Adolescent Substance Use Diversion: Commentary on the Adolescent Intervention Program

The article Program Evaluation of an Adolescent Intervention Program: Substance Use Education Program for At-Risk Adolescents [1] offers an exploration of adolescent substance use prevention within the context of judicial diversion. The Adolescent Intervention Program (AIP) represents a faith-based, educational alternative to incarceration for first-time juvenile offenders facing drug or alcohol-related charges. The authors employed the W.K. Kellogg Foundation’s Step-by-Step Guide to Evaluation to examine program processes, outcomes, and areas for improvement [2]. 

This commentary situates the study within the broader landscape of adolescent substance use research, examines its methodological strengths and limitations, and identifies implications for clinical practice, policy, and future research. The AIP’s model reflects a timely response to ongoing concerns surrounding adolescent incarceration, early onset of substance use, and the need for restorative rather than punitive intervention.

Substance use typically begins during adolescence, with many youths initiating use around age 13, which is an age that coincides with critical neurodevelopmental vulnerability. National surveys consistently show that early initiation is correlated with higher risk for substance use disorders, co-occurring mental health issues, and persistent involvement in the juvenile justice system [3]. Faith-based diversion programs like AIP were originally developed during the Reagan administration’s national drug-prevention initiatives, designed as community-based alternatives to punitive sentencing. While secular models such as Project Toward No Drug Abuse (TND) or Life Skills Training (LST) emphasize cognitive-behavioral and educational strategies, AIP incorporates spiritual and moral development into its approach, representing a hybrid prevention-intervention model. 

The AIP serves as a first-offense diversion program, providing structured education, mentoring, and accountability rather than detention. Such programs aim to interrupt the “school-to-prison pipeline” by reframing judicial involvement as an opportunity for rehabilitation and reflection. By positioning faith and education as central pillars, AIP contributes to a growing conversation about culturally embedded and community-driven prevention.

Over the course of its evaluation, the AIP documented 2,437 adolescent participants, with a remarkable 98% program completion rate. Stakeholder interviews (n = 5) suggested strong community investment and perceived efficacy. Recidivism rates were low, only 1-2% of participants reentered the program, and roughly 5% were referred back to court. These outcomes suggest strong engagement and potential deterrence effects. The evaluators identified several actionable recommendations: 1) implementation of a centralized participant data-tracking system; 2) creation of parent/teen educational toolkits; 3) volunteer orientation programs; and 4) a leadership succession plan to maintain program continuity.

• Scale and Practical Relevance: With over 2,400 adolescents served, AIP demonstrates feasibility and real-world applicability
• Strong Completion Rate: A 98% completion rate far exceeds typical engagement figures seen in comparable adolescent interventions
• Structured Evaluation Framework: Adoption of the Kellogg Foundation model ensured systematic evaluation using logic models and outcome mapping
• Focus on Recidivism: Recidivism as an outcome provides tangible evidence of program impact in a juvenile justice context
• Collaborative, Community-Based Model: Stakeholder engagement reflects community ownership, enhancing sustainability

• Absence of a Control Group: Without comparison or matched cohorts, causal inferences remain limited
• Limited Outcome Measures: Behavioral outcomes such as substance use frequency, school performance, and mental health were not measured
• Underrepresentation of Youth Voice: Few qualitative data exist from participants or families
• Faith-Based Bias and Generalizability: The program’s faith-based nature may limit applicability in secular or multi-faith contexts
• Data Infrastructure Gaps: Lack of a comprehensive tracking system constrains longitudinal evaluation

Faith-based elements may enhance belonging, moral reasoning, and mentorship opportunities [4]. While challenging to quantify, spirituality may act as an active therapeutic component. Replication outside faith-based systems should be empirically assessed.

• Diversion as Prevention: Early diversion can reduce incarceration and substance use escalation
• Strengthening Data Systems: Robust tracking allows continuous quality improvement
• Family Engagement: Parent involvement is key to sustained behavioral change
• Community Partnerships: Collaboration across sectors facilitates scalable prevention
• Leadership and Sustainability: Succession planning ensures continuity of program operations

• Comparative and longitudinal evaluation using matched control groups
• Expanded outcome measures including behavioral and psychosocial metrics
• Mechanism of change analysis to identify effective components
• Cross-cultural adaptation for secular or multi-faith contexts
• Cost-effectiveness studies comparing AIP with traditional juvenile interventions

AIP exemplifies the integration of community, faith, and education in adolescent substance use prevention. It reflects a shift from punitive to restorative, trauma-informed approaches, aligning with broader public health initiatives. Embedding prevention within adolescents’ lived environments enhances relevance and sustainability.

The AIP evaluation offers a promising model for adolescent substance use diversion. While methodological limitations temper causal interpretation, the program’s high completion and low recidivism rates highlight potential effectiveness. Future research should expand outcome measures, including comparative designs and assess sustainability. AIP exemplifies the intersection of faith, education, and restorative justice, offering actionable insights for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.

1. Clancy S, Mechling B (2025) Program Evaluation of an Adolescent Intervention Program: Substance Use Education Program for At-Risk Adolescents. J Addict Nurs.
2. K. Kellogg Foundation (2017) The step-by-step guide to evaluation: How to become savvy evaluation consumers. W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Michigan, USA.
3. National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics (NCDAS) (2019). Drug Use Among Youth: Facts & Statistics. NCDAS, USA.
4. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) (2021) Faith and Community Engagement. SAMHSA, Rockville.