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 6: Risk factors for substance use and offending

• History of abuse and neglect
• Living with parents
• Family substance abuse
• Schooling
• Summary

The DUCO juveniles survey was designed to capture basic information about risk factors in the lives of the participants. Chapter 2 outlined risk factors for young people identified by previous research. Many of these risk factors have been linked to juvenile crime and juvenile substance abuse. It is important to reiterate that risk factors increase the chance of, but do not determine, juvenile antisocial behaviour, and that they are often highly interrelated with each other (Farrington 1998; Losel & Bender 2003). The factors analysed in this chapter relate to:

• juveniles' history of abuse and neglect;
• living with parents;
• family substance use; and
• schooling.

The purpose of this chapter is twofold. Firstly, it provides a clearer picture of the lives of the young people interviewed in this study, the majority of whom are likely to represent the most chronic substance abusers and offenders in their age bracket in Australia. Secondly, the chapter explores the links between risk factors, substance use and crime.

History of abuse and neglect

Abuse and neglect in the early years have consistently been linked with juvenile delinquency (National Crime Prevention 1999). Different explanations of how abusive backgrounds lead to delinquency have been proposed. One suggestion is that people use substances as a means of coping with the psychological impact of the abuse they have suffered, such as numbing their emotions or blocking painful memories (Jarvis, Copeland & Walton 1995; cited in Johnson 2004). Later, once use has become habitual, illegal sources of funds may be sought to supply the substances. Other evidence points towards adolescents modelling the violent behaviours that they have witnessed in the home (see Farrington & Coid 2003). With regard to neglect, it has been argued that low levels of supervision of young people increases the risk of them engaging in delinquent behaviour (Wei et al. 2004).

The youths were not asked directly about sexual abuse for ethical reasons. However, they were asked whether anyone had:

• left them alone by themselves for a long time as a child;
• pushed around, hit, kicked or beaten them; or
• made them feel very sad, bad or frightened.

If the youths answered positively to any of the three questions they were asked to indicate who had done this to them.

Sixty-six youths (18%) indicated that they had been left alone for long periods of time as children (Table 6.1). About one in three youths reported that they had suffered violent abuse (n=132) or emotional abuse (n=101). It is tentatively suggested that some of the youths who reported being made to feel 'very sad, bad or frightened' may have been referring to the emotional effects of sexual abuse, although clearly there is no way of quantifying this issue.

Table 6.1: History of abuse and neglect

	Neglect %	Violent abuse %	Emotional abuse %
Parents or guardians	94	60	70
Siblings	2	23	15
Stranger	2	10	9
Other	2	7	6
(n)	(66)	(132)	(101)
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

The three main categories of people youths identified as having neglected or abused them were parents or guardians, siblings and strangers. Not surprisingly, parents and guardians were the most likely figures to have neglected the youths at some stage (94%). They also accounted for the bulk of the violent and emotional abusers. Of the juveniles who had reported violent abuse, almost a quarter identified their siblings as the abusers.

Have these histories influenced the criminal behaviours of the detainees? Figure 6.1 compares the rates of neglect, violent abuse and emotional abuse for the offender types; regular violent offenders, regular property offenders and non-regular offenders. The findings show that:

• regular violent offenders were three times more likely than non-regular offenders to report having been left alone for long periods of time as a child;
• this neglect was reported by twice as many regular property offenders than non-regular offenders;
• regular violent offenders had suffered physical abuse at double the rate of non-regular offenders; and
• regular offenders reported emotional abuse twice as often as non-regular offenders.

Similar results were not yielded when the histories of abuse and neglect were compared with frequency of substance use in the six months prior to being arrested. Figure 6.2 highlights the reports of abuse among youths who used substances monthly or less than monthly, on a weekly basis, or at least once a day. No statistically significant differences were observed between youths who used substances on a monthly, weekly or daily basis. A slight trend was observed in relation to reports of neglect and violent abuse. That is, youths who reported higher rates of substance use in the six months leading to their arrest tended to also report higher rates of neglect and violent abuse.

Evidence does exist, however, of a relationship between the age at which adolescents first used substances and whether they had suffered neglect or abuse (see Figure 6.3). Analysis revealed a statistically significant difference. On average, youths who reported neglect or violent abuse began using substances one year before those who did not.

Living with parents

It appears that the experience of abuse and neglect, most of which was perpetrated by parents or guardians, had a further impact on the juvenile detainees. They were asked whether they were living with their parents at the time of their last offence, and 42 per cent (n=155) reported that they were not. Table 6.2 displays these results.

Table 6.2: Abuse and neglect and living away from parents at the time of last offence

	Neglect	Violent abuse	Emotional abuse
	%	%	%	(n)
Living with parents	14	29	20	(203)
Not living with parents	23*	44*	35*	(155)
(n)	(66)	(132)	(101)
* Statistically significant, chi squared, p<0.05 Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

The differences are not large in percentage terms, but they are all statistically significant. Compared with those who were still living at home, youths who were not living with their parents at the time of their last offence reported higher rates of neglect, violent abuse and emotional abuse. While there are many reasons youths do not live with their parents, one interpretation of this result is that escaping abuse or neglect of one kind or another is a strong motivation for juveniles to leave home.

