Ben Kircher's Portfolio



Juvenile Substance Abuse ProgramsBen KircherIntroduction: Why do we need Programs?Substance abuse treatment for minors is a relatively new phenomenon in the juvenile justice system. Increased concern for teenagers and their experimentation with illegal substances came about in the 1990’s as the arrest rate for juvenile drug and alcohol abuse came to an all-time high. The year of 1997 saw an average of 750 per 100,000 juveniles arrested for substance abuse, an increase from 1990’s 300 per 100,000 juveniles (Roberts, 2004, p.84). Along with this, the placement of teenagers in treatment facilities increased by 20% between 1994 and 1999, court cases dealing with substance abuse and juveniles “more than doubled between 1993 and 1998,” and approximately 192,500 juveniles were processed by the courts because of illegal substances (Roberts, 2004, p. 76). All of this attention from law enforcement led to changes and developments in treatments and programs for juvenile drug offenders. Unfortunately, drug abuse is oftentimes only the tip of the iceberg for delinquents and is associated with increased involvement in serious crime. A study done by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1997 similarly discovered that among inmates under the age of 24, 10% of federal inmates and 17% of state inmates committed their crime to get money to buy drugs (as cited in Roberts, 2004, p. 77). More disturbing is the high numbers of crimes committed by juveniles while under the influence. While drunk or high one’s inhibitions and rational thought are lowered contributing to an increased risk of participating in criminal behavior, even if the act is something a juvenile would otherwise never do while sober. A study done by the Bureau of Census in 1997 found that: nearly 30% of murders at the federal level, 20% of sexual assaults at the federal level, 40% of robberies at the state level, and over 20% of assaults at the state level were committed by offenders under the influence of a mood-altering substance (As cited by Roberts, 2004, p. 78). A more recent study followed 1,300 delinquents for seven years. These juveniles were processed because of something other than a drug or underage alcohol charge. The study was conducted by the Pathways to Desistence program and the results concluded that “Serious/chronic offenders are much more likely than other juvenile offenders to be substance abusers and to qualify as having substance use disorders. Substance use and offending at one age is a consistent predictor of continued serious offending at a later age” (Mulvey, Schubert, & Chassin, 2010, p. 1). Throughout much of the research to date, a consistent trend has been the finding of a link between delinquency and substance abuse. Many youths being transferred through the court system for other offenses admit to recent substance abuse. The Pathways to Desistence study specifically found that of those 1,300 offenders, “Eighty-five percent of the sample reported using marijuana at some point in their lives, 80 percent reported using alcohol” (Mulvey, Schubert, & Chassin, 2010, p. 6). It is also thought that the rate of teenage substance abuse matches the juvenile crime rate and they go hand-in-hand together. “Substance use and serious offending fluctuate in similar patterns over time, suggesting a reciprocal or sequential relationship, but no causal relationship has been proven [yet]” (Mulvey, Schubert, & Chassin, 2010, p. 1).Not only does substance abuse increase crime rates, it also affects the juvenile academically and puts them at an increased risk for mental illnesses, teenage pregnancy, suicide, and deadly diseases. “Numerous studies have documented correlations between substance use and suicide, depression, conduct disorder, school dropout, and poor scholastic attainment” (Hallfors, Cho, Brodish, Flewelling, & Khatapoush, 2006, p. 2). Also, HIV is more likely to be spread and passed along by juveniles under the influence as they act more carelessly and do not think of precautions they usually would if sober. “In one sample of detained youth with substance use disorders, 63 percent engaged in five or more sexual risk behaviors, producing heightened vulnerability to HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases” (Chassin, 2008, p. 166). This is not to mention the increased risk of contracting HIV from the sharing of dirty needles, which is commonplace among users of all ages.All of this data shows the need for effective programs for juvenile substance abusers. Substance abuse can lead to serious problems for society and can impact everyone in a community in more ways than previously imagined. Without successful treatment options, many youth will become chronic offenders and abusers and live life constantly rotating in and out of the justice system at tax-payers’ expense. Substance abuse puts adolescents at risk to lose everything, programs can help them get back on track and overcome addictions that most find too hard to walk away from on their own. The past has seen some effective methods of rehabilitating addicted youths, and programs are ever changing and evolving to meet the needs and demands of the current population. However, this diverse field of treatment is not without its barriers and problems.Characteristics of Current Juvenile Substance Abuse:Diverse programs are needed when handling drug abuse because the crimes and patterns of usage itself can vary widely across any young population. Although down from its recent highs in the 1990’s, current juvenile substance abuse is still a major problem and is still difficult to treat and deal with because of the vastness and availability of drugs for young teens. New