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 4: Linking drugs and crime

• Intoxication at the time of the current offence
• Main reason for committing the current offence
• Methods used to obtain drugs
• Perceptions of the effect of substance use on criminal careers
• Reasons for committing crimes
• Substance use in offenders' history
• Frequency of substance use
• Addiction and substance dependency
• Causal links between substance abuse and crime
• Summary

This chapter examines a fundamental issue for the juvenile DUCO project: to what extent is substance use connected with crime? The implications are significant in terms of informing crime prevention strategies and substance treatments for adolescents. The current study assesses the relationship between substance abuse and crime from a number of angles. These include:

1. intoxication at the time of the current offence;
2. the main reasons for committing the current offence;
3. methods used to obtain alcohol and drugs;
4. the juveniles' views about the impact of alcohol and drugs on their criminal behaviour;
5. explanations provided for criminal behaviour in general;
6. substance abuse in the lives of different types of offenders; and
7. the frequency of substance use amongst the young offenders.

As noted previously, this report uses the term substances to encompass alcohol and other drugs. The term drugs is used in reference to illicit drugs, like cannabis and amphetamines, as well as inhalants, the use of which is not necessarily illegal.

Intoxication at the time of the current offence

Seventy per cent of youths reported that they were under the influence of substances at the time of committing the offence leading to their detention (Table 4.1). This rate is higher than reported by incarcerated adult males (62%) and adult females (58%) in reference to the offences for which they had been imprisoned (Makkai & Payne 2003; Johnson 2004).

Similar numbers of juveniles reported that at the time of the offence they were intoxicated by drugs (24%), alcohol (22%), or both (24%). This pattern is similar to the adult males, although it is important to recall from Chapter 3 that adult males reported much higher rates of hard drug use. In total, 46 per cent of youths reported that they were drunk at the time of their last offences, while 48 per cent reported being high on drugs. The youths were asked to identify the drugs they had used at the time of their offence. The most commonly reported drugs were cannabis (75%) and amphetamines (39%). Of those who had been high at the time of their last offence, 64 (35%) reported being intoxicated by two or more drugs. Regardless of whether they were intoxicated at the time of their last offence, one in five juveniles indicated they were sick, hurting, or 'hanging out' from a lack of drugs.

Table 4.1: Intoxication at the time of current offence

	n	%
Type of substance
Drugs	85	24
Alcohol	77	22
Both drugs and alcohol	84	24
Not intoxicated	108	31
Total	354	100
Sick or hurting (lack of drugs) at time of offence	76	21
Type of drug at time of current offence
Cannabis	127	75
Amphetamines	66	39
Inhalants	15	9
Ecstasy	18	11
Hallucinogens	5	3
Dexamphetamines (including on prescription)	12	7
Other	24	14
Total1	170
1Multiple responses were permitted. Percentages are based on the number of juveniles under the influence of drugs at the time of the offence. Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

Some differences appeared between the youths in terms of the most serious charge for which they were detained, and their self-reported intoxication (Figure 4.1). Among violent offenders, (i.e. juveniles whose most serious current charge was a violent offence) 75 per cent were under the influence of substances at the time of the offence. The most common scenario was that violent offenders were drunk and high (on one or more drugs) when the crime was perpetrated. This was reported by 31 per cent of violent offenders.

In comparison, property offenders were slightly less likely to be intoxicated at the time of their offence (66%). Although they reported being under the influence of drugs at a higher rate (29%), they were half as likely to be both drunk and high. Overall, property offenders reported lower rates of drunkenness (37%) than violent offenders (54%). Of the small group of youths who were detained for other offences (n=14), the majority were sober when they perpetrated their offence (61%).

Main reason for committing the current offence

The participants were invited to explain the main reason for committing the offence that led to their current detention. Eighteen per cent of youths credited their offence to being intoxicated (Table 4.2). A further 16 per cent reported that they had committed their last offence to obtain money for drugs, meaning 34 per cent of answers implicated drugs and/or alcohol. Other responses related to needing or wanting money (18%) and peer influences (8%).

