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 7: Indigenous offenders

• History of offending
• Prevalence of drug use
• Links between substance use and crime
• Temporal order of substance use and crime
• Risk factors for substance abuse and offending
• Summary

The overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians in the prison system is a well documented problem. One quarter of the participants in the adult DUCO studies self-identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, despite the fact that these groups constitute only two per cent of the nation's population (ABS 2004; Johnson 2004; Makkai & Payne 2003). The situation is even worse in Australian juvenile detention centres. Although rates of detention have declined overall in recent years, Indigenous youths still account for about half of all detainees. This means that an Indigenous youth has 19 times the chance of being sentenced to detention than a non-Indigenous youth (Charlton & McCall 2004). Six out of every 10 youths interviewed in the juvenile DUCO study were Indigenous (n=218).

History of offending

The offences for which Indigenous youths were sentenced to detention differed from non-Indigenous youths. Figure 7.1 illustrates the most serious offence categories by Indigenous status. More than two thirds of non-Indigenous youths reported a violent offence as their most serious charge, compared with 50 per cent of Indigenous youths. This difference was highly statistically different (p<0.01). Figure 7.2 gives further detail of all the offences for which the youths were detained.

The most important differences between the groups relate to burglary, robbery and assault:

• half of the Indigenous youths reported being detained for burglary charges, compared with one third of non-Indigenous youths;
• 42 per cent of non-Indigenous youths had an assault charge and 37 per cent had a robbery charge; and
• 25 per cent of Indigenous juveniles had been detained for assault or robbery.

These trends are mirrored in the youths' self-reported lifetime offending patterns. Table 7.1 presents the juveniles' reported rates of ever and regularly committing offences. Ninety-two per cent of Indigenous youths had committed burglary at least once, and seven out of 10 identified themselves as regular burglars. The rates were noticeably lower for non-Indigenous juveniles: 78 per cent had tried burglary and 57 per cent burgled on a regular basis. Chi squared analysis indicated that the difference in ever committing burglary was significant at the 0.01 level.

Another highly significant difference related to rates of assault (p<0.01), namely that more non-Indigenous participants reported ever assaulting another person (84%) than Indigenous participants (65%). To reverse these figures, this means that of the non-Indigenous offenders, 16 per cent had never assaulted another person compared with 35 per cent of Indigenous youths. However, rates of regular assault were similar, as were escalation rates. This indicates that Indigenous youths who commit assault once are just as likely as non-Indigenous juveniles to progress to regular violent behaviour. Differences in rates of robbery were less apparent, although the Indigenous adolescents reported slightly lower levels of ever robbing and regularly robbing.

Table 7.1: History of offending, by Indigenous status

	Indigenous			Non-Indigenous
	Ever %	Regular %	Escalation1 %	Ever %	Regular %	Escalation1 %
Property offences	99	89	90	97	86	89
Vandalised property	77	36	47	84	37	44
Motor vehicle theft	83	43	52	76	43	57
Break and enter	92	71	77	78	57	73
Stealing without break-in	81	56	69	82	58	71
Traded in stolen goods	75	53	71	75	58	77
Fraud, forgery	26	7	27	27	7	26
Violent offences	79	33	42	91	38	42
Physical assault	65	28	43	84	31	37
Robbery	52	14	27	60	20	33
Drug offences	90	79	88	84	77	92
Bought illegal drugs	88	78	89	82	74	90
Sold illegal drugs	50	33	66	62	42	68
Total	100	95	95	100	92	92
(n)	(218)			(153)
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].

While it cannot be categorically stated that the Indigenous youths were typically less violent offenders, it is interesting to note the disparity between these findings and those of the adult male study. Makkai and Payne (2003) found that Indigenous participants were overrepresented among the most violent categories of offenders.

Prevalence of drug use

For the most part, the two groups of juveniles displayed similar substance-using patterns. Rates of substance use were slightly higher among non-Indigenous youths for all substances except cannabis and inhalants (see Figure 7.3). The only statistically significant differences lay with use of amphetamines and ecstasy:

• 27 per cent of non-Indigenous participants had tried amphetamines, compared with 16 per cent of Indigenous youths; and
• five times as many non-Indigenous youths had tried ecstasy.

It is possible that these data are reflective of environmental factors. The DUCO juveniles survey did not ask the participants whether they lived in a city or a rural area, for instance. However, if a substantial portion of the Indigenous youths came from rural areas, it may be that they simply did not have access to amphetamines or ecstasy. Further analysis indicated that the groups were similar in the frequency with which they used substances. As displayed in Table 7.2, Indigenous and non-Indigenous youths were just as likely to be using a substance on a daily basis. Nor did the rates of poly substance use in the six months prior to their arrest differ significantly.

