Size of Drug Problem in Juvenile Justice Depends on Where You Look
Researchers investigating the prevalence of substance abuse problems among youthful offenders find that the rate of abuse varies according to where they look. Drug behaviors by offenders at the earliest stages of justice involvement are not that different from drug abuse rates in the general population, but the problem becomes more common as studies look more deeply into the juvenile justice process.
McReynolds et al. (2008), for example, recently examined the prevalence of drug disorders among young offenders referred by police to a community-based assessment center in Florida. Juvenile assessment centers in Florida typically handle youth with few prior police contacts and those charged with non-serious offenses. The study showed that just 11 percent of these youth had detectable substance use disorders. In other words, their rate of drug abuse was not that different from teenagers in general.
On the other hand, Wasserman and her colleagues (2005) measured the prevalence of drug use disorders among a sample of youth that had moved past police intake and into juvenile probation. That study detected drug use disorders in 26 percent of youth.
When researchers look even deeper into the justice system, the number of youth with substance abuse disorders grows, from 37 percent among non-incarcerated youth under court supervision, to 43 percent among youth in out-of-home placement, and 49 percent among youth held in one of the largest secure detention facilities in the country -- the juvenile detention center in Chicago, Illinois.
Drug-involved youth are increasingly common the farther we look into the juvenile justice process (i.e., arrested, charged, convicted, incarcerated). Drug-abusing youth essentially accumulate in the "deep end" of the system as the population of youthful offenders moves through the legal process.
What does this mean? Do illegal drugs cause youth to commit more serious offenses which results in more serious handling by the justice system? Or, does the fact of youth drug use prompt judges and other officials to see youth differently and to handle their cases more strictly regardless of the particular offenses involved?
Our answers to these questions may determine how we respond to youthful offenders and the strategies we use to prevent and reduce juvenile crime.
[Editor's Note: The chart and sources below have been adjusted to display correctly in Internet Explorer. Users of other browsers may need to scroll down to see the list of sources and leave comments.]
One thing is certain with the drug problem, it's always there and you can't remove it just like that. We recently lost a drug war and this is not a stimulant for those who still want to make a difference. If you ask me the size of the drug problem will get bigger by the year, this is what I learned from last years.
-George
One other comment. RF makes reference to research that might also be considered alarming concerning how many need treatment, in relation to how many actually receive it. Would you say that by any standard of previous research that if we consider that to be valid, that Juvenile Justice is over represented in that number?
Dr. Butts,
The answer is fine. Your opinion, based on your role as a researcher, was exactly what I was looking for. It (CASA study using 2000 data) just seemed to be one of the more comprehensive studies, but a limited snapshot in time, and about a decade old.
While our drug court is a diversion program, some of the "rigors" are still in place. We do find that despite a limited juvenile justice history, our clients typically have a fairly (in juvenile standards) lengthy substance abuse history.
Our assessment providers use the ASI as the primary substance abuse assessment tool. We utilize the Accucare Adolescent Assessment. Any thoughts about this particular instrument?
Greg
A correction of sorts. We screen with the SASSI-A2, and it gives the following: "suggest a high probability for dependence". Possibly dependent is our wording based on how we capture that in our monthly reports.
re. Greg's comment from January 18, you probably won't like my response and I am probably not the best person to answer your questions, but here are my reactions.
In my view, much of what passes for "information" in the field of adolescent drug treatment is corrupted by self-interest. People in the drug treatment field (especially when it concerns adolescents) pass around a lot of "facts" that are primarily designed to advance the cause of expanded treatment. Even if the cause is admirable, we have to be cautious when we accept information that comes to us through the filters of individuals and organizations with their own agenda.
I am especially skeptical when advocacy organizations put out reports that are dressed up as research. The mission of CASA (or at least it's self-interest) is to provoke. Their goal is to alarm the public about drug use and to spur action by elected officials. Informing and educating is not their job. So, the fact their report describes a trend that you find "disturbing" is not exactly surprising to me.
In the same way, it does not surprise me when treatment providers pretend to "discover" that a lot of people need treatment. What else would we expect them to say? Is anyone really taken by surprise when researchers like me end their reports with a call for more research? I would encourage us all to take the advice of our elders who warned us to "consider the source."
Finally, I would also be very suspicious of a treatment provider that advocates exposing a youth to the rigors of the juvenile drug court process because that youth is "possibly dependent." The terms "abuse" and "dependence" are already murky enough without opening up the floodgates with the term "possibly."
See? ... I warned you that you might not like my answers.
Dr. Butts,
I'm interested in your thoughts on the CASA study in 2004 (Criminal Neglect). It gives a much more disturbing trend regarding substance abuse and delinquency having used what appears to be a fairly comprehensive national data set. I operate a juvenile drug court for mainly "first time" possession offenses, and we are finding through assessment that about 50% are "possibly dependent" based on self report.
Greg
Well said Angie,
My perspective on the subject is this; youth do not receive the warning with sincerity. Many in my school test the waters to often, trying to be cool and or prove to their friends that they are just as "tough" as others are. Also, the entire involvement surrounds illegal activity whether it is possessing the drug; ie. pills or other illegal substances. So I see their behavior as serious under any user criteria.
What does this mean? Do illegal drugs cause youth to commit more serious offenses which results in more serious handling by the justice system? Or, does the fact of youth drug use prompt judges and other officials to see youth differently and to handle their cases more strictly regardless of the particular offenses involved?
OR, perhaps the substance use escalates in tandem with the frequency or severity of offenses as a youth's conduct disorder persists over time. For most youth, I am not convinced that the substance abuse causes the criminal conduct, but rather the use is just "another" illegal activity, in a way.