Alcohol, drugs and crime : a study of juveniles in detention

Jeremy Prichard and Jason Payne
ISBN 0 642 53891 3 ; ISSN 1326-6004
Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology: 2005
(Research and public policy series, no. 67)

Chapter 3: Characteristics of the juveniles interviewed

• Demographic characteristics
• History of offending
• Offence specialisation
• Prevalence of illegal drug use
• Treatment for drug problems
• Summary

The DUCO juvenile study involved the participation of 467 young people in juvenile detention centres in every state and territory. Face-to-face interviews were conducted between December 2003 and December 2004. There were 95 participants excluded from the present report because they were aged 18 or over. One participant, aged nine, was also excluded. This ensured that the report focuses on the 371 juveniles in a nationally-accepted meaning of the term, that is, aged 10 to 17 (details on the methodology and limitations of the study are provided in the Technical Appendix). This chapter provides descriptive data on the socio-demographic characteristics of the youths, their criminal histories and drug use.

Demographic characteristics

Fifty-nine per cent of the youths identified themselves as being of Indigenous descent. This is noticeably higher than the 2003 national estimate of 47 per cent (Charlton & McCall 2004). However, the age and sex of the participants were comparable to national trends on juvenile detainees; about 14 per cent of youths were aged 14 years or less and the vast majority of the participants were males (93%). Table 3.1 indicates that three females and 31 males were parents, representing nine per cent of the entire cohort. The average age of young parents was 16.

Table 3.1 also indicates that:

• most juveniles (76%) had stopped attending school before they entered detention;
• the mean age of leaving school was 14, which is lower than the minimum leaving age for most jurisdictions (generally 15 years, MCEETYA 2002); and
• on average, the detainees left school after completing grade eight, whereas the majority of the Australian youth population complete grade 12 (SCRGSP 2005).

With regard to housing prior to detention:

• 53 per cent of youths lived in their parents' home;
• 33 per cent lived in a home with someone other than their parents; and
• five per cent lived alone.

Of those juveniles who lived in private homes, 50 per cent stated that the home was public housing, which is one indicator of economic hardship. This rate is noticeably higher than for the DUCO adult females, of whom 30 per cent lived in public housing (comparable figures were not reported in the DUCO adult male report). A small number of youths (6%) were facing severe hardship, in that they were living on the street or in emergency housing before they entered the detention centre.

Table 3.1: Demographic characteristics of participants

	n	%
Sex
Female	25	7
Male	346	93
Age
11-12	4	1
13-14	47	13
15-16	187	50
17	133	36
Mean age	15.8
Indigenous status
Indigenous	218	59
Non-Indigenous	153	41
Education
Left school before entering detention	281	76
School grade completed (median)	8
Age left school (mean)	14
Housing prior to detention
Parents' house/apartment	197	53
Rented/owned house/apartment	18	5
Someone else's home	122	33
Foster/local authority care	11	3
Shelter/emergency housing	10	3
Street	11	3
Other	2	1
Public housing	186	50
Detainees who are parents
Mothers	3	1
Fathers	31	8
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

History of offending

Australian juvenile justice systems employ different types of diversionary procedures for young people, such as formal and informal police cautions and community conferences (Daly & Hennessey 2001). Two primary objectives of these diversionary procedures are to minimise the numbers of youths appearing in court and, ultimately, being sent to detention centres. Young people can find themselves in detention because of involvement in one very serious criminal act, such as murder or rape. For most youths, however, detention is the result of a long criminal history of less serious offences.

Detention was not a new experience for half of the DUCO juvenile sample:

• almost one third of youths had been sentenced to detention once or twice before;
• 17 per cent had previously served three to six detention sentences; and
• a small group (4%) had been sentenced to detention seven or more times prior to their current incarceration.

The youths were asked about the main charge or charges for which they had been placed into detention (either by sentence or remand). These charges were categorised according to the Australian Standard Offence Classification (ASOC) scoring rules (Australian Bureau of Statistics 1997). A maximum of four responses were recorded. Figure 3.1 provides a general overview of the types of charges for which the juveniles were detained.