Table 4.2: Reason for committing the current offence, by most serious charge

	All offenders		Violent charge		Property charge
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Intoxicated	65	18	43	21	22	16
Money for drugs	57	16	29	14	27	20
Money	65	18	33	16	31	23
Peer influence/pressure	30	8	15	7	14	10
Other	147	40	89	43	42	31
Total	364	100	209	100	136	100
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

The responses of those youths whose most serious charge was a violent offence did not differ markedly from those whose most serious charge involved property crime. The violent charge group were slightly more inclined to report that intoxication was the main cause of their offence; 21 per cent of the group responded this way compared to 16 per cent of the property charge group. Those in the property charge category were more likely to be motivated by the desire for drugs or money.

Methods used to obtain drugs

Figure 4.2 shows that most youths reported paying cash for their drugs (89%). However, many juveniles were also prepared to engage in criminal activity in order to obtain drugs. In particular, 56 per cent of the young people traded stolen goods for drugs and more than a quarter (28%) stole drugs. This supports the view that drug users commit some crimes because of financial motivations.

However, whether the results are indicative of juvenile drug dependency is a moot point. There are difficulties with understanding juvenile drug dependency, as explained later in this chapter. Alternative explanations of the frequency with which juveniles commit crime to obtain drugs are that they have less access to legitimate sources of income, or steal to fund a number of pursuits or activities. One such activity is drug use.

Perceptions of the effect of substance use on criminal careers

Similar to the adult DUCO studies, the juvenile participants were asked a number of open ended questions. One of these was 'What impact do you think your alcohol or drug use had on your offending?' The answers to this question do not necessarily indicate whether substance use causes crime. However, they do provide useful information when combined with other findings presented in this chapter. Ninety per cent of the juveniles' responses were able to be quantified into four general response categories, namely that substance use:

• had no impact on criminal behaviour;
• had an impact on criminal behaviour generally;
• had an impact on criminal behaviour via psychopharmacological dynamics (including being drunk, high, suffering from withdrawal symptoms, or strongly desiring substances at the time of the offence); or
• had an impact on criminal behaviour because of the need to acquire money to buy substances (economic/compulsive reasons).

Table 4.3: Lifetime offending attributions, by type of regular offender type

	All offenders		Regular violent offenders		Regular property offenders		Non-regular offenders
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Impact	255	72	102	82	137	72	16	42
No impact	98	28	22	18	54	29	22	58
Total	353	100	124	100	191	100	38	100
Type of effect
Psychopharmacological	100	67	47	73	47	59	6	100
Economic/compulsive	50	33	17	27	33	41	--	-
Total	150	100	64	100	80	100	6	100
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

Table 4.3 presents the perception of the impact of substance use on crime by non-regular offenders, as well as regular property and violent offenders.

The majority of youths (72%) reported that substance use had an impact on their criminal offending. Slightly more regular violent offenders (82%) considered substance use to have an impact on their offending than regular property offenders (72%). However, the non-regular offender group differed markedly. Compared with both regular offender types, non-regular offenders were more than twice as likely to report that substance use had no impact.

In total, 150 youths provided an explanatory answer, that is, they indicated how substance use had an impact upon their criminal behaviour. Across all offender types, two thirds highlighted psychopharmacological explanations and 33 per cent pointed to economic/compulsive issues. This overall trend is generally consistent within the offender types. Very few non-regular offenders provided an explanatory answer (n=6), which is difficult to interpret. In comparison with the regular property offenders (59%), regular violent offenders seemed slightly more inclined to offer psychopharmacological explanations of their substance use upon their offending (73%).

Examples of the verbatim responses provided by the young people are listed below. The adolescents who pointed to psychopharmacological effects often identified problems associated with a loss of reason and increased aggression.

'When I took speed I wanted to do something wrong - something exciting like stealing a car.'

'I offend when I'm on dope and alcohol - it's a different me.'

'It makes me feel so confident. I think that nothing can go wrong. You think that you're 10 men when you're on speed.'

'Alcohol and drugs play on my mind, make me think that other people are talking about me. I do crime to get back at people.'

Explanations of the economic/compulsive effect were usually uncomplicated and straightforward.

'Very bad - made me feel bad. I was addicted, had to do crime to support my habits.'

'Needed money to buy drugs. They cost heaps.'

'When I [need] money for dope I go and do something.'

Reasons for committing crimes

Youths were asked to rate a series of statements in relation to their own motivations for committing crime in general. The questions related to the 10 types of crime analysed in this study. Rather than presenting the motivations for all 10 categories of offending, Figures 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 illustrate the motivations for burglary, physical assault and drug selling.

