Juvenile Delinquency Drug Crimes

Intervening With Juvenile Drug Crimes

Researchers are now focused on developing and evaluating programs designed to break the drug-crime cycle that is common in juvenile delinquents. This paper will summarize existing literature about programs designed to prevent the juvenile drug-crime cycle and, based on that literature, identify interventions that offer the best chances for success. This paper will also provide guidelines and recommendations for developing a comprehensive juvenile justice system that can best address the needs of juvenile offenders involved with drug crimes.

This thesis is expected to make a contribution to the selection of successful interventions and the development of collaborative partnerships in the juvenile justice system, drug treatment programs, and other agencies as they attempt to break the cycle of drugs and crime afflicting U.S. juveniles.

Introduction

With the prevalence of drug crimes among juveniles and the complexity involved in their treatment, which must involve both the child and his living environment, the traditional juvenile justice process is often unable to deal effectively with the entire problem. The juvenile drug court aims to fill this gap by providing immediate and continuous court intervention that includes requiring the juvenile to get treatment, submit to frequent drug testing, appear at court status hearings, and comply with other court conditions aimed at accountability, rehabilitation, long-term sobriety, and preventing further criminal activity. Enhancements introduced by the juvenile drug court to the traditional court process for handling juvenile drug cases include:

Immediate intervention by the court and continuous supervision of the progress of the juvenile by the judge;

Development of a program of treatment and rehabilitation services that addresses both the needs of the child and his family;

Judicial oversight and coordination of treatment and rehabilitation services provided to increase accountability and reduce duplication of effort;

Immediate response by the court to the needs of the child and to noncompliance issues; and Judicial leadership in bringing together the schools, treatment resources, and other community agencies to work collaboratively to meet the drug court's goals.

Researchers and other parties have made many attempts to break the juvenile drug-crime cycle. However, few attempts have demonstrated consistent scientific results. This report summarizes existing literature about various efforts to intervene in the juvenile drug-crime cycle and proposes interventions and changes that are most likely to effectively address that cycle. This report will serve as a guide to help practitioners, administrators, and policymakers select effective interventions and develop collaborative partnerships among the juvenile justice system, drug treatment programs, and other community agencies seeking to break the cycle of drugs and crime among youths in the United States.

For more than twenty years, researchers have recognized the link between drugs and juvenile crime. Across the United States, the majority of juvenile delinquents entering the justice system are involved, in some way, with drugs. According to researchers, juvenile drug use is related to recurring, chronic, and violent delinquency that tends to stretch into adulthood. Juvenile drug use is also strongly linked to poor health, failing family relationships, negative school performance, and various other social and psychological problems.

It is important to note that the drug-crime link does not always mean that juvenile drug use will lead to criminal activity. However, according to recent research, a small group of serious and violent juvenile offenders who are also serious drug users accounts for more than half of all serious crimes committed by juvenile delinquents.

Statement of the Problem

Various studies have documented the existence, nature, and implications of the juvenile drug-crime cycle and many parties have also tried to intervene in that cycle. However, few of these interventions have been Thus, this paper will analyze the link between juvenile delinquency and drug crime, in an attempt to reveal the best ways to break the cycle. This paper will focus on the following questions:

1. What types of efforts programs have been most successful in addressing the juvenile delinquent drug-crime cycle?

2. What type of system would incorporates the strengths of the juvenile justice system, drug treatment programs, and other community agencies?

3. What are the main steps involved in successfully implementing interventions and programs dedicated to breaking the drug-crime cycle?

Literacy and Juvenile Drug Crimes

One of the major characteristics shared by juvenile drug crime offenders is illiteracy.It is no secret that a lack of morality contributes to crime. However, it is less obvious that illiteracy is a major contributing factor to crime in the U.S. According to Danny Black, illiteracy is "one of the major causes of the rise of crime and delinquency (Citizens Commission on Human Rights, 2000)." For this reason, it is a main priority to teach juvenile drug offenders to read and write during their program.

According to Black, teaching children to read would "reduce a lot of the problems with children trying to get out of school and running into mandatory attendance laws. And then getting sent to juvenile court, which in turn, sends them to a psychiatric program. And the kids come back from there on psychiatric drugs or having learned from the other kids up there how to manipulate and use the system."

The link between illiteracy and juvenile drug crimes is one that goes way back. Michael S. Brunner, Visiting Research Fellow at the U.S. Department of Justice, reported that "the link between academic failure and delinquency is strong.... Schools are apparently contributing to the delinquency problem by continuing to provide traditional programming that... leaves many students, after six years of instruction, unable to read accurately, fluently and effortlessly with comprehension.... What brings about the delinquency is not the academic failure per se, but sustained frustration which results from continued failure to achieve selected academic goals (Citizens Commission on Human Rights, 2000)."