Further calculation suggests that not living with parents is associated with more frequent offending and substance use in juveniles. Regarding offending:

• 42 per cent of regular violent offenders and 47 per cent of regular property offenders were not living with their parents/guardian at the time of their last offence; and
• of the non-regular offenders, only 26 per cent were not living with their parents.

The difference between the regular and non-regular offenders was significant (p=0.054).

In respect of substance use, both daily drug use and poly drug use were more common among youths who were not living with their parents at the time of the last offence (see Figure 6.4). Three out of five youths who had left home were poly drug users, compared with two out of five youths still at home. Those who had left home also had a slightly higher rate of daily use, and this difference approached significance (p=0.059).

Those who had left home reported higher rates of abuse. It could be argued that their more serious offending and substance use behaviours are a function of that abuse (and other risk factors in the home environment). That is, the risk factors which contributed to juveniles leaving home also contributed to their higher rates of offending and substance use.

Family substance abuse

Parental abuse of substances has been identified as a risk factor for juvenile substance use and criminogenic behaviour (Sheridan 1995; Stockwell et al. 2004). Similarly, parents holding positive attitudes towards drug use acts as a risk factor for young people (Farrell et al. 1992). Apart from the potential for adolescents to learn substance abuse behaviours from family members, if alcohol and/or drug use is occurring in the home then there is a risk of access to those substances.

Overall, 67 per cent (n=249) of participants indicated that there was at least one person in their family who drank too much alcohol or used drugs while they were growing up. Table 6.3 illustrates the types of substances consumed by various members of the family. On average, two out of every five youths reported that their father or stepfather abused substances while they were growing up. In 33 per cent of cases the father or stepfather was drinking too much alcohol from the youth's perspective. Drug abuse by fathers or stepfathers was reported by 24 per cent of youths.

Table 6.3: Family substance abuse

	Mother/stepmother %	Father/stepfather %	Sibling %
No substance abuse	67	58	71
Alcohol	14	19	5
Drug	9	10	14
Both alcohol and drugs	10	14	10
Total	100	100	100
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

Less prevalent was substance abuse by mothers and stepmothers, although this was still reported by one third of juveniles. Again, alcohol abuse (24%) was slightly higher than drug abuse (19%). Substance abuse by siblings differed in that drug abuse (24%) was indicated more frequently than alcohol (15%). In all, 20 per cent of the youths reported that one or more siblings drank too much alcohol or used drugs.

Perhaps not surprisingly, it appears that family substance abuse had an impact on juveniles' own alcohol and drug using behaviours. Firstly, it may have encouraged earlier experimentation with substances:

• juveniles who reported family substance abuse started using substances themselves at the average age of 10.6; while
• for youths who did not report family substance abuse, the average age of substance initiation was 11.7 years.

This difference of just over one year was statistically significant (p<0.05).

Secondly, the findings suggest that family substance abuse influenced the frequency with which youths used substances in the six months prior to being arrested (Figure 6.5). The results indicate that, compared with those who used substances every month or less, youths who used substances every week or every day were more likely to report that members of their family had abused substances while they were growing up.

Additional analyses revealed that family substance abuse is related not only to the frequency of substance use, but also to poly substance use. Altogether, 265 youths had used more than one substance on a regular basis in the six months prior to their arrest (see Chapter 4). Seventy-two per cent of these poly substance users reported family substance abuse. In comparison, family substance abuse was reported by 56 per cent of non-poly substance users. This difference is statistically significant (p<0.05).

A similar statistically significant pattern also appeared in the relationship between juvenile crime and family substance abuse (Figure 6.6). The offender types differed in terms of the likelihood that substance abuse was occurring in their home. Family substance abuse was reported by about 70 per cent of regular offenders and 46 per cent of non-regular offenders.

The issue of what happened when youths left the home environment in which the substance abuse was occurring can be investigated using the youths' responses to whether they were living with their parents at the time of their last offence. Figure 6.7 compares youths in terms of whether they were living at home, were poly substance users and whether substance abuse occurred in their family.

The findings indicate that poly substance use was higher among youths who had left home, even if the youths' family had abused substances:

• 49 per cent of youths who stayed at home with their substance-using family admitted to poly substance use; while
• 64 per cent of youths who had left their substance-using family were poly substance users.

Arguably, these findings indicate that leaving the home environment exacerbates adolescents' substance use. This could be because, regardless of their own substance use, parents tend to curb substance use in their adolescent children to some extent. Once living alone or on the street, however, the informal social control exerted by the parents is absent and peer influence may be greater. As a result, some juveniles may use this opportunity to increase their substance use.

Schooling

Experiences at school can have lasting effects on life trajectories. Adolescents who are attached to their school and perform well in academic and/or sporting endeavours are less likely to be attracted to antisocial behaviour (Tatem Kelly et al. 1997). Conversely, risk factors associated with school include:

• academic failure and lower levels of education;
• truancy and low commitment to schooling;
• leaving school early; and
• changing schools frequently

(Tatem Kelly et al. 1997; Nagin et al. 1995; Stockwell et al. 2004).