Chapter 3 revealed that burglary was the most commonly reported property crime, committed at least once by 86 per cent of youths (Table 3.2). The three most common reasons cited for burglary were:

• to support a drugs habit (44%);
• to obtain money or goods (42%); and
• money was needed as a result of unemployment (41%).

More than one third of youths reported that another motivation was that their peers committed burglaries (36%). Thirty per cent considered that being high at the time was a reason for their offending behaviour, but this figure was lower in relation to drunkenness (18%).

Figure 4.4 indicates that anger was considered the main reason for perpetrating acts of violence on others (63%). Similarly, revenge or 'payback' was also reported by 41 per cent of youths. Twenty-eight per cent of youths indicated that being high at the time of the offence was a contributing factor. This rate is comparable to the reports on burglary. However, drunkenness was seen as a reason for violence more frequently than it was for burglary (29 per cent compared with 18 per cent). Separate questions revealed that:

• 22 per cent of youths had ever used violence or threats of violence in order to obtain drugs; and
• 17 per cent of youths had ever used a weapon to obtain drugs.

More than half of all youths admitted to ever selling drugs (Table 3.2). Of these, 46 per cent said they had done so because they needed money as a result of unemployment (Figure 4.5). Similar to the motivations for property offending, many youths considered the desire for money or goods (40%) and the need to support their drug habits (38%) as motivations for selling drugs. Almost one third of juveniles (29%) indicated that being high was a reason they sold drugs. However, drunkenness was rarely considered a contributing factor (8%).

In their spontaneous responses to the open-ended question 'Can you tell me why you started to commit crime?' 24 per cent of youths suggested peer pressure or the influence of their peers was directly related. A further 23 per cent pointed to substance use. Alternative explanations included wanting money or goods, boredom, excitement and personal or family problems.

Substance use in offenders' history

Alcohol and drugs feature prominently in the lifestyles of the juvenile detainees. Table 4.4 compares offender types by their regular substance use in the six months prior to being arrested for the offence leading to their detention. Results show that regular substance use and regular offending are associated. Eighty-six per cent of regular violent offenders and 84 per cent of regular property offenders reported using at least one substance regularly in the six months prior to their arrest. In comparison, 49 per cent of non-regular offenders reported regular substance use in the same period.

Table 4.4: Regular substance use in six months prior to arrest, by type of regular offender

	Regular violent offenders %	Regular property offenders %	Non-regular offenders %
Alcohol	57	45	18
Cannabis	65	68	31
Amphetamines	29	17	5
Inhalants	8	7	3
Ecstasy	14	5	8
Other drugs	22	15	10
Mean number of substances used	2	2	1
Any current regular drug use	86	84	49
(n)	(131)	(199)	(39)
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

Other indications are that:

• on average, both categories of regular offenders used two substance types, while non-regular offenders used an average of one;
• the substances most prevalent among regular offenders were cannabis and alcohol, followed by amphetamines;
• regular offenders were two to three times more likely to be regular users of alcohol than non-regular offenders;
• twice as many regular offenders used cannabis as non-regular offenders; and
• 29 per cent of regular violent offenders regularly used amphetamines, compared with 17 per cent of regular property offenders and five per cent of non-regular offenders.

It is also useful to compare the offender categories in terms of the proportions of youths who either did not use any substance regularly, used one substance regularly, or used two or more substances regularly. The comparison is illustrated in Figure 4.6. Differences between the offender types were statistically significant. Perhaps most noticeable is that one in every two non-regular offenders reported no regular substance use. In comparison, only one out of every four regular offenders (violent or property) fell into this category. Juveniles who used two or more substances were:

• four times more likely to be regular violent offenders than non-regular offenders; and
• three times more likely to be regular property offenders than non-regular offenders.

Forty-eight per cent of regular property offenders used one substance compared with 31 per cent of non-regular offenders.

Frequency of substance use

The youths were asked how often they drank alcohol or used drugs in the six months prior to being arrested. A large proportion, 249 youths (67%) reported using at least one substance on a daily basis or several times a day. Twelve per cent of the participants used one or more substances on a weekly basis. Substance use occurred monthly or less than monthly for 21 per cent. Three participants had not used any substance in the six months leading to their arrest.

Table 4.5 compares the frequency of use by regular offender types.