Table 7.2: Frequency of substance use, by Indigenous status

	Indigenous %	Non-Indigenous %
Daily substance use	17	16
Regular poly substance use	45	53
Total	100	100
(n)	(218)	(153)
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

These findings present further differences from the results of the adult male DUCO project. That research indicated that the adult Indigenous males had less serious substance abuse behaviours than non-Indigenous males (Makkai & Payne 2003). In particular, 22 per cent Indigenous adult males reported that regular poly substance had occurred at some stage of their life, compared with 40 per cent of non-Indigenous offenders.

Links between substance use and crime

One of the important goals of Chapter 4 was to attempt to quantify the amount of juvenile crime that was caused by substance use. The method used, which is described in more detail in that chapter, is based on juveniles' open-ended explanations of why they committed their last offence, reports of whether they were intoxicated (drunk or high) at the time of their last offence, and whether they were daily substance users in the six months before their offence.

Essentially, to attribute substance use as the cause of a juvenile's offence, they must have first pointed to substance use in their open-ended explanation. The juvenile then needed to have reported being either intoxicated at the time of the offence or a daily substance user. The outcomes of the model attributions for Indigenous and non-Indigenous youths are displayed below (Table 7.3).

Table 7.3: Model attributions for daily use and intoxication, by Indigenous status (per cent)

	Indigenous (n=218)	Non-Indigenous (n=153)
No attribution	65	71
Attribution
Daily use	4	1
Intoxicated	6	9
Both	25	19
Total	100	100
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

In total, 35 per cent of the offences for which Indigenous youths were detained could be attributed to substance abuse. Within this cohort, the most common outcome was that the juveniles had indicated substance abuse in their explanation of their offence, were intoxicated at the time of the offence and were daily substance users (25%).

The results for non-Indigenous juveniles differed slightly, but this difference did not approach statistical significance (p=0.18). Twenty-nine per cent of the offences that resulted in the detention of non-Indigenous youths are estimated to have been caused by substance abuse. Again, the bulk of these offences incorporated both intoxication and daily substance use (19%).

Temporal order of substance use and crime

So far, the results have suggested that the criminal careers of Indigenous detainees tend to incorporate higher levels of burglary and lower levels of assault than non-Indigenous youths, although the substance use behaviours of the two groups are relatively similar. Are there any distinctions to be made in terms of the life trajectories of non-Indigenous and Indigenous youths? Temporal analysis of the average ages at which events typically occurred indicate few substantial differences between the two groups (Table 7.4). It should be noted that the table only presents data from those juveniles who became regular offenders or regular substance users. For example, the figures relating to vandalism are based only on youths who reported becoming regular vandals. Likewise, results on alcohol draw on regular alcohol users only.

Table 7.4: Mean age of offending and substance use, by Indigenous status

	Indigenous (n=218)			Non-Indigenous (n=153)
	First	Regular activity	Difference in years	First	Regular activity	Difference in years
Property offenders	10.7	12.4	1.7	10.9	12.7	1.8
Vandalism	11.5	12.6	1.1	11.8	13.3	1.5
Steal without break-in	11.4	12.4	1.0	11.3	12.6	1.3
Break and enter	12.0	13.3	1.3	12.6	13.6	1.0
Motor vehicle theft	12.5	13.5	1.0	13.1	14.1	1.0
Traded in stolen goods	12.9	13.6	0.7	13.1	13.8	0.7
Fraud	13.1	14.2	1.1	13.5	13.7	0.2
Violent offenders	12.7	13.1	0.4	12.6	13.3	0.7
Assault	11.7	13.2	1.5	11.7	13.1	1.4
Robbery	12.5	13.3	0.8	13.3	14.0	0.7
Drug offenders	12.4	13.1	0.7	12.3	13.3	1.0
Bought drugs	12.6	13.5	0.9	12.7	13.5	0.8
Sold drugs	13.9	14.2	0.3	14.3	14.5	0.2
Drug and alcohol use	11.0	12.7	1.7	10.3	11.7	1.4
Alcohol	12.3	14.2	1.9	11.7	13.9	2.2
Cannabis	11.9	13.3	1.4	11.7	13.1	1.4
Amphetamines	13.7	14.2	0.5	13.9	14.7	0.8
Ecstasy	13.3	14	0.7	13.9	14.6	0.7
Inhalants	12.6	13.1	0.5	14.1	14.6	0.5
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file].

Indigenous youths who became regular burglars progressed to regular offending at an earlier age than their non-Indigenous counterparts. This pattern was more marked with regard to robbery, although it should be recalled that fewer Indigenous detainees had been sentenced for robbery or had self-reported committing robberies (see Figure 7.2 and Table 7.1). Youths of Indigenous descent who had tried fraud took over a year to progress to regular fraud. In contrast, the development of regular fraud occurred very shortly after the first fraud offence for non-Indigenous juveniles.