Truancy and leaving school early increases the amount of time juveniles spend unsupervised. During this time, boredom, peers or a variety of other factors may lead them into criminogenic behaviour and substance abuse (Strandberg 1995).

Youths were asked straightforward questions about their schooling, namely the last year of school completed, how often they truanted, how often they were suspended and whether they were ever expelled. There may be varied and complex reasons why young people leave school early, are truant, get suspended or expelled. Unstable family life, conduct disorders and victimisation by classmates are examples of potential contributing factors. Table 6.4 gives an overview of the juvenile detainees' school history.

Table 6.4: School experience

	%
Last year of school completed
Grades 3-6	11
Grades 7-9	76
Grades 10-12	13
Ever truanted	90
Often truanted	38
Ever suspended	89
Often suspended	44
Ever expelled	59
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file], n=371.

For three quarters of youths, the last year of school completed was between grades seven to nine. One in 10 youths had not progressed beyond grade six. There are strong indicators that whatever amount of schooling they had, most youths had a troubled and unproductive education:

• almost 60 per cent had been expelled from school;
• the majority of youths admitted that they had truanted from school and had been suspended at least once;
• 44 per cent reported that they were often suspended; and
• more than one third indicated that they truanted from school often.

Are such school experiences related to crime? That is, do the types of young offenders differ in their educational histories? Starting with the grade of school completed, no significant differences appeared between regular violent, regular property and non-regular offenders (p=0.12). However, a slight trend was recorded (see Figure 6.8).

Regular violent offenders were three times as likely as non-regular offenders to have reported that they did not progress beyond grade six. Twenty-one per cent of non-regular offenders completed grades 10 to 12, compared with 11 per cent of regular violent offenders.

More conspicuous differences arose in respect to truancy and suspension, as illustrated in Figure 6.9. Most notably, half of all regular violent offenders reported often truanting from school. The rate was also high for regular property offenders (35%). In comparison, only 15 per cent of non-regular offenders reported frequent truancy.

Similarly, half of the regular violent offenders and 42 per cent of the regular property offenders were suspended from school often, whereas frequent suspension was a feature of school life for 28 per cent of non-regular offenders. No statistically significant difference was observed between the groups as to whether they had ever been expelled, although non-regular offenders again had lower rates of reporting than the regular offenders.

Further analyses were conducted on the number of times each youth had been expelled. Regular violent offenders had, on average, been expelled from school three times. The average number of expulsions for regular property offenders and non-regular offenders was two. An analysis of variance indicated the difference between the groups was highly statistically significant (p<0.01).

In addition to a relationship with juvenile offending, an unambiguous link exists between juveniles' school history and their age of first substance use. The age at which the juveniles left school appears to be related to the age at which they first tried alcohol or drugs (Table 6.5). The earlier juveniles left school, the earlier they began using substances. Youths who ended their education by grade six typically began substance use at the age of 9.4 years. This is more than 18 months earlier than youths who left school between grades seven to nine, who had an average age of onset for substance use of 11.1 years. The average age of onset was 12 years of age for adolescents who completed grade 10, 11 or 12. Likewise, as indicated in Figure 6.10, earlier ages of substance use were reported by youths who were ever expelled, were suspended often and who truanted often.

Table 6.5: Mean age of first substance use, by school grade completed

	Grade 3-6	Grade 7-9	Grade 10-12
Age first substance use (mean)	9.4	11.1	12
* Statistically significant, ANOVA, f<0.05 Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file], n=371.

Summary

The juvenile detainees interviewed in this study had faced a number of serious difficulties in their childhood and adolescence:

• about one third had endured violent or emotional abuse, and one fifth had been left alone for long periods as a child;
• 42 per cent of youths were not living with their parents at the time of their last offence;
• two thirds of youths reported that a member of their family was abusing substances while they were growing up;
• one in ten youths did not continue their education past grade six, while 75 per cent ended their education in grade seven, eight or nine;
• what little schooling the youths did complete was punctuated by very high rates of truancy, and almost half of juveniles were suspended often; and
• six out of ten youths had been expelled from school.

These features of the youths' life experience seemed to be highly interrelated with their own substance abuse and criminal behaviour:

• regular violent offenders had suffered more abuse and neglect than regular property offenders, and the latter reported higher rates of abuse than the non-regular offenders;
• neglect and violent abuse was associated with an earlier onset of substance use;
• youths who had been abused were less likely to have been living with their parents at the time of their last offence;
• not living with parents significantly increased the risk of becoming a regular offender and a poly substance user;
• juveniles who reported family substance abuse began using substances at an earlier age, and were more likely than other youths to become weekly or daily users;
• regular offenders reported significantly higher rates of truancy and suspension than non-regular offenders;
• regular violent offenders had been expelled more often than other offenders; and
• early onset of substance use was associated with leaving school early and high rates of expulsion, suspension and truancy.