It makes sense. If an individual is unable to read, he is unable to participate in many of the opportunities that literate people take for granted, including:

Obtaining and retaining a good job

Understanding simple directions

Participating in higher education

Illiterate people are also burdened by illiteracy's social stigma, which labels them as failures. It is apparent that illiteracy hinders an individual's ability to succeed in many ways. As a result, illiteracy increased feelings of hopelessness and crime.

According to the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (2000), "to exacerbate this, psychiatry's denial of this truth means that their so-called "rehabilitation" programs entirely fail to address one of the single biggest causes of crime. The brutal truth is that these people have not a clue as to what makes the mind work. If they did, they could cure somebody. But they can't and don't. It is obvious, for crime statistics have soared since these arch criminals wormed their way into the field of crime."

The goal of psychiatry is to improve "mental health." However, in today's society, young people are "subjected to a continuous bombardment of the psychiatric philosophy that there is no true right or wrong, only opinion." They are encouraged to follow their feelings instead of doing what they know is right. As a result, violence, drugs and promiscuity are rampant in the U.S. Juveniles believe that they are victims of society, rather than individuals who are capable of achieving their dreams. In addition, due to many cracks in the educational system, by the time they finish school, many young people are unable to read.

Therefore, it is important to find a clear link between illiteracy and juvenile delinquency. Through a review of existing literature and a series of surveys and interviews, this study will determine what steps need to be taken to improve literacy and decrease juvenile offenses.

According to Kaplan (1995): "Each year over 700,000 graduate from high school unable to read their high school diploma. The U.S. Department of Education says that 20% of American adults are functionally illiterate. Functional illiterates can read words but they cannot comprehend their meanings, synthesize information or make decision based on what they read. And marginally illiterate people feel most comfortable receiving information in a visual format, relying more on television than print for information."

According to Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti, "It is incredible -- the ability of the very young to commit the most horrendous crimes imaginable and not have a second thought about it. This was unthinkable 20 years ago (Citizens Commission on Human Rights, 2000).

The following statistics are important when examining the link between literacy and juvenile delinquency (Citizens Commission on Human Rights, 2000):

1991 survey revealed that the largest number of murderers that year came from the 15 to 19-year-old age group. Children aged between 10 and 14 arrested for murder increased by 55% in the four years 1988-1992. In one year, 1991, the number of children arrested for murder increased by 27.5%.

Between 1987 and 1992, the number of youths under the age of 18 arrested for murder had more than doubled.

The number of children under the age of 15 who were arrested for violent robbery increased 78% (from 6,470 to 11,514) between 1988 and 1992. For all children under the age of 18, the number of arrests leaped from 24,144 arrests in 1988 to 40,354 in 1992.

Arrests among juveniles for aggravated assault rose 67% between 1988 and 1992. Arrests for aggravated assault for children under 15 years of age climbed by 80%.

Between 1988 and 1992, the number of children under the age of 15 arrested for committing forcible rape increased over 49%.

There are many reasons for concern when it comes to literacy rates in the United States. The Los Angeles Times recently reported that approximately 60% of local children were in danger of failing their third-grade reading proficiency test (Tallal, 2000).

Millions of American students are not learning disabled yet they enter school with poor English skills. As a result, they do not learn to read and end up in special education classes, which have lowered expectations and poor prospects. As a result, literacy has become one of the greatest social issues of our times.

According to the Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus, public schools pay twice as much to provide special education services to a child (Tallal, 2000). Despite these extra services, twice as many students with learning disabilities become high school dropouts. This leads to lower employment rates and higher adjudication rates.

In the United States, approximately 85% of juvenile offenders have learning disabilities and are illiterate. Therefore, finding out the causes of illiteracy is of utmost importance and has become a major focus of scientific research.

Because so many juvenile offenders have learning disabilities and are illiterate, this paper will aim to find out what the causes of illiteracy are. We need to find out what the characteristics of delinquency are, as well as find any links between illiteracy and delinquency. To answer these questions, we will analyze existing data on the subject. These questions are important, as they will uncover the facts about illiteracy in juveniles.

The majority of youth held in juvenile detention and correctional facilities have some sort of reading problem (Hidge, Giulotti, and Portopage, 2000). A significant number are considered functionally illiterate, meaning that they read below the fourth-grade level. Upon their release from detention, many juvenile offenders will have difficulty in achieving and competing in today's challenging information society.