Table 4.5: Frequency of substance use, by regular offenders

	Monthly or less %	Weekly %	Daily or more %	Total
Regular violent offenders	17	9	74	131
Regular property offenders	19	12	70	200
Non-regular offenders	46	23	31	39
(n)	(77)	(44)	(249)	(370)
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

Clearly, the main difference lies between the non-regular offenders and the two categories of regular offenders. Seven out of 10 regular offenders used at least one substance every day, compared with three in 10 non-regular offenders. These differences were statistically significant (p<0.01).

Participants were asked how often they had committed each type of offence in the six months before the arrest which led to their current time in detention. To find what relationships, if any, exist between young peoples' rate of offending and their frequency of substance use in the six months before their arrest, juveniles were split into three groups. These were those who had committed offences:

• 3-7 days per week;
• 1-2 days per week; or
• monthly or less than monthly (including not at all).

The offence categories of drug buying and selling were excluded from this analysis (drug selling is discussed separately later in this chapter). This avoids, for example, counting a daily drug user as a weekly offender purely because they bought and/or sold drugs on a weekly basis to sustain their habit. The comparisons of the rates of offending with the adolescents' frequency of substance use in the same six month period are presented in Figure 4.7.

The figure indicates that there is a relationship between the frequency of substance use and the rates of (non-drug related) offending, although it gives no indication of causality. Importantly, estimates of substance use increase as estimates of offending rates increase. Conversely, as juveniles' estimated substance use decreases so does their reported offending rate. The differences between the groups were statistically significant at the 0.01 level.

Specifically, in the six months before their arrest:

• 72 per cent of youths who used substances on a daily basis also committed crime three to seven days per week;
• criminal acts were committed monthly or less than monthly by only 17 per cent of daily substance users;
• one in three (34%) monthly substance users committed offences several days each week; however
• the majority of monthly substance users (56%) perpetrated crimes monthly or less than monthly.

Interesting differences also appeared between youths in terms of their frequency of substance use and the explanations they provided for committing the offence leading to their current detention. The open-ended responses were classified into alcohol/drug related reasons, such as being intoxicated or needing money for drugs, and non-drug related reasons, including peer pressure, needing money to support oneself and so forth. Table 4.6 displays the reasons provided by frequency of substance use.

Table 4.6: Frequency of substance use, by reasons given for committing last offence

	Drug related reasons %	Non-drug related reasons %	Total %
Frequency of use
Monthly or less	21	79	100
Weekly	29	71	100
Daily or more	38	62	100
(n)	(122)	(242)	(364)
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

Youths who reported higher rates of substance use were more likely to provide a drug-related reason for why they committed their last offence. Compared with youths who used substances monthly or less, daily users were almost twice as likely to implicate alcohol and/or drugs in their explanation of their offending behaviour. The differences were statistically significant (p=0.02).

Finally, significant (p<0.01) trends appeared in relation to frequency of substance use and regular drug selling (Table 4.7). The results suggest that as juveniles' frequency of substance use increases, they are more likely to identify themselves as regular drug sellers:

• weekly users are about twice as likely to be regular drug sellers as those who use substances every month or less; and
• compared with monthly-or-less users, daily users are three times more likely to report regular drug selling.

Table 4.7: Frequency of substance use, by regular drug selling

	No regular drug selling %	Regular drug selling %	Total %
Frequency of use
Monthly or less	86	15	100
Weekly	73	27	100
Daily or more	55	45	100
(n)	(234)	(135)	(369)
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

Addiction and substance dependency

Little is known about rates of adolescent drug dependency or alcoholism. It has been tentatively suggested that dependency may be less common among juveniles than adults. By virtue of their age, juveniles may simply have less opportunity for dependency to develop (Lennings & Pritchard 1998). However, recent Australian evidence suggests that, regarding alcohol at least, frequent use during adolescence is a strong predictor of dependency in the adult years (Bonomo et al. 2004).

As a result, this report, unlike the DUCO adult surveys, does not present findings relating to alcohol and drug dependency, and has not been used to examine the causal links between drug use and crime. A full discussion of the problems associated with measuring juvenile dependency is provided in the Technical Appendix.