Property charges featured prominently. The most commonly reported charges were break and enter (42%) and motor vehicle theft (30%). A range of other property charges, such as vandalism, petty theft and receiving stolen goods, were recorded in 24 per cent of cases. Drug charges were relatively uncommon. Twenty-one per cent of youths reported that one or more of the charges that led to their detention was a breach of a court order. Traffic violations, such as speeding or driving without a licence, were reported by 11 per cent of juveniles.

Notably, robbery and assault were reported as main offences for which the youths were detained in about one third of cases. More serious violent charges appeared in 13 per cent of all reported charges. This category included crimes such as grievous bodily harm, wounding, manslaughter and murder. Eight youths (2%) reported themselves as murderers.

When these charges are sorted by the single most serious offence recorded for each juvenile, violence features more prominently (Figure 3.2). The method for categorising the charges into a hierarchy of seriousness is similar to that used in the DUCO adult male report (Makkai & Payne 2003; see further, Technical Appendix). The eight categories include violent charges, property charges, drug charges, drink driving, breaches of court orders, public disorder charges and other charges. For example, a young person who had been detained for a breach of a court order, two counts of burglary and assault would be counted in the violent charge category as assault is the most serious charge.

The first and second categories of seriousness, violent charges and property charges, accounted for the bulk of juveniles. More than half of the youths (58%) reported that they had been detained for one or more violent charges. The most serious charge for a further 37 per cent of juveniles related to property. Fourteen youths (4%) had been detained for breaches of court orders, and five (1%) for traffic violations alone. One youth reported a drug offence as his most serious offence, but this statistic was too small to appear on the pie chart in a meaningful way.

A great deal of information was obtained by asking the youths to report:

• whether they had ever committed crimes (regardless of whether the acts had been detected by the police); and
• the frequency with which they committed the crimes.

Juveniles were asked about 10 offence categories. Table 3.2 provides a breakdown of their responses. Similar to the DUCO adult male and female studies, participants were asked whether they had ever committed these offences. They were also asked whether they had committed the offences 'often' at some stage during their life (see further, Technical Appendix). For the purposes of this report, those youths who reported committing offences often are referred to as regular offenders. Table 3.2 displays the proportion of youths who reported ever committing offences, as well as the regular offenders. It also provides the rates of escalation, that is, the percentage of those who ever committed a crime and later became regular offenders.

Table 3.2: History of offending

	Ever		Regular		Escalation1
	n	%	n	%	%
Property offences	364	98	325	88	89
Vandalism	297	80	136	37	46
Motor vehicle theft	298	80	159	43	53
Break and enter	319	86	241	65	76
Stealing without break-in	303	82	209	56	69
Traded in stolen goods	279	75	202	55	72
Fraud, forgery	98	26	25	7	26
Violent offences	311	84	131	35	42
Physical assault	270	73	107	29	40
Robbery	205	55	60	16	29
Drug offences	326	88	290	78	89
Bought illegal drugs	316	85	282	76	89
Swapped or sold illegal drugs	205	55	136	37	66
Total	370*	100	347	94	94
*One youth was sentenced for assault and breach of a justice order. He claimed to be innocent and self-reported never committing any offences. 1 Escalation is the percentage of those who ever committed the crime who became regular offenders. Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

The most striking feature of Table 3.2 is that the juveniles self-reported perpetrating all crimes at very high rates. In fact, fraud stands out precisely because of its comparatively low figures; 26 per cent of youths (n=98) admitted ever committing fraud and seven per cent had done so regularly. Fraud also has the lowest rate of escalation. In contrast, the rates for 'ever committing' of all other crimes range from 55 per cent to 86 per cent.

Overall, according to their self reporting, the juveniles appear to be very serious property offenders:

• fraud aside, four out of five youths had perpetrated most forms of property crime at least once;
• at least one third of all youths became regular property offenders. In the case of burglary, 65 per cent of all youths reported regular activity. This indicates that, of the youths who tried burglary, 76 per cent escalated to regular offending; and
• very high rates of escalation were also recorded for trading stolen goods (72%), stealing (69%) and motor vehicle theft (53%).

Fewer juveniles were regular violent offenders, although the majority had perpetrated violence at least once in their lives. The youths were asked whether they had ever hit, beaten, stabbed or hurt someone. Their responses are contained in the physical assault category. Seventy-three per cent had 'ever' assaulted another, whilst 29 per cent had regularly done so at some stage. Escalation rates for assault were 40 per cent. More than half of the youths had committed a robbery (armed or unarmed). Compared with other crimes, few youths reported regular robbery (16%), meaning that robbery had one of the lowest rates of escalation amongst the juveniles (29%).