One characteristic of juveniles incarcerated in juvenile detention facilities is their poor experience with elementary and secondary education. For many juvenile offenders, problems with reading are related to poor academic achievement. However, with effective and consistent instruction, the literacy levels of juvenile offenders can improve significantly.

According to Rolf Loeber of the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic of the University of Pittsburgh Medical School, there is a link between illiteracy and delinquency. Both school performance, whether measured by literacy levels or teacher-rated reading performance, and retention in grade relate to delinquency (Hidge, Giulotti, and Portopage, 2000). The relationship between literacy and delinquency is apparent for even first graders. In addition, retention in grade associates with delinquency even for first graders.

The study of 2,670 juvenile offenders, administered by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), revealed that the average student, while 15 years, 6 months of age at the time of testing and in the ninth grade, was reading at only a fourth-grade level. "Thirty-eight percent of all students scored below fourth grade."

OJJDP found a model that was designed to improve the literacy level of youth in juvenile detention and correctional facilities by training language arts teachers and relevant staff and volunteers in direct instruction methods to significantly improve students' comprehension, particularly for those with reading problems (Hidge, Giulotti, and Portopage, 2000). Direct instruction methods include high levels of student engagement and teacher-directed classrooms use sequenced structured materials appropriate for each student's ability.

This model was used to teach young adult inmates at the Soledad Penitentiary in California, yielding dramatic results. According to, "significantly increased skills in composition, vocabulary, mechanics, and spelling were noted for 75% of the participants." In addition, the inmates showed a newly found self-esteem and improved self-image. Similar results were demonstrated with inmates in the Mississippi prison system.

Such studies are fuelling further research linking illiteracy and juvenile delinquency. We need to know if teaching reading skills in juvenile facilities will determine whether or not students will succeed or fail in learning to read accurately. Therefore, interviews with researchers, teacher educators, juvenile correctional administrators and professional staff, classroom teachers, and incarcerated juvenile offenders are in order.

We already know that illiteracy is a major contributor to aggression, which often leads to juvenile crime. Thus, literacy, in addition to the types of research concerning it, must be examined. The goal of the proposed study is to produce evidence that shows that effective reading instruction can reduce aggression, ultimately reducing criminal activity and increasing employment opportunity for juvenile offenders.

It has already been demonstrated that reading skills can be taught to juvenile offenders. Now we need a study that shows that literacy can reduce juvenile delinquency. This study attempts to measure the impact of literacy on reducing juvenile offenses by analyzing the responses by participants in the survey described in the previous section.

This study will be based on information obtained in three surveys of participants. Survey One is given to participants at the beginning of the study, Survey Two is completed is sent to participants about three months after the original study, and Survey Three is sent to participants one year after the study.

Survey One asks participants to indicate their age and the number of juvenile offenses they have participated in. Respondents are given a literacy test. The illiterate respondents will be given the opportunity to learn to read. After three months in a literacy program, their skills will be assessed. By the time the last survey is administered, the participants should be functionally literate. At this point, the survey will concentrate on increases or decreases in aggressive behavior, self-esteem and juvenile offenses.

The majority of youth in the juvenile drug courts is illiterate, preventing school success and contributing to delinquency. These illiterate juveniles are at higher risk for high school expulsion or dropout, pregnancy, alcohol and substance abuse, continued juvenile delinquency and criminal conviction that are their literate peers. For this reason, this study calls for the government to address the behavioral and educational needs of these youth. By making a greater effort to understand their behavior and teach them how to read and writer, we can eventually reduce school dropout and delinquent behavior in the U.S.

What are Drug Crimes?

In order to attempt to break the juvenile drug-crime cycle, it is important to first understand what a drug crime is. A drug crime is the possession, manufacture, use and distribution of any type of illegal substance, including narcotics, stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, anabolic steroids or chemicals that are used in the production of drugs. The following are the most common types of illegal drugs:

Cocaine

Heroin

Methamphetamine (meth)

Ecstasy

GHB

PCP

LSD

Marijuana

The consequences of a drug crime conviction are severe and may include one or more of the following:

Imprisonment

Probation or parole

Loss of custody of children

Court ordered counseling

Significant fines

Loss of a job

Community service

Loss of residency

Deportation

The likelihood of any of the above consequences depends on the amount of drugs in possession and the type of drug. It also depend on the person's prior convictions, parole status, community attitudes and more.