Causal links between substance abuse and crime

The findings presented in this study provide clear evidence of a strong relationship between juveniles' abuse of substances and offending behaviour. However, a fundamental question is whether the relationship can ever be regarded as a causal one. Both adult DUCO reports employed a method to conservatively estimate the percentage of crime that was caused by substance abuse. The method, devised by Makkai and Payne (2003), incorporated analyses of substance dependency at the time of the offence. Since rates of substance dependency among the juveniles were not able to be confidently estimated, in this report a slightly different method was used. This method was based on three items:

• youths' open-ended explanations of why they committed their last offence;
• youths' reports as to whether they were intoxicated (drunk or high) at the time of the last offence; and
• whether juveniles reported being a daily substance user in the six months prior to their arrest for their last offence.

To link substance abuse as the cause of a youth's crime, the youth must have first given a substance-related reason for their offence, and secondly, have reported being intoxicated at the time, and/or reported being a daily user. The reasoning underpinning this method is that it combines each youth's subjective assessment of whether alcohol or drugs caused their offence with a more objective assessment, namely, whether they were intoxicated at the time or a daily user.

Across the entire sample, 33 per cent of youths provided drug-related reasons for committing their last offence. Two thirds of all youths (66%) admitted that they were drunk or high at the time of their last offence. Two thirds (67%) also indicated that they used substances on a daily basis in the six months prior to being arrested for their last offence. Table 4.8 explores the extent of the cross-over between these three variables.

Table 4.8: Model attributions for daily substance use and intoxication (percentages)

No attribution	67
Attribution
Daily use	3
Intoxicated	7
Both	22
Total	100
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

The results indicate that the offences for which 67 per cent of juveniles were detained cannot be attributed to substance use. This group of youths includes those who provided drug-related reasons for their last offence, but were not intoxicated at the time, nor were they daily substance users. Also falling in this category are those youths who reported being intoxicated at the time of their offence and/or being a daily user, but who provided a non-drug-related reason as to why they committed their last offence. The remaining 33 per cent of crimes can be attributed to substance abuse. In most cases (22%) the offenders were both intoxicated at the time of the offence and using substances on a daily basis.

In total, 29 per cent of the crimes attributed to substance abuse implicated intoxication. This figure is identical to the percentage of the crimes attributable to intoxication in the adult male DUCO sample (Makkai and Payne 2003), whereas the rate attributed to intoxication in the adult female DUCO sample was higher (35%) (Johnson 2004). As noted in Chapter 3, the bulk of the juvenile sample (93%) were male. These findings potentially indicate that, for males, the patterns of behaviour in which substance abuse causes crime begin in adolescence and are continued into adulthood. Future research into this issue would need to account for the fact that adult males use harder drugs than their adolescent counterparts.

Summary

Chapter 3 highlighted that young detainees consistently engage in a wide variety of illegal behaviours and, for most, substance abuse is a prominent feature of their lives. This chapter built on those findings by providing clear evidence that juvenile crime is closely related to substance abuse. For example, the findings indicate that:

• 70 per cent of youths were intoxicated at the time of their last offence;
• 72 per cent of detainees, reflecting on their whole criminal career, reported that substance abuse had a negative impact;
• regular offenders were twice as likely as non-regular offenders to have been intoxicated at the time of their last offence, and considered substance abuse to have had an impact on their general criminal behaviour;
• 75 per cent of regular offenders reported regularly using substances, compared with 31 per cent of non-regular offenders;
• about one third of youths who had committed burglary, assault or who had sold drugs provided psychopharmacological explanations for their offending;
• 44 per cent of burglars and 38 per cent of drug sellers reported that they had committed offences to fund their drug habits;
• 67 per cent of all juveniles reported using one or more substances on a daily basis in the six months prior to being arrested for their last offence; and
• daily users were significantly more likely to offend several times a week and to sell drugs regularly.

It is difficult to establish causality between substance use and crime. However, conservative estimates suggest that 33 per cent of juveniles were detained for offences caused by their substance abuse.

The pattern observed in Chapter 3 of similarities between the predominantly male juvenile DUCO sample and the adult male DUCO sample appeared again in this chapter. In particular, crimes committed by adult and juvenile males were just as likely to be causally linked to alcohol as drugs. Crimes committed by adult females, on the other hand, were more likely to be causally attributed to drugs than alcohol.

The results underscore the importance of substance treatment programs for juveniles in detention. This study does not indicate levels of substance dependency or addiction among detainees. However, interventions can focus on preventing substance use behaviours that existed prior to detention from recurring once the youths return to everyday life. A priority should be preventing daily use of any substance.