Regarding substance use, non-Indigenous young people reported an earlier age of onset overall, and an earlier progression to regular substance use. However, both groups were similar in terms of the average time-lapse from first use to regular use. Perhaps the most noticeable differences lay in respect of inhalants:

• Indigenous youths first used inhalants an average of 18 months before non-Indigenous youths; and
• regular inhalant use by Indigenous youths occurred at the age of 13, whilst non-Indigenous juveniles did not do so until they were aged 14 and a half.

Across the entire sample, including regular and non-regular offenders/substance users, an interesting trend was found between youths of different Indigenous status. Indigenous youths were more likely than non-Indigenous youths to have begun criminal behaviour before their first substance use (Figure 7.4).

Conversely, substance use preceded offending for one in three non-Indigenous juveniles compared with one in five Indigenous juveniles. This finding supports the suggestion made earlier in this chapter that substances appear to play a more important role in the criminal careers of non-Indigenous juveniles than they do for Indigenous juveniles. One interpretation of these data is that substance use may have played a greater role in the criminal careers of non-Indigenous youths than it did for the Indigenous youths. That is, if first substance use preceded criminal behaviour, it may have contributed to the onset of criminal behaviour. Similarly, the onset of regular substance use potentially exacerbated offending patterns towards regular property offending and violence.

Risk factors for substance abuse and offending

Chapter 6 described in detail the risk factors present in the lives of the young people who participated in the DUCO study. Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants alike reported having troubled educational histories in addition to reporting high rates of abuse, neglect and family substance use. However, the groups were dissimilar in three main respects (Table 7.5). First, Indigenous youths reported higher rates of family substance abuse. This difference was unrelated to substance abuse by fathers or stepfathers. Instead, Indigenous youths differed because they:

• were about twice as likely to report that their siblings abused substances; and
• indicated markedly higher levels of maternal substance abuse (including stepmothers).

Table 7.5: Personal history, by Indigenous status

	Indigenous %	Non-Indigenous %
Family substance abuse	72	59*
Mother/stepmother substance abuse	39	24*
Father/stepfather substance abuse	43	42
Sibling substance abuse	36	19*
Living with parents	59	53
Childhood abuse
Neglect	18	18
Physical abuse	21	37*
Emotional abuse	30	43*
School history
Highest grade - primary school	12	10
Highest grade - 7-9	77	74
Often truant	26	55*
Often suspended	34	58*
Ever expelled	53	68*
(n)	(128)	(342)
* Statistically significant, chi square, p<0.05 Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUCO Juvenile Survey, 2005 [computer file]

Despite the fact that family substance abuse occurred more frequently in their homes, Indigenous young people were less likely to report having suffered physical or emotional abuse. In particular, more than one third of non-Indigenous adolescents appear to have experienced violent abuse compared with one fifth of the Indigenous youths.

Additionally, non-Indigenous detainees had more turbulent educational backgrounds. They reached the same level of education as the Indigenous youths. However, non-Indigenous juveniles reported truancy at twice the rate of their Indigenous counterparts. Rates of suspension and expulsion from school were also considerably higher among non-Indigenous participants.

Summary

Indigenous males in the adult DUCO study were distinguishable from non-Indigenous offenders because they tended to be violent offenders and self-reported less serious habitual substance abuse (Makkai & Payne 2003). Neither of these outcomes was reflected in the final DUCO study of adolescents. Indigenous youths were not especially violent offenders. In fact, far fewer Indigenous youths had been detained for violent charges. Indigenous youths were also less likely to have ever assaulted another person.

Burglary seemed to be the offence that characterised the Indigenous juveniles' criminal careers. Half of the Indigenous youths had been detained for burglary. Compared with the non-Indigenous participants, Indigenous young people self-reported significantly higher rates of regular burglary.

Parallels can be drawn between the substance using behaviours of Indigenous and non-Indigenous youths. They reported using alcohol, cannabis and inhalants at similar levels. Additionally, the two groups had comparable levels of daily use and regular poly substance use. Finally, and perhaps most importantly given the aims of this study, it was estimated that similar levels of crime perpetrated by Indigenous and non-Indigenous youths could be causally attributed to substance use.

However, non-Indigenous youths used amphetamines and ecstasy at significantly higher levels than Indigenous youths. On the other hand, Indigenous youths began regularly using inhalants at a much younger age. There were also some indicators that substances played a slightly different role in the criminal careers of Indigenous and non-Indigenous youths, appearing to have a more important influence on the latter.

Regarding risk factors, although family substance abuse was reported at higher rates amongst the Indigenous adolescents, the non-Indigenous youths appear to have suffered more widespread child abuse. Similarly, they reported more turbulent educational backgrounds.