Trends in Juvenile Drug Crimes

According to research, juvenile delinquents use drugs at a higher rate and at an earlier age than other youth groups (Catalano et al., 1988). According to the NIJ's Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring, which evaluated drug use among juvenile arrestees in 12 sites, the proportion of juvenile delinquents testing positive for marijuana ranged from 47 to 64% and the proportion testing positive for cocaine ranged from 4 to 15% (National Institute of Justice, 1999). Other studies reveal that juvenile delinquents who use drugs are responsible for disproportionately higher rates of offending levels of violent offenses and face a greater risk of future offending compared with delinquents who are not under the influence of drugs (Catalano et al.)

The link between drug addiction and criminal behavior (Ball et al., 1981) suggests that effective drug treatment is crucial to the future of many young people. However, the effectiveness of current drug treatment for juvenile offenders is not promising. Research suggests that treatment program length, treatment modality, type of admission, and level of program implementation influence the level of success of juvenile delinquents receiving treatment.

For any juvenile court considering the development of effective responses to drug addiction, it is important to understand that length of treatment has been found to influence treatment outcome more than any other variable. According to Simpson, Savage, and Lloyd (1979), at least three months of treatment for drug abuse is necessary. Hubbard and colleagues (1989) report that at least six months is necessary. Longer retention in treatment programs and completion of treatment programs have reportedly reduced future drug criminality and have actually increased employment (Anglin and Hser, 1990). While treatment setting (such as correctional institution, group home, hospital) may be important in program success, the modalities used within the setting are even more important. Garrett (1985) found that treatment involving cognitive-behavioral techniques (such as developing the juvenile's skills for controlling behavior and solving problems) appeared to be most successful. Evidence for the effectiveness of other types of therapy (including psychodynamic, individual, and group) and of academic and outdoor challenge programs is not as positive (Mulvey, Arthur, and Reppucci, 19930

Research reveals that court-ordered treatment is no less effective than voluntary treatment. According to Aron and Daily (1976), residential treatment is most effective for legally coerced juveniles who have been using moderate amounts of drugs for short periods of time. Individuals for whom treatment is legally mandated tend to remain in treatment longer and be more successful after treatment than are those admitted voluntarily, despite the general belief that treatment is ineffective without personal motivation (Allison and Hubbard, 1985).

While residential drug treatment programs seem to reduce other forms of recidivism, drug use relapse rates are still high. Research indicate that the majority of all individuals who complete treatment relapse (Hunt and Bespalec, 1974) become involved in drug crimes within six months after treatment (Hoffman and Miller, 1993). The relatively high rate of drug abuse among juvenile offenders compared with non-arrestees and these relapse rates demonstrate the need for aftercare treatment services to reinforce skills and behaviors learned during drug treatment.

About Juvenile Drug Courts

The number of drug crimes amongst juveniles is rising. In addition to juvenile drug dealers, more and more young people are using drugs today, which is also a drug crime. If they are caught using or dealing drugs, they are brought to law enforcement agencies and may have to appear in front of drug courts that specialize in juvenile cases. In many cases, these juveniles are turned in by their parents, just for the treatment these juvenile courts can offer. The juveniles are then referred to juvenile drug courts for treatment.

Today there are 72 juvenile drug courts in 41 states in the United States, with more being built. A juvenile drug court, according to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is "a juvenile drug court is defined as a drug court that focuses on juvenile delinquency matters and status offenses that involve substance-abusing juveniles." (OJJDP; Juvenile and Family Drug Courts: An Overview, November 1996)

Another way to describe juvenile drug courts is as special courts that provide judicial supervision for nonviolent juvenile offenders as they participate in drug treatment services. Through an intensive program lasting up to a year, drug treatment courts monitor the offenders' progress in treatment in an attempt to stop their use of drugs, end their involvement in crime and improve their ability to become responsible citizens and good family members.

The juvenile courts hold the offenders accountable for their own treatment by requiring random drug tests, participation in intensive treatment services on a regular basis, and frequent appearances in court to enable the judge to determine each individual offender's progress. With the increasing numbers in juveniles with drug problems there is a need to specialize programs to help juveniles today. These programs are needed to help juveniles involved with drug crimes clean up their act and learn to function in the world today.

In most cases, first time drug offenders are sent to the juvenile courts to help before it becomes a bigger problem. Another important aspect is to make sure that these juveniles stay clean. If they fail to adhere to their treatment standards, they can be assigned with detention sentences, incarceration, or possibly switched to the adult court system.

