 , 301-315. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.87.3.301
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime . Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Hakim, C. (1982). Secondary analysis and the relationship between official and academic social research. Sociology, 16 (1), 12-28.
Haney, W., & Gold, M. (1973). The juvenile delinquent nobody knows. Psychology
Today, 7 , 48-55.

76
Henggeler, S. W., Bourduin, C. M., Melton, G. B., Mann, B. J., Smith, L., & Hall, J. A.
(1991). Effects of multisystemic therapy on drug use and abuse in serious offenders: a progress report from two outcome studies. Family Dynamics of
Addiction Quarterly, 1 , 40-51.
Henggeler, S., Halliday, C. A., Cunningham, P., Shapiro, S., & Chapman, J. (2006).
Juvenile drug court: Enhancing outcomes by integrating evidence based treatments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74 , 42-54.
Hiller, M., Malluche, D., Bryan, V., Martin, B., & Payne, C. (2010). A multisite description of juvenile drug courts. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54 (2), 213-235. doi:10.1177/0306624x08327784
Hora, P., & Schma, W. (1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug court treatment movement: revolutionizing the criminal justice system’s response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review, 74 , 439.
Hubbard, D. J., & Pratt, C. (2002). A meta-analysis of the predictors of delinquency in girls. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34 (3), 1-13.
Huddelston, C., Freeman-Wilson, K., Marlowe, D., & Roussell, J. (2005). Painting the current picture: A national report card on drug courts and other problem solving programs in the United States . Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.
Jenson, J., Potter, C., & Howard, M. (2001). American justice: Recent trends and issues in youth offending. Social Policy & Administration, 35 , 48-68 .

77
Juvenile Drug Court Activity Update. (2001). OJP drug court clearing house and technical assistance project . Washington, DC: School of Public Affairs,
American University.
Kauffman, S. E., Silver, P., & Poulin, J. (1996). Gender differences in attitudes toward alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. Social Work, 42 (3), 231-241.
Kimbrough, R. (1998). Treating juvenile substance abuse: the promises of juvenile drug courts. Juvenile Justice, 5 (2), 11-19.
Lahey, B. B., & Loeber, R. (1994). Framework for a developmental model of oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder. In D. K. Routh (Ed.),
Disruptive behavior disorders in childhood (pp. 139-180). New York: Plenum.
Marlowe, D., & Kirby, K. (1999). Effective use of sanctions in drug courts: Lessons from behavioral research. National Drug Court Institute Review, 1 , 1-32.
Marshal, M., & Chassin, L. (2000). Peer influence on adolescent alcohol use: The moderating role of parental support and discipline. Applied Developmental
Science , 4 , 80-89.
Marsiglia, F., Kulis, S., Hecht, M., & Sills, S. (2004). Ethnicity and ethnic identity as
Predictors of drug norms and drug use among preadolescents in the U.S.
Southwest. Substance Abuse and Misuse, 39 , 1061-1094.
Mathias, C. W., Marsh-Richards D. M., & Dougherty, D. M. (2008). Behavioral measures of impulsivity and the law. Behavioral Science and the Law, 26, 691-
707 . doi: 10.1002/bsl.841

78
McCarty, D., Caspi, Y., Panas, L., Krakow, M., & Mulligan, D. H. (2000). Detoxification centers: Who’s in the revolving door? Journal of Behavioral Health Sciences and
Research , 27 (3), 245-256.
McGee, C., Parnham, J., & Smith, T. T. M. M. (2000). Applying drug court concepts in the juvenile and family court environments: A primer for judges. Washington,
DC: American University.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior:
A developmental taxonomy. Physiological Review , 4 , 674-701.
Molidar, C. E., Nissen, L. B., & Watkins, T. R. (2002). The development of theory and
Treatment with substance abusing female juvenile offenders. Child and
Adolescent Social Work Journal, 19 (3), 209-225.
Molina, B. S. G., & Pelham, W. E. (2001). Substance use, substance abuse, and LD among adolescents with childhood history of ADHD. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 34 , 333-342.
Nation, M., & Heflinger, A. (2006). Risk factors for serious alcohol and drug use: the
Role of psychosocial variables in predicting the frequency of substance use
Among adolescents. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 32, 415-
433. doi:10.1080/00952990600753867
Nevada Department of Public Safety. (2008). Home page . Retrieved from http://www.nvrepository.state.nv.us/index.shtml