The majority of youths had bought drugs at least once (85%) and most had gone on to buy drugs regularly. Buying drugs has the highest escalation rate of all offence categories (89%). More than half of the adolescents had sold or swapped drugs, and 37 per cent had done so regularly.

Offence specialisation

One of the major contributions of the DUCO adult female and male reports was to identify different forms of offence specialisation among the incarcerated population. Johnson (2004) was able to distinguish between regular property offenders, regular violent offenders, regular sex workers and regular drug offenders. Makkai and Payne's (2003) analysis of the much larger cohort of adult male prisoners produced even greater detail, such as separating drug buyers from drug sellers.

However, determining offence specialisation among the juvenile detainees is difficult. This is not solely due to sample size, as the number of participants in this study is comparable to the DUCO adult female study. The juveniles have been limited in their capacity to diversify because of their age and as such have had less time to develop offence specialisations. The average age of the juveniles was 16, whereas the average age of the adult participants was over 30 years. Other limiting factors for juveniles could include their cognitive development, and lack of access to bank accounts, driving licences and the like. These factors might inhibit involvement in, for example, sophisticated crime.

Table 3.2 underscores that the detainees reported committing most types of crime at very high levels. Consistent with this, different categories of regular offenders also reported regularly committing most types of other crime. This is illustrated in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Multiple offending, by offence type

	Types of regular offenders
	Vandalism	Motor vehicle theft	Break and enter	Steal without break-in	Traded stolen goods	Fraud	Violent offences1	Bought drugs	Swapped/ sold drugs
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Regular property offences
Vandalism	..	49	46	46	46	36	47	41	46
Motor vehicle theft	57	..	51	47	56	60	53	48	59
Break and enter	82	77	..	77	81	92	70	74	81
Steal without break-in	71	61	66	..	71	72	71	61	71
Traded stolen goods	69	70	68	68	..	88	67	64	80
Fraud	7	9	10	9	11	..	12	9	11
Regular violent offences1	45	43	38	45	44	60	..	38	50
Regular drug offences
Bought drugs	85	85	87	83	90	88	82	..	95
Swapped/sold drugs	46	50	46	46	54	63	52	45	..
Mean number of offence types	6	6	5	5	6	7	6	5	6
Regular offending this crime type only	2	3	1	2	--	--	3	5	1
(n)	(n=136)	(n=159)	(n=241)	(n=209)	(n=202)	(n=25)	(n=131)	(n=282)	(n=136)
Offenders can be counted in more than one column. 1 Includes physical assaults as well as armed and unarmed robbery. Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

Table 3.3 indicates that the categories of regular offenders, from regular vandals to those who sold drugs regularly, differed little:

• 47-60 per cent of all categories reported regularly stealing motor vehicles;
• regular vandalism varied only from 36 per cent to 47 per cent across the regular offender types;
• 61-72 per cent of all categories reported regularly stealing without break-in;
• one third to half of all regular offender types reported regularly perpetrating violent acts;
• 82-95 per cent of all groups reported regularly buying drugs; and
• about half of all groups regularly swapped or sold drugs.

The regular fraud offenders differ to some degree. They have the highest rates of regular burglary (92%) and violence (60%). However, this is also the smallest group, representing only seven per cent of the entire sample (n=25).

Exemplifying the homogeneity of the offenders is their mean number of offence types. These figures indicate the average number of offences each group regularly committed. All groups were, on average, regularly committing five to seven other types of crime. Additionally, very few youths reported regularly committing only one type of crime. Drug buying was the only crime five per cent of regular drug buyers committed on a regular basis. The figures were lower for all other groups. In fact, no youths regularly traded stolen goods or committed fraud only.

Conceptually, it was possible to categorise the juvenile offenders in this sample into three different offender typologies - regular violent offenders, regular property offenders and non-regular offenders. Box 1 describes the hierarchical classification process undertaken and Table 3.4 displays the distribution of youths between the three categories. Thirty-five per cent of the youths reported that they had regularly committed violent offences. More than half of the youths (54%) are regular property offenders. The remaining 39 youths (11%) are non-regular offenders. This categorisation of juvenile offenders is fundamental to analyses described in the rest of the report, as explained in Box 2.

