Juvenile Drug Abuse

By Karen O’neal

Juvenile and drug abuseTo incarcerate or Not to incarcerate

How can society make a positive impact on the youth to decrease drug abuse and the crimes relating to it? What methods are successful and what methods remain unchanged? Criminal behavior of juveniles continue even today. In order to reduce the drug abuse related criminal behavior of juveniles, a problem must be assessed, evaluated, and addressed! Any ideas?

Problem statement

• Incarceration of juveniles shows no significant difference in the rate of juvenile drug abuse or drug abuse related crimes.

Concerns• One major dilemma faced in the United States is drug abuse

and the effects it has on society as a whole, according to the Uniform Crime Reporting Arresting Data Survey. It showed that arrests for drug abuse violations increased over 20% and continues to be a problem today. (Levin & Langan, 2002, expression NCJ193427)In an effort to reduce drug abuse related crime, it must take in consideration the factors surrounding the behavior of the juveniles; this can be seen as the precedent and antecedent of any drug abuse relationship. While incarceration is one method of trying to deter drug abuse and the related crimes, other methods has been proven to be effective with some juveniles

Drug abuse • Definition-Drug abuse, by definition, is anyone who has one or more of

the following symptoms: recurrent use of drugs and failure to fulfill major obligations at work, school, or at home (American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc., 2010, para.2).

• Drug dependence- anyone who has three or more of the following problems– Tolerence- less effective with same amount of drugs– Withdrawal- any symptoms caused by the absence of the drug– Using more for longer periods than intended– Desire to, but unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control use– Social, recreational, family, work, school, and other areas are affected– Continued use regardless of knowledge and possible consequences (DSM-IV

Diagnosis of Substance Abuse or Dependence) according the American Psychiatric Association.

Importance!

• To decrease a problem, the root or cause of the problem must be addressed; otherwise, the issues may remain or at least for longer periods and increased consequences than may be necessary. So the problem statement restated: Incarceration of juveniles for drug abuse or drug abuse related crimes has no significant effect on the reduction of the crime.

Let’s take a look at the “z” test with two sample proportions: Incarceration and non

incarceration

• It is suspected that the sample of drug abuse offenders would have a lower recidivism rate with non-incarceration methods of intervention that the 67% or incarceration recidivism rate. Therefore, the following hypothesis statement is made:

• H0: p =.67 or 67% þ = 67%

• H1: p ≠ .67 or 67% • P = 8.9% of drug abuse population• q= 1-p

Incarceration• Because of the size of the sample, a “z” test for proportions will be use with the “z”

distribution as the sampling distribution.• An alpha level of .01 will be used with a one-tailed test. The critical level of “z” at this

level is 2.33. The critical region are all values less than or equal to 2.33. The null hypothesis will be rejected if z is less than or equal to 2.33.

• Percents are converted back to proportions by dividing by 100.• Z = ^p-p/√p(q)/n• Z = 0.23-.089/√.089(1-.089)/100• Z =0.14/√.08/100• Z =0.14/√.0008• Z=0.14/.028• Z=.5 or 50%• Based on a z distribution curve, the obtained value of z is .50 standard deviations less

than the critical region; which indicated that the null hypothesis would be rejected because the obtained critical value is less than the critical value of z. The recidivism rate of incarcerated juveniles is .5 or 50%

Non-Incarceration

• After one year, juveniles who were rearrested for the same type of crime, which was drug abuse or drug abuse related crimes, was compared to non-incarcerated juveniles who recidivated or returned to treatment during the same period.

• Using a non-directional two-tailed research hypothesis, it will be discovered whether there is a significant difference in the recidivism rate of drug abuse or drug abuse related crimes.

• The hypothesis is therefore stated as follows:• H0: p1 =p2

• H1: p1 ≠ p2

• Z test will be used again due to the sample size.• Alpha level will be .01, which for a two tailed test, the critical level of z is ±

2.58. Because of the fact it is a two tailed test, the critical values lie on both sides of the z distribution curve and consists of values less than or equal to 2.58 or greater than or equal to 2.58.

• It would result in failing to reject the null hypothesis if the obtained value in between -2.58 and 2.58.

Estimated population proportion for both samples

• Using two proportion sample sizes, but the same estimated population proportion to determine whether it is a significant difference.

• Based on earlier documented data from the Bureau of Justice Survey, the proportion of recidivated juveniles is .22 or 22% within one year. For non-incarcerated juveniles, the proportion of recidivism was .024 in one year or 2.4%. The total sample population is 120. Therefore, the calculations are as follows:

• ^p (for total population) = n1 ^p1 + n2^p2/ n1 +n2

• ^p =(60)(.22) +(60)(.024)/60 +60• =14.64/120• = 0.12

Standard error• Now to find the standard error estimate of the difference between

population proportions is the following: √^p^q *√n1 +n2/n1n2

• √.12 *.88√60 +60/60*60• =√.11*√120/3600• =.33 *√.033• =.33*.57• =0.188• Now to find the obtained z value, the numbers or simply plugged in

formula whereas z =^p1-^p2/ √^p^q*√n1 +n2/ n1n2

• =.23 -.024/0.188• =.21/.188• =1.12

Results• The obtained statistical value is 1.12. Because it lies

between the two critical regions, meaning 1.12 is greater than -2.58 and less than 2.58, the result is to fail to reject the null hypothesis. This indicates that there is no significant difference in the recidivism rate between incarcerated and non incarcerated juveniles who abuse drugs or commit drug abuse related crimes.

• As a result of the methods used to determine the recidivism rate of drug abuse offenders, although it doesn’t show a significant difference in the rate of recidivism

Impact from Incarceration

• Based on the arrest rate of juveniles by the National Center for Juvenile Justice in October 31, 2009, arrest rates did not change significantly. Between the year of 2000 and 2008, there were 600 out of 100,000 youths arrested for drug abuse violations, which did not show a significant difference of arrested youths in former or post-dated years. In 2000, the rate was 622.8, and eight years later the rate went to 540 per 100,000. This is a difference of 82 children in eight years(National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2009).

Other facts• As a result of two federal statutes, the law suspends or

forever terminates a drug offender’s eligibility for federal college loans and grants and they are not eligible for the Pell Grants that formerly provided the means to obtain a college degree in prison. This was based on the 1998 and 1994 federal statute. They are even ineligible for work study for funds to help with college, regardless of the type of federal offense, whether violent, non-violent, or misdemeanor. Yet this does not include the offense for rape, robbery, or murder according to the War on Drugs facts data base (Blumenson & Nilsen, 2002, p. 70

In Conclusion

Rearre

st

Rerefer

ral to

C.J. sys

tem

Reconvic

tion

Reincar

cerati

on

Hospital

Rehab

ilitati

on

Court Ord

ered

Voluntary

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Incarceration RecidivismNon Incarceration RecidivismMissing data