79
Orlando, M., Chan, K., & Morral, A. (2003). Retention of court-referred youths in residential treatment programs: Client characteristics and treatment process effects. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 29 (2), 72-96.
Osofsky, J. D. (1999). The impact of violence on children. Future Child, 9 , 33-49.
Pagliaro, A. M., & Pagliaro, L. A. (1996). Substance use among children and adolescents: Its nature, extent, and effects from conception to adulthood . Oxford:
Wiley & Sons.
Pahl, K., & Way, N. (2006). Longitudinal trajectories of ethnic identity among urban
Black and Latino adolescents. Child Development, 77 , 1403-1415. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00943.x
Pantin, H., Schwartz, S., Sullivan, S., & Coatsworth, J. (2003). Preventing substance abuse in Hispanic immigrant adolescents: An ecodevelopmental, parent-centered approach. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25 (4), 469-500. doi:10.1177/0739986303259355
Phinney, J. S. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 34-49.
Phinney, J. S. (1996). When we talk about ethnic groups, what do we mean? American
Psychologist, 51 , 918-927.
Phinney, J. S. (2003). Ethnic identity and acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista,
& G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 63-82) . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

80
Queralt, M. (1996). The social environment and human behavior: A diversity perspective.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Raigoza, J. (1988). U.S. Hispanics: A demographic and issue profile. Population and
Environment , 10 (2), 95-106.
Ray, M., & Downs, W. (1986). An empirical test of labeling theory using longitudinal data. Journal of Crime and Delinquency, 23, 169-194 .
Resnick, M., Bearman, P., Blum, R., & Harris, K. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the national longitudinal study on adolescent health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278 , 823-832 .
Royse, D. (1991). Research methods in social work . Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2008). Research methods for social work. Belmont, CA:
Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Rumbaut, G. R., & Portes, A. (2001). Ethnicities: Children of immigrants in America (p.
20) .
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rutter, M., Giller, H., & Hagell, A. (1998). Antisocial behavior by young people.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Santisteban, D., Szapocznik, D., Perez, A., & Murray, E. (2003). Efficacy of intervention of engaging youth and families into treatment and some variables that may contribute to differential effectiveness. Journal of Family Psychology, 10 (1), 35-
44.

81
Schreck, C. J. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test of a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16 , 633-654.
Schwartz, R. D., & Skolnick, J. H. (1962). Two studies of legal stigma. Social Problems,
10 , 133-138.
Schwartz, S., Mason, C., Pantin, H., Wang, W., Brown, C., Campo, A., & Szapocznik, J.
(2009). Relationships between social context and identity to problem behavior among high-risk Hispanic adolescents. Youth & Society, 40 (4), 541-570. doi:10.1177/0044118x08327506.
Shelton, D. L. (2000). New study highlights gender’s impact on addition. American
Medical News, 43 (7), 30.
Snyder, H., & Strickland, M. (2000). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report . Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Stanton, M. D. (2004). Getting reluctant substance abusers to engage in treatment/selfhelp: A review of outcomes and clinical options. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy , 30 (2), 165-182. doi:10.111/j.1752-0606.2004tb01232.x
Steinberg, L., Brown, B., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why school reform has failed and what parents need to do. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Stewart, A. E., Elifson, W. K., & Sterk, C. E. (2004). Integrating the general theory of crime into an explanation of violent victimization among female offenders.
Justice Quarterly, 21 (1), 159-181.