For example, in King County, Washington, Superior Court Judge Laura Inveen resides over the juvenile drug court. "Twenty-five teenagers appear before her every Thursday in the 4-month-old drug court. All of the youths referred to the court have been either charged with a drug or alcohol offense, or they are accused of committing property crimes while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Juveniles charged with violent or sex-related offenses are excluded. Participating teenagers must attend weekly court hearings, complete court-ordered treatment, attend school, participate in individual, group and family counseling, and undergo random urine tests. After the first three months, youths who make progress can check in less frequently. Failure to comply with any part of the program can result in penalties ranging from having to repeat an earlier phase of treatment, to spending a day on a work crew, or being jailed for a few days in the detention center. So far, one teenager has been removed from the program because he needed intensive inpatient mental health treatment. None of the youths have flunked. Parents are also expected to participate in the weekly check-ins to report on their children's progress (Teichroeb)."

This reports suggests that the juvenile drug courts are effective. Like any other court system, juvenile drug courts aim to ensure the success of each individual person and the community. This is a controversial topic due to the "get tough on drugs" campaign. Americans do not want their children growing up around drugs and ruining their lives.

Due to the implementation of specialized courts, more individual treatment for the specific problems is now available. Rather than sending juveniles to a typical court, where they are mixed with other types of cases, they are now sent to a specialized court that helps them to overcome their problem. Specialized programs are more effective in helping juveniles get clean.

As a juvenile, they are more likely to be treated and released the first time they are brought in. Adults are often not given the same opportunities, as adults. Children make greater efforts to stay out of court. These courts are so important to our youth because they can help them overcome obstacles they may not be able to overcome without help. With so much peer pressure today, many young people turn to drugs because they think it helps them fit in. Caught in a downward spiral of drug use and drug crime, these youths may get caught.

After getting caught, these juveniles may be sent to juvenile courts and bypass many other troubles they may have encountered in the future if they had not been caught. With the courts help, they may be treated and hopefully be scared enough not to relapse and find themselves before another judge. Drug court programs bring the entire weight of all participants willing to help these juveniles, including the judge, prosecutor, defense counsel, substance abuse treatment specialists, probation officer, law enforcement and correctional personnel, educational and vocational experts, community leaders and others, forcing the juvenile offender to treat his substance abuse problem (NADCP).

Many juvenile court professionals have initiated a variety of programs to provide the intensive judicial intervention and supervision of juveniles involved in substance abuse that is often not available through the traditional juvenile court process. Partially due to high caseloads and as a result of a lack of comprehensive treatment resources, supporters of juvenile drug courts feel that the traditional juvenile court is becoming a forum focusing more on the determination of guilt than on the court's original mission of rehabilitation.

Methodology

This research paper reveals trends for juvenile drug courts and how the juvenile justice system can be improved to prevent future crimes. For the purpose of this paper, we will review existing literature about programs designed to prevent the juvenile drug-crime cycle and, based on that literature, identify interventions that offer the best chances for success. This paper will also provide guidelines and recommendations for developing a comprehensive juvenile justice system that can best address the needs of juvenile offenders involved with drug crimes.

Data Gathering Method

The following data was taken from a dissertation survey conducted in October 2003. Two juvenile court employees were consulted to offer revisions to the questionnaire. When the survey was ready for distribution, it was sent to 30 men and women who are involved in making decisions regarding juveniles involved in drug crimes. The participants were guaranteed that their identities would remain anonymous.

Database of Study

The survey had two qualifying questions: 1) Do you currently deal with juvenile drug crime offenders on a regular basis? And 2) Do you consider yourself a good source of information about the juvenile justice system? Affirmative answers to these questions allowed the respondents to continue answering questions. Those who answered "no" to either question were asked to return the questionnaire. A total of 10 respondents qualified for and agreed to participate in the survey.

In the questionnaire, faculty respondents were encouraged to contact the researcher to participate in a telephone interview with the surveyor, which would allow for additional information to be gathered. Four of the 10 participants responded to the request and were subsequently interviewed. The remaining six filled out a written questionnaire.

Validity of Data

This note provides evidence on the validity and reliability of the essay, which was conducted amongst juvenile justice experts who frequently deal with juvenile drug offenders. Validity was checked by examining whether differences in the basic attitudes of the respondents are in accordance with the research paper's theoretical hypotheses.

This study can claim validity because its findings were strongly correlated to its hypothesis.

Originality and Limitations of Study

While the extensive research on consumer behavior has provided great value and insight into this research and have furthered our basic understanding of these options, there is a great deal of evidence suggesting that there is no predictable pattern to determining how to prevent recidivism in juvenile drug offenders.Data Analysis

Part 1 and 2-- Survey Participant Profile

10 Respondents)

Number of Years Spend Dealing with Juvenile Courts

Number of Participants

More than Total

Gender

Frequency

Female

Male

Participants

Occupation

Participant #1

Case Worker

Participant #2

Child Psychologist

Participant #3

Case Worker

Participant #4

Social Worker

Participant #5

Child Psychologist

Participant #6

Correctional Facilities Manager

Participant #7

Police Officer

Participant #8

Police Officer

Participant #9

Case Worker

Participant #10

Social Worker

Part 3-- Respondents report if they believe that effective drug treatment is crucial to the future of juveniles.