substances are constantly being developed and new ways of “getting high” are consistently being found, each more dangerous than the last. According to Monitoring the Future, in 2010, 21.4% of eighth-graders, 37% of tenth-graders, and 48.2% of twelfth-graders report having used an illegal substance before. Alcohol and Marijuana were by far the most abused substances in the study, although everything from Methamphetamines, Oxycontin, LSD, and Heroin were also reported (National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], n.d.). Teenage substance abuse affects all races, social classes, and sexes, but to varying degrees. It is unique in this aspect and can be found almost anywhere. Substance abuse is something that affects any given society throughout not only the United States, but the world. There are, however, specific trends among teenage drug use that should be looked into. A study done by Ching-hua Ho, J. B. Kingree, and Martie Thompson, at the University of Clemson in 2004 of 6,500 participants in grades 7-12 backed this up. The study found that white youth were more likely to abuse alcohol, females had more alcohol problems than males, and marijuana use was equally likely among both sexes and all races. The age of the juvenile also had an effect on substance abuse, the older the kid the more likely they were to use alcohol and marijuana. Irrespective of alcohol and marijuana, the relationship between race and abuse depended on the type of drug. Finally, lower income levels of the parents had a slight positive effect on whether or not the juvenile experimented with drugs (pp. 752-753). Programs of the future should recognize some of these trends and orient and shape how they work and handle patients based on results of studies similar to this. That way, the treatment system’s effects would be maximized and specific populations of juvenile substance abusers would receive the most beneficial treatment possible. This treatment would therefore be better tailored to individual needs and provide the best fit for each patient based on their personal characteristics. There are believed to be many factors in a child’s life that contribute or lead to juvenile substance abuse. Some of these current factors include: “Parental substance use disorders, poor parenting, conflictual family environments, and dispositional factors such as sensation seeking and behavioral disinhibition” (Mulvey, Schubert, & Chassin, 2010, p. 3). Again, just like programs that focus on the trends and the different demographics of substance abuse, effective programs also need to take into account and deal with the personal setting of a delinquent’s life. If these issues are not addressed, more stress and pressure is placed on the individual to stay clean during after-care and into the future. Juvenile substance abuse programs of the present and future are looking into and focusing more on the root causes of why the offender turned to drugs in the first place to help increase the effectiveness of treatment. One of the main goals of these programs is to keep juveniles out of the justice system and prevent youth drug offenders from eventually enduring more harm in prison settings where treatment can be scarce and ineffective.Juvenile Substance Abuse Treatment in the Past: Substance abuse treatment specialized for juveniles is a relatively new field, and certain movements and government agendas influenced how it has developed during the past few decades. Until 1899, when the first juvenile court system was established in Illinois, juveniles were treated the same as adults by the justice system. Finally reformers persuaded society that juveniles were different than adult criminals, and still were able to be rehabilitated. According to Gaudio (2008), early drug abuse treatment for juveniles focused on a rehabilitative model rather than deterrence and retribution, and relied on “individualized treatment of offenders, indeterminacy of sentences and broad discretion by judges” (p. 213-214). Then a drastic turn for the worse occurred in 1971 when a government program tag lined “The War on Drugs,” was declared in an attempt to clean up the streets after drug use increased in the late 1960s due to the Vietnam War. According to Gaudio (2008):As a result of the “War on Drugs,” which was initiated in the 1970s, drug legislation was quickly enacted, which implemented such things as mandatory minimum sentences and automatic transfers of juveniles to adult courts. The “get tough” policies of the “War on Drugs” shifted the juvenile justice system’s focus from rehabilitation to incarceration. As a result, there has been a sharp increase in incarceration rates for nonviolent juvenile offenders. (p. 213)Soon after in 1974, the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act was passed which allowed the states to better receive federal funding for the juvenile justice system. However, although the JJDPA “stated that the existing programs for juvenile drug offenders provided inadequate solutions and urged states to create critically needed, community based detention alternatives,” little was done and because of this juvenile crime rates continued to rise (Gaudio, 2008, p. 215). Finally, a positive sign came about in 1984 when Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities first started “case management services for drug-involved juvenile offenders” (Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities [TASC], n.d.). This was something new and beneficial for juveniles because this form of treatment was more one-on-one and tailored to fit the individual offender. “TASC performs an assessment to determine the nature and extent of the youth’s substance use problem, developing