82
Stewart, C. (2002). Family factors of low income African American youth associated with substance use: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance
Abuse, 1 , 97-111.
Stoker, A., & Swadi, H. (1990). Perceived family relationships between family bonding characteristics and adolescent drug use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 25 , 293-
297.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2005).
Substance use among Hispanic Youth.
Retrieved from http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k5/
Sukhodolsky, D. G., & Ruchkin, V. (2006). Evidence based psychosocial treatments in the juvenile justice system. Child & Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North
America, 15 , 501-516.
Szapocznik, J., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1999). An ecodevelpmental framework for organizing the influences on drug abuse: A developmental model for risk and prevention. In M. Glantz & C. R. Hartel (Eds.), Drug abuse: Origins and interventions (pp. 331-366). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Szapocznik, J., & Kurtines, W. M. (1989). Breakthroughs in family therapy with drug abusing and problem youth. New York: Springer.

83
Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B, Moffitt, T. E., Robins, R., Poulton, R., & Caspi,
A. (2006). Low self-esteem during adolescence predicts poor health, criminal behavior, and limited economic prospects during adulthood. Developmental
Psychology, 42 (2), 381-390. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.2381
U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). American fact finder [AFF] survey: 2005 American community survey . S0201. Selected Population Profile in the United States.
Hispanic or Latino. Retrieved from http//factfinder.census.gov
U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Hispanic heritage month: Sept. 15-Oct. 15, 2006 . Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_ed itions/cb06-ff14.html
U.S. Department of Justice. (1995). The drug court movement. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1997). The juvenile drug court movement. Fact sheet #59.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2003). Juvenile drug courts: Strategies in practice.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Vakalahi, H. (2001). Adolescent substance use and family-based risk and protective
Factors: A literature review. Journal of Drug Education, 31 , 29-46. doi:10.2190/qp75-p9ar-nuvj-fjcb.

84 van der Kolk, B. A., Perry, J. C., & Herman, J. L. (1991). Childhood origins of selfdestructive behavior. American Journal of Psychiatry, 113 , 164-180.
Voisin, D., DiClemente, R., Salazar, L., Crosby, R., & Yarber, W. (2006). Ecological
Factors associated with STD risk behaviors among detained female adolescents.
Social Work, 51 , 71-79.
Waldron, H., & Turner, C. (2008). Evidence based psychosocial treatments for adolescent substance abuse. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology ,
37 (1), 238-261. doi:10.1080/1537441071820133
Wenz, F. V. (1978). Multiple suicide attempts and informal labeling: An exploratory study. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior, 8 , 3-13.
Wills, T. A., Sandy, J. M, Yeager, A. M., Cleary, S. D., & Shinar, O. (2001). Coping dimensions, life stress, and adolescent substance use: a latent growth analysis.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110 , 309-323.
Windie, M. (2000). Parental, sibling, and peer influences on adolescent substance use and alcohol problems. Applied Developmental Science, 2 , 98-110.
Winters, K. C. (1999). Treatment of adolescents with substance use disorders.
Rockville,
MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.
Yasui, M., Dorham, C., & Dishion, T. (2004). Ethnic identity and psychological adjustment: A validity analysis for European and African American adolescents.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 19 , 807-825. doi:10.1177/0743558403260098

85
Young, M., & Werch, C. (1990). Relationship between self-esteem and substance us among students in fourth through twelfth grade. Wellness Perspectives: Research,
Theory and Practice, 7 (2), 31-44.
Zemore, S., Muha, N., Ye, Y., Borges, G., & Greenfield, T. (2009). Gender, acculturation, and other barriers to alcohol treatment utilization among Latinos in three national alcohol surveys. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 36 , 446-
456. doi:10.1016/j.sat.2008.09.005
Zickler, P. (1999). Ethnic identification and cultural ties may help prevent drug use.
National Institute on Drug Abuse Notes, 14 , 7-9.