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Part 4-- Respondents report whether or not they believe that the length of drug treatment influences treatment outcome more than any other variable

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Part 5-- Respondents report whether or not they believe that McDonald's products will be more popular in the next decade.

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Part 6-- Respondents report whether or not they believe that court-ordered treatment is no less effective than voluntary treatment.

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Part 7 -- Respondents report which of the following are the most important aspects of a model intervention system for juvenile drug offenders:

A. Graduated sanctions

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

B. Systems collaboration

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

C. Case management

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

D. Dismissal

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

E. Treatment

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

F. Supervision

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Part 8 -- "Respondents are asked if juvenile drug offenders often share the same subculture, social class, and have the same occupation.

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Part 9 -- "Respondents report if they believe that different personalities of different youths influence the behavior of each person.

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Part 11-- Respondents were asked to identify whether they believed that the juvenile justice system was more likely to assumed a parental role, in an attempt to rehabilitate juvenile offenders, than to focus on prosecuting them.

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

More likely

Less likely

Equally likely

Part 12-- Respondents were asked to identify whether they believed that, a typical juvenile justice system, good behavior, such as staying away from drugs and drug-related crimes, was likely to result in more personal freedoms and other rewards, while negative behavior was likely to result in loss of privileges or a more intensive therapeutic program.

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

More likely

Less likely

Equally likely

Part 13-- Respondents were asked if they believed that the juvenile justice system should be solely responsible for providing for juveniles' treatment and competency development needs.

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Part 14-- Respondents were asked if they believed that juvenile delinquents who are involved with drug crimes often need a variety of services.

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Part 15 -- "Respondents were asked whether or not they agreed with the following statements.

A. A single point of entry is a juvenile's first contact in a model system. In most states, systems are decentralized, with multiple points of entry. As a result, many juveniles receive inappropriate or duplicate services.

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

B. A comprehensive model system should ideally combine screening, diagnosis, and the assessment and evaluation of all of an adolescent's needs, including treatment for substance abuse and mental disorders. Whenever possible, case managers should collect information and recommendations from other agencies and systems that dealt with the juvenile in the past.

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

C. An effective assessment is important, as it forms the basis for recommendations to the juvenile court, including dismissal, diversion, disposition or detention, and initial psychosocial and treatment recommendations.

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

D. To increase the probability that juvenile drug treatment will be successful, treatment staff must identify factors related to substance use and base the programming on individual case requirements.

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

E. Many juvenile drug offenders share common characteristics.

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

F. The researchers demonstrate that intervention programs can often reduce recidivism rates of serious juvenile offenders.

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

I. When addressing the juvenile drug-crime cycle, communities must use approaches that fully consider local resources and realities.

Responses

Frequency

Percentage

Results and Discussion

Major Intervention Strategies

The past few decades have brought about many promising strategies for juvenile drug-crime cycle interventions, particularly in the juvenile justice system. While the elements of these strategies have varied, all have aimed at breaking the cycle of delinquent behavior among juveniles.

The early juvenile justice system assumed a parental role, in an attempt to rehabilitate juvenile offenders (Munsterman, 2001). As juvenile crime has increased in occurrence and in violence, the juvenile justice system has focused more and more on prosecuting and incarcerating juveniles. To address these conflicting approaches, the balanced and restorative justice (BARJ) perspective has recently come about. This juvenile justice model incorporates the traditional rehabilitative philosophy of the juvenile court with growing societal concern about victims' rights and overall community safety. Basically, this model balances offender accountability (amends to the victim and community), competency development (changing behaviors and improving skills), and community safety (protecting the community by monitoring the juvenile's behavior). Community safety is the main focus of this model. For this reason, BARJ is the current guiding philosophy in juvenile justice system change in many states.

In line with the BARJ philosophy, graduated sanctions hold juveniles accountable for their actions yet simultaneously reward them for positive progress toward rehabilitation. This philosophy uses a rewards approach to motivate the juvenile's progress in treatment: Good behavior, such as staying away from drugs and drug-related crimes, results in more personal freedoms and other rewards, while negative behavior results in loss of privileges or a more intensive therapeutic program. Based on the juvenile's progress, sanctions and therapeutic interventions are relaxed or intensified. If the offender becomes involved in drug use or drug crimes during the treatment process, graduated sanctions may increase the juvenile's security, while applying stronger therapeutic treatment.