Table 3.4: Most serious regular offence

	Frequency	%
Offence category
Regular violent offender	131	35
Regular property offender	201	54
Non-regular offender	39	11
Total	371	100
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

Prevalence of illegal drug use

Whilst national research into adolescent substance use in the general community has been conducted, this report is the first to present findings from all Australia states and territories on juvenile detainees. Figure 3.3 compares the substances youths self-reported ever using in the DUCO juvenile study (n=371) and the National Drug Strategy Household Survey (n=not released yet). Ever used is the only consistent measure between the two studies.

The difference in the age brackets of the two samples is important. Research consistently indicates that substance use and initiation into harder drugs increases in the late teens and early twenties (see Chapter 1). Consequently, it could be expected that if the general population sample was aged 10 to 17 (rather than 12 to 19) their rates of substance use would be lower than indicated above.

The groups differ little in respect to ever drinking alcohol. For all other substances, the detainees reported markedly higher rates than youths in the general population. For example:

• detainees were five times more likely to have ever used cannabis, and ten times more likely to have used amphetamines;
• one in three detainees had tried inhalants compared with one in 50 youths in the general population;
• detainees are six to 10 times more likely to have tried ecstasy and hallucinogens; and
• two out of every 1000 youths in the general population have ever used heroin, whereas the figure is about 110 out of every 1000 detainees.

Table 3.5 provides details of the prevalence of substance use by the detainees. The youths were asked whether they had ever used substances, used in the six months before being detained, and used regularly in the six months before being detained. The participants were also asked to quantify regular use.

Table 3.5: Prevalence of substance use

	Alcohol %	Cannabis %	Amphetamines1 %	Inhalants %	Ecstasy %	Other2 %	Any %	More than one %
Ever used	97	94	50	37	33	43	95	67
Used in six months prior to arrest	87	84	40	16	24	33	88	56
Current regular user3	46	63	20	7	8	17	71	29
Escalation4	47	67	40	19	24	30	75	43
Frequency of use for current regular users
Less than monthly	1	1	-	-	-
One to several times a month	8	3	5	12	33
One to several times a wee	53	10	37	27	60
Once a day	15	13	23	8	7
Several times a day	22	74	35	54	-
Total	100	100	100	100	100
(n)	(170)	(232)	(74)	(26)	(30)
1Excludes legal use of these drugs. 2Includes heroin, cocaine/crack, street methadone, and morphine as well as illicit use of dexamphetamines and benzodiazepines. 3Those who used the substance during the 6 months prior to arrest, and who said they had been regular users. 4Escalation is the percentage of those who ever used the substance who became current regular users. Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

Of the 95 per cent of youths who had ever used any substances, 71 per cent used a substance regularly in the six months before entering detention (regular users). Sixty-seven per cent of the youths had ever used more than one drug, and almost one third (29%) were current regular poly drug users.

There were more regular cannabis users (63%) than regular alcohol users (46%). One in five youths regularly used amphetamines in the six months before being detained. Cannabis also led in terms of escalation, with two thirds of young people who tried cannabis becoming regular users. Alcohol and amphetamines were comparable in this sense, with escalation rates for these substances at 47 per cent and 40 per cent respectively.

Of the regular cannabis users, 74 per cent reported using several times a day, whereas the majority of regular alcohol users (53%) drank once to several times a week. Multiple daily use was also a prominent characteristic of regular users of amphetamines (35%) and inhalants (54%). Compared with regular users of other substances, many more of the regular ecstasy users considered monthly use to be regular.

So far, the juveniles have been discussed generally in terms of their drug use. But what are the main characteristics of the regular substance users? The five main types of regular users are compared below in terms of the other substances they used regularly (Table 3.6).

Table 3.6: Regular use of multiple drug types, by drug types (per cent)

	Regular alcohol user (n=170)	Regular cannabis user (n=232)	Regular amphetamines user (n=74)	Regular inhalants user (n=26)	Regular ecstasy user (n=30)
Regular use of:
Alcohol	-	53	54	58	60
Cannabis	72	-	78	92	80
Amphetamines	24	25	-	15	57
Inhalants	9	10	5	-	13
Ecstasy	11	10	23	15	-
Mean number of drug types	2	2	3	3	4
Regular use of this drug only	21	28	5	4	7
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

As noted in Table 3.5, youths regularly use cannabis (n=232) more than alcohol (n=170). However, the regular alcohol and regular cannabis users shared some similarities. First, alcohol was the only substance that 21 per cent of regular users of alcohol used regularly. Similarly, 28 per cent of regular cannabis users only used cannabis regularly. Secondly, the two groups were very similar in their regular use of other substances, such as amphetamines, inhalants and ecstasy. Finally, regular alcohol and cannabis users regularly used two substances, on average.

In contrast, regular users of the other substances used three or more substances regularly on average, and they rarely used only one substance on a regular basis. Across all five groups it is clear that cannabis was the most frequently reported substance used regularly, followed by alcohol. Potentially, alcohol and cannabis could be viewed as 'staple' drugs among regular users.

Regular amphetamine users reported the highest rate of regular ecstasy use (23%). Additionally, the regular users of ecstasy reported a rate of amphetamine use twice as high as any other group (57%). This may indicate some form of relationship between regular use of the two substances. However, explanations of any such relationship would be complicated by the fact that many users who think they are taking ecstasy are, in fact, taking fake ecstasy (McGregor & Makkai 2003).

In previous DUCO reports it was clear that poly drug users usually have a favourite drug. The drugs of choice for the regular juvenile substance users are outlined in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7: Preferred drug of choice, by type of regular drug use

	Regular alcohol user (n=170)	Regular cannabis user (n=232)	Regular amphetamines user (n=74)	Regular inhalants user (n=26)	Regular ecstasy user (n=30)	Regular user of other1 (n=63)
Preferred drug:
Alcohol	26	6	7	8	7	16
Cannabis	46	68	20	54	27	46
Amphetamines	14	14	58	12	20	24
Inhalants	2	2	-	15	-	-
Ecstasy	5	4	4	4	27	2
1Includes heroin, cocaine/crack, street methadone, and morphine as well as illicit use of dexamphetamines and benzodiazepines. Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

Regular users of cannabis and amphetamines stated that these were their drugs of choice:

• seven out of ten regular cannabis users preferred cannabis to any other substance; and
• about three in every five regular amphetamine users viewed amphetamines as their favourite drug.

In comparison, only 26 per cent of regular alcohol users considered alcohol to be their preferred substance. In fact, almost half of the regular alcohol users (46%) listed cannabis as their substance of choice. Similarly, 54 per cent of regular users of inhalants preferred cannabis. Very few regular inhalant users (15%) considered inhalants their drug of choice. Equivalent numbers of regular ecstasy users preferred cannabis, amphetamines or ecstasy itself. Finally, cannabis was the drug of choice for 46 per cent of regular users of other drugs.

Treatment for drug problems

A total of 168 youths, or 45 per cent of all juveniles, reported receiving some form of treatment for their drug use. Of these, 70 had experienced more than one type of treatment. Figure 3.4 highlights the types of treatments accessed by the young people. Of the entire sample, one in three youths had received outpatient counselling. About 10 per cent of youths had accessed a support group, rehabilitation or detoxification. A small number had been given treatment by a general medical practitioner.

The juveniles who reported accessing treatment were asked why they went to those programs. The responses indicated that, for the most part, youths entered programs either because of court orders (47%) or because it was their personal choice (35%). Six per cent were encouraged to enter programs during their period of detention, and three per cent entered a treatment program as the result of police diversionary practices. The remaining eight per cent provided other reasons.

Summary

Interviews with the 10 to 17-year-old detainees indicated a serious history of offending behaviour and current involvement in crime. Uniformly high levels of violence, property offences and drug buying and selling were reported. Rates of assault, robbery, burglary and motor-vehicle theft were noticeably high.

Drug use patterns among the juvenile detainees were manifestly greater than adolescents in the general population. Even in comparison to alcohol, cannabis appeared to be the most widely and frequently used substance, as well as being the drug of choice among regular users. In terms of harder drugs, amphetamines were regularly used by one in five youths and, of these, more than half used once or several times a day. Frequency of use of heroin and cocaine were much lower than among the incarcerated adult male population, which supports previous findings on the age of initiation for those drugs.

Despite the special vulnerabilities associated with heavy drug use in the formative years of adolescence, less than half of all youths had accessed drug treatment.