an individual care plan for treatment … advocates for the youth and his or her family; and reports progress to the referring system” (Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities [TASC], n.d.). Also, more detailed and rich forms of therapies were coming into the spotlight, such as family-based and multisystemic therapy. Perhaps the biggest and most instrumental form of dealing with juvenile substance abuse to date came about in 1995 and 1996 when the first juvenile drug courts were used consistently. Drug courts, along with many other community courts, are still used today and have shown beneficial outcomes. To go along with this some states have been successful in taking action against some of the policies from the “War on Drugs” that have been in effect since it was first declared. “Additionally, automatic transfer laws for juvenile drug offenders have been repealed in such states as Illinois” (Gaudio, 2008, p. 218).Differences in Treatment: Despite coming a long way since its early days, substance abuse treatment for juveniles is still plagued by problems. Among these are lack of quality and availability of programs for young offenders of lower social status. Oftentimes the treatment is scarce in the areas where the people need it the most. This is because some of the most serious juvenile drug use is by those of the lowest classes. Substance abuse is thought to be a cause and effect of homelessness. As cited in Didenko and Pankratz (2007) “…the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2003) estimates, 38% of homeless people were dependent on alcohol and 26% abused other drugs….while drug abuse is more common in homeless youth and young adults” (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2009). Since juveniles or their families are usually not able to afford lucrative private counseling, they must often turn to, or are forced to turn to, overcrowded and underfunded public programs. Many of these programs, because of their high caseloads, are forced to focus on abstinence while leaving the issue of relapse up to the offender. Long waiting lists to treatment openings may cause problems to worsen or juveniles to lose faith in the possibility of rehabilitation. Also, rarely do programs in areas of lower social status address the issue of the home environment and the root causes of what led to the usage of illegal substances. Many only have time to achieve abstinence because of crowding and underfunding (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2009). Mental illness is also a big issue for juveniles of the lower social classes. Unfortunately, many public programs for substance abuse do not accept patients who also have a mental illness because they are not equipped to deal with both issues (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2009). As cited by the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, major problems in the treatment of juvenile substance abusers are the barriers of high costs, lack of insurance and documentation, and long waiting lists that prevents youths and their families from receiving treatment (National Coalition for the Homeless, 2009). Obviously, these barriers affect those who live in poverty with limited resources the most. Another problem with the rehabilitation of juvenile substance abusers is the unequal treatment of racial and ethnic minorities. All too often, members of different races do not get the same quality of care as Caucasians. This could be because of the overrepresentation of minorities in lower social classes where treatment is less effective, because of underlying issues with the system, or because of stereotyping and racist beliefs by the justice and treatment system alike. There are some truly disturbing findings when it comes to race and substance abuse treatment. As cited by Grant (1997), African-Americans have disproportionately responded that they did not enter treatment because of the unavailability of spots in treatment programs (Schmidt, Greenfield, & Mulia, 2006, p. 51). Also, according to Tonigan (2003), a clinical trial found that African-Americans and Hispanics are less satisfied with their care than are Caucasians (Schmidt, Greenfield, & Mulia, 2006, p. 51). Another issue when it comes to race and treatment is the finding that minorities are more likely to receive care that is less appropriate to what they need. Schmidt, Greenfield, and Millia (2006) argue that “research on outcomes reveals that minority patients are less likely to receive specialty treatment and multiple episodes of care even though they often have different needs (e.g., higher unemployment rates and more legal problems) than Whites” (as cited by Le Fauve, 2003). These differences in treatment show crucial flaws in substance abuse treatment. Something to focus on in the future is specific treatment pathways and foundations based on culture. This hopefully would lessen the disparities and inequalities based on race and substance abuse treatment while giving the offender the best possible treatment that fits their individual beliefs, values, and needs. Substance abuse treatment for juveniles and adults alike has also differed by gender. Much research has already gone into how the sexes differ in the usage of drugs and how each responds to specific foundations of treatment. Some differences are: “Today many (although not all) treatment programs offer gender-specific or gender sensitive services, such as gender-matching with counselors, mixed-gender treatment groups led by male and female co-leaders, gender-specific treatment groups, and gender-specific treatment content” (Green, 2006, p. 55). Also, there are many substance abuse programs for young