For example, in the juvenile drug court, the juvenile's progress is typically monitored by a judge who consults with a variety of professionals to assess needs, recommend services, monitor behaviors, and apply sanctions for juveniles who cannot stay away from drugs and drug-related crimes.

The juvenile justice system is a public agency that is responsible for public safety. It is the final authority in decisions involving case management, sanctions, and drug treatment. However, the juvenile justice system cannot solely provide for juveniles' treatment and competency development needs.

Because many juveniles come from broken homes or disadvantaged neighborhoods, juvenile delinquents who are involved with drug crimes often require a variety of services (Munsterman, 2001). In the past, many service providers were known for poor coordination, large caseloads of multiple-need families, poor cross-system communication, increased specialization, and inadequate funding. However, as awareness of the juvenile drug-crime link increased, more and more communities are developing inter-organizational services that share expertise, resources, and responsibilities while collaborating to meet the specific needs of juveniles.

These types of efforts ensure that services are both accessible to the target population and related to the community's individual strengths, needs, and service options. These systems must be carefully coordinated to ensure cooperation, buy-in, and accountability from all participating organizations.

One major approach to breaking the juvenile drug-crime cycle is an integrated case management strategy that coordinates the individual service needs of young people from the time they enter the juvenile justice system until they are released (Munsterman, 2001). This approach gives juveniles access to many resources as they move through various juvenile justice and drug treatment systems. Recent research shows that, under this approach, juveniles receive quicker and better access to services, achieve more goals, remain in treatment longer, and improve drug treatment outcomes, in comparison with standard treatment services.

Perhaps the best case management models combine two major approaches: strengths based and assertive. Strengths-based case management concentrates on creating a service plan based on a juvenile's self-identified strengths and talents that will motivate him to make better life choices. Under assertive case management, the case manager is directly involved in finding and delivering services to the juvenile.

Recommendations

These types of strategies can be effective in helping a community develop, implement and operate a comprehensive model system for breaking the juvenile drug-crime cycle. This chapter of this study will enhance these strategies by recommending effective intervention programs at all stages of the juvenile justice system.

A single point of entry is a juvenile's first contact in a model system (Munsterman, 2001). In most states, systems are decentralized, with multiple points of entry. As a result, many juveniles receive inappropriate or duplicate services. In addition, problems are not adequately identified and juveniles have limited access to service. A single entry point would create a comprehensive management information system and be co-located with an effective substance abuse treatment facility that would provide detoxification and stabilization for the juvenile. The entry point would also provide screening and assessment, assign a case manager trained in both assessment and juvenile justice system management, and make recommendations for necessary services. Basically, a single point of entry would identify key needs and problem areas so the juvenile does not receive inappropriate referrals, duplicate services, and unnecessarily restrictive placements.

A comprehensive model system should ideally combine screening, diagnosis, and the assessment and evaluation of all of an adolescent's needs, including treatment for substance abuse and mental disorders. Whenever possible, case managers should collect information and recommendations from other agencies and systems that dealt with the juvenile in the past.

An effective assessment is of utmost importance, as it forms the basis for recommendations to the juvenile court, including dismissal, diversion, disposition or detention, and initial psychosocial and treatment recommendations. If an assessment is not done properly, it may lead to inadequate recommendations and decisions. Because the recommendations of the intake officer often strongly influence judicial decisions, it is important that the officer be trained in the use of comprehensive assessment tools.

The following are the most important aspects of a model intervention system (Munsterman, 2001):

Graduated sanctions

Systems collaboration

Case management

Dismissal

Treatment

Supervision

Diversion

Single point of entry

Comprehensive assessment

Judicial decision-making

Continuing care

The results of a comprehensive assessment may lead to dismissal from the juvenile justice system, diversion into another service system such as a drug treatment program, or movement into judicial decision-making (Munsterman, 2001). While judicial involvement and decisions may take place at many different points of a juvenile's involvement with the system, judges often get involved after assessment. In many cases, they do not become involved until after the initiation of case management. Judges have the authority to enforce sanctions, and they hold a major role in ensuring the juvenile's obedience to treatment services recommended by the case manager and collaborative treatment partners.

Juvenile drug court judges often use graduated sanctions to make sure that the juvenile complies with imposed supervision requirements. The least restrictive supervision option that adheres to community protection is selected at first. At program entry, a group of sanctions is presented to the juvenile and his parent or guardian for their signatures, with the understanding that failure to comply with these sections will have consequences. Collaborative partners agree on the sanction process and support judicial decisions.

With drug crimes, treatment programming can be difficult, as it must address the factors involved in the juvenile's involvement with drugs, in its continuation, and in relapse (Munsterman, 2001). To increase the probability that treatment will be successful, treatment staff must identify factors related to substance use and base the programming on individual case requirements. Programs that show the strongest evidence of effectiveness are given the highest treatment priority. Ideally, the youth receives a variety of treatment services at specific points of the program under the guidance of a case manager, who connects the juvenile to other necessary services. An analysis conducted by Mark W. Lipsey and David B. Wilson (1998) produced valuable insights into the effectiveness of different types of treatment intervention programs in reducing juvenile repeat-offending rates. The authors analyzed 200 experimental or quasi-experimental studies of interventions with institutionalized and non-institutionalized juveniles, many of which dealt with juvenile drug crimes.

Many of the participants in these intervention studies had three common characteristics. First, in many cases, the juvenile's participation in the treatment interventions under investigation was mandated by the juvenile court, and serious offenders who participated in the interventions remained under court jurisdiction during the length of treatment. Second, most of these juveniles were male, of white or mixed ethnicity, and, on average, aged 14 to 17. Third, juvenile justice personnel managed the treatment intervention in more than one-third of the studies, while public and private mental health personnel synchronized about one-fifth of the interventions.

Lipsey and Wilson's comprehensive analysis identified intervention programs that had the most successful impact on outcomes closely related to substance use, including police contact and arrest, recidivism rates, officially recorded contacts with juvenile courts, offense-based probation violations, and more. These outcomes, in combination with the significant correlation between drug use and juvenile crime, highlight the importance and relevance of the interventions studied by Lipsey and Wilson to the juvenile drug-crime cycle.

The researchers demonstrate that intervention programs can often reduce recidivism rates of serious juvenile offenders. Thus, it is important to note which treatment interventions and programs for non-institutionalized or institutionalized juvenile offenders were most effective in terms of reducing recidivism.

According to Munsterman (2001), "Non-institutional interventions included in Lipsey and Wilson's analysis focused primarily on juveniles on probation or parole. The impact of those interventions on recidivism was related most strongly to the juveniles' characteristics, particularly their offense histories. The effect of treatment type was moderate, with program characteristics weakly related to intervention impact. Interestingly, interventions were more effective for non-institutionalized juveniles who were more serious offenders than for those youths whose offenses were less serious, which offers good reason to believe that such non-institutional interventions would be equally effective if used exclusively with more serious offenders usually placed in institutional settings."

Non-institutional interventions that demonstrated consistent evidence of effectiveness were (Munsterman, 2001):

Individual counseling (including multisystemic therapy and reality training;

Interpersonal skills training; and Behavioral programs (including family counseling and contingency contracting)

According to Lipsey and Wilson (1998), these interventions reduced recidivism significantly. Other interventions that were effective in reducing recidivism, but with less consistent evidence, were multiple services (for example, intensive case management, multimodal services, and continuing care) and restitution programs for juveniles on probation or parole.

Ineffective programs were (Munsterman, 2001):

Wilderness and challenge programs;

Early release from probation or parole;

Reduced probation or parole;

Deterrence programs (such as boot camps); and Vocational programs (such as vocational training, career counseling, job search and interview skill).

Programs that required more research to document effectiveness consisted of the following treatment types, which demonstrated mixed but positive effects (Munsterman, 2001):

Academic programs;

Advocacy and casework.;

Family counseling;

Group counseling; and Employment-related programs.

Many programs include the routine analysis of hair, urine, and blood as an assessment and monitoring tool. Such practices help overcome the juvenile's denial of drug use during assessment and treatment and also provide objective evidence that helps the judge in either rewarding or punishing the juvenile within a graduated sanctions approach.

According to Munsterman, (2001), "Although such approaches have not undergone rigorous scientific analysis within the juvenile population, they appear most applicable as a part of overall comprehensive assessment, graduated sanctions, and treatment outcome evaluation."

Institutional interventions that were analyzed in Lipsey and Wilson's analysis focused mainly on youths incarcerated in juvenile justice facilities. As opposed to programs directed at non-institutionalized juveniles, the typical characteristics of institutional treatment revealed the strongest relationship to the effect of the intervention's impact on recidivism, especially the longevity of the program and whether mental health or juvenile justice personnel administered it (the latter is often less effective). The type and amount of treatment had moderate relationships to intervention impact, while the characteristics of the juveniles were somewhat unimportant.