woman only. Many work with pregnant or drug addicted woman or adolescents and help in terms of parenting groups and child care (Green, 2006, pp. 55-56). The risk factors for juveniles seeking treatment for substance abuse are widely varied depending on the sex. According to Greenfield (2004), issues for females that need to be addressed in different ways than in males are: “income, education, employment, types of substances used, psychiatric disorders and symptoms, marital status, self-efficacy, history of sexual abuse, and children in the home” (Green, 2006, pp. 55-56). Research is continuing to be conducted in hopes of finding more ways to tailor treatment based on sex, and how to make these treatments more successful by fitting it to the characteristics of the individual abuser. There are, however, certain barriers that females face when seeking treatment. According to Brady and Ashley (2005), females are much more likely to face economic road blocks that keeps them from obtaining quality care, and are less likely to be able to regularly attend because of responsibilities inside of the home (Green, 2006, p. 57). Finally, Green (2006) states that both anxiety and depression are much more likely in females, especially teens, and these disorders commonly prevent the seeking of treatment (as cited by Brady and Randall, 1999). Very important differences arise in the comparison of public and private programs for juvenile substance abuse. Most juveniles are forced into public programs because it is their only choice, whether mandated by the court or they are in serious need and admit themselves. Their families oftentimes do not have the resources and funds to pay for private programs where they could reap the most benefits. A study conducted by J. Rodgers and P. Barnett (2000) analyzed data from the National Drug and Alcoholism Treatment Unit Survey (NDATUS) and discovered that although public programs funded by the state and local government along with nonprofit organizations employed more staff, private programs employed more specialized doctors and psychologists. Also, private programs were generally much smaller which allows the clients to receive more personal treatment options, and were mostly funded by private insurance companies and client fees (Rodgers and Barnett, 2000, para. 3). Some more downsides of publically-funded juvenile substance abuse programs are overcrowding, long wait lists, increased group therapy which decreases individual client attention, constant risk of treatment centers being shut down or cut short to save money and resources, and early releases to free up spaces (Terry, 2009, para. 2). However, there are many benefits to public programs. They are generally less expensive, are government funded, are more accessible, and are better prepared to deal with a wide variety of issues that come along with substance abuse (Terry, 2009, para. 1). A positive movement of private programs being federally funded has also been underway. Therefore, private programs may be more accessible to juveniles. Unfortunately, as of now, most public programs are designed for inner city, lower-class patients. Many are poorly funded, inefficient, over represent minority populations, and struggle to get by day-to-day operations with little rehabilitation success. These programs are usually filled with the juveniles who need treatment the most. A shift to publically funded private programs would be very beneficial and help free up spaces and resources for public programs. This would benefit both sides, creating a more efficient system overall. Types of Programs: Today, there are many different specific approaches to juvenile substance abuse. Programs vary widely in their foundations and basic principles when it comes to treating troubled teens. Most programs are community-oriented and focus on the everyday interactions of the user. Currently, family therapy, drug courts, and multisystemic therapy are three of the most popular and important forms of treatment for juvenile substance abuse. All of these programs have been found to be quite beneficial to the juveniles, depending on the patient’s determination to get better. All of these programs are similar in the fact that they heavily focus on the individual, their social and physical environment, and avoiding relapse. At the same time, each form is unique and goes about treatment in different ways. Family therapy is a common drug court recommended form of treatment, and is often used in junction with other treatments. Since the family is usually the most important and influential social group in a juvenile’s life, they have an important effect on the choices they make. Family problems and issues are very serious in terms of substance abuse and can have a profound impact on whether a child uses drugs. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], “Parental substance abuse or criminal involvement, physical or sexual abuse by family members, and lack of parental involvement or supervision are all risk factors for adolescent substance abuse and delinquent behavior” (n.d, para. 24). Family therapy allows a family to come together with a counselor or therapist to work and talk through their problems, and set goals for rehabilitation success. It also works on strengthening family ties and relationships: “Thus, the effective treatment of juvenile substance abusers often requires a family-based treatment model that targets family functioning and the increased involvement of family members” (National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], n.d., para. 24). This way, many of the underlying causes of substance abuse are tackled and the treatment does not just solely focus on abstinence. Also, the abuser is more likely to overcome abuse when a supportive family is in the picture. The individual is less likely to feel alone and has someone to turn to when needed. As stated by NIDA (2006), family therapy will continue to be used for a long time to come and looks promising thus far, “Sustained treatment and family participation are considered two elements of “best practices” for adolescent drug treatment” (Mulvey, Schubert, & Chassin, 2010, p. 10). Perhaps the biggest and most important form of dealing with juvenile substance abuse would be drug courts. Juvenile drug courts monitor substance abusers through methods such as drug testing, and employ a team of skilled workers who can imply “services including education, vocational training, recreation, mentoring, community service, health care, and drug and mental health treatment” (Chassin, 2008, 170). According to the United States Department of Justice (2003), the main goals of drug courts for teens are intervention, structure, improving levels of functioning, help in the acquiring of life skills that will help avoid abuse, and better family ties (p. 7). Being relatively new, the first juvenile drug court prototype was used in Illinois in 1985. Drug courts for substance abusers of all ages stemmed from the crack-cocaine outburst of the 1980s as the justice system as a whole was struggling in keeping up with the amount of drug offenders being arrested. To go along with this, sentences for drug charges were increased which lead to more incarceration for criminals who just a few years before might not have faced the same time behind bars. Change was needed, and because of this rehabilitation oriented drug courts were developed. According to the United States Department of Justice (2003), the first drug courts took a problem-solving approach that focused on therapeutic outcomes (p. 5). All drug courts utilized the community and its resources in helping achieve rehabilitation. “…drug courts joined a growing number of specialized community courts—courts designed to reflect community concerns and priorities, access community resources, include community organizations in policymaking decisions, and seek general community participation and support” (United States Department of Justice [DOJ], 2003, p. 5). Juvenile drug abuse reached alarmingly high rates in the 1990’s, and it was realized that teens had a much different array of problems from adults that needed to be addressed. As a result, more juvenile drug courts began emerging. “…in the mid-1990s, a number of innovative juvenile courts started drug court dockets that focused on the problem of substance abuse. Between 1995 and 2001, more than 140 juvenile drug courts were established, and more than 125 were being planned” (United States Department of Justice [DOJ], 2003, p. 5). There are many important members in a youth drug court.The juvenile drug court judge maintains close oversight of each case through frequent (often weekly) status hearings with the parties involved. The judge both leads and works as a member of a team that comprises representatives from treatment, juvenile justice, social services, school and vocational training programs, law enforcement, probation, the prosecution, and the defense. Together, the team determines how best to address the substance abuse and related problems of the youth and his or her family that have brought the youth into contact with the justice system. (United States Department of Justice [DOJ], 2003, p. 7)Status hearings for each particular case are frequent, many times weekly. During these, the juvenile will report back to the judge and inform them of current events and how rehabilitation is going. Oftentimes, juvenile drug courts will use a system of rewards and punishments, where privileges are either given or revoked based on behavior and standards set at the beginning. The research done thus far on juvenile drug courts has been positive, and they have been found to reduce rearrests (Chassin, 2008, p. 170). Multisystemic therapy for young substance abusers focuses on addressing a wide array of problem areas in a teen’s life in tandem, through home-based counseling given by psychologists and doctors with low caseloads. It attempts to treat problems in a juvenile’s life such as the “characteristics of the adolescent (e.g., favorable attitudes toward drug use), family (e.g., poor discipline, family conflict, parental drug abuse), peers (e.g., association with drug using peers), school (e.g., dropout, poor performance), and neighborhood (e.g., criminal subculture)” (National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 1998, para. 1). Multisystemic therapy has a goal of eliminating the risks of relapsing by working with the juvenile in their natural environment. This way, the counseling actually deals with the root causes of drug abuse by integrating and working on issues of the juvenile’s family, home and social life, and neighborhood setting while promoting academic success. Early studies on the success of multisystemic therapy for juvenile substance abuse have been very positive. It has greatly reduced treatment dropout rates, while reducing drug usage. It has also been found to reduce rearrest rates by nearly 50% (National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 1998, para. 2). Very crucial to treatment services is the availability of aftercare for young patients. Disturbingly, a recent national survey found that only 26 percent of prisons, 25 percent of community-based programs, 51 percent of residential programs, and 31 percent of jails provided aftercare services after discharge or completion of treatment for past teenage drug abusers (Chassin, 2008, p. 173). After care services promote the continuance of care and provide juveniles with resources when needed. They also help fight against the risk of relapse and promote the values of treatment after it is completed. There are several strategies of aftercare services that are already available or are in development. Family-based and multisystemic aftercare services are currently being looked at and developed because of the success of those programs in treating drug use. Also, the training of probation officers to provide cognitive aftercare services to young probationers is currently popular (Chassin, 2008, p. 173). Another strategy that is being used today is adaptive intervention. This form of aftercare changes the foundation and intensity of care after treatment is finished based on how the juvenile is doing (Chassin, 2008, p. 173). According to Gaudio (2008), there are seven factors that any treatment for juvenile substance abusers must include and exploit. These factors are: family preservation, least restrictive settings, natural settings, interagency collaboration, family involvement, cultural competence, and finally, follow-up services (p. 220). Treatments that use these foundations for rehabilitation (such as family and multisystemic therapy) have shown to be successful in preventing relapse, incarceration, and the continuance of drug abuse for teens. Programs being developed for the future should look into taking all of these factors into account as they maximize the chance for rehabilitation. Despite the birth of a number of promising and effective treatment options for juvenile substance abusers, there are many issues with how the United States deals with this problem group. Although improvement has been shown recently, this country is still retribution and punishment oriented. Billions of dollars have been spent on detention facilities which punish teens for using illegal substances. During the record setting era of drug abuse for juveniles in the 1990’s, the juvenile justice system spending increased 43% because of mass incapacitation, and currently the average cost of keeping a teenager in detention for a year is between $32,000 and $65,000 (Gaudio, 2008, p. 217). Incarcerating juveniles in these detention centers has not proven to be successful in terms of reducing or preventing further crime (Gaudio, 2008, p. 217). Yet all of the wasted money that could go to implementing programs in poor areas and improving the ones already there is being spent on locking up troubled teens in detention facilities. In contrast to incarceration, “Detention alternative initiatives, however, deter offenders from committing future crimes, protect public safety and save money. For example, detaining a youth for a day in New York City costs ?fteen times more than sending a youth to a detention alternative program” (Gaudio, 2008, p. 218). A shift to a treatment and rehabilitation oriented era for not just juvenile substance abusers but for all delinquents could prove not only effective in reducing crime, but also in saving money and resources. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy found that for every dollar spent on county juvenile detention systems, there was only $1.98 of “bene?ts” in terms of reduced crime and costs of crime to taxpayers. Diversion and mentoring programs on the other hand, produced $3.36 of bene?ts for every dollar spent…and multi-systemic therapy produced $13.00 of bene?ts. (Gaudio, 2008, p. 218)Theoretical Application: There are many theories of criminology that attempt to explain substance abuse among juveniles. Each theory goes about describing the causes of this problem in different ways, and there has yet to be an all-encompassing theory that explains the behaviors of all delinquents. Some professionals believe substance abuse is an opportunistic crime among juveniles. Drugs are abundant during the teenage years, and can be obtained at almost any public and private high-school alike. Therefore, the temptations seem to be everywhere. The desire to fit in, become popular, or impress certain people explains why some kids give in to using illegal substances. Some teens, who would usually never participate in using drugs, are caught in social situations where they give in to peer pressure. The belief that using drugs will improve social status and peer relationships is too enticing for others to turn down. Multisystemic therapy has an opportunistic structure at its core. Uniquely in this type of therapy, the counselor works with the juvenile in their natural setting, finding ways to improve it so risks are minimized and temptations are reduced. Issues such as negative peer relationships, school troubles, family problems, and positive attitudes toward substance abuse are focused on. Improvement in any of these areas vastly reduces the risk and opportunity for relapse drug abuse. For example, multisystemic therapists may help decrease the opportunity for a teenager to abuse drugs by teaching them important skills in making positive relationships. This way, the juvenile can associate with teenagers that have positive morals and values and do not partake in illegal behavior, instead of other substance abusers. This significantly reduces opportunity and risk of relapse. Family therapy utilizes the social bond theory to explain and treat juvenile substance abuse. This type of treatment tries to help young offenders by improving the family environment and relationships amongst the members. It also attempts to increase the positive impacts of the environment by strengthening family ties to the community. Travis Hirschi believed that juvenile substance abusers have weak social bonds, in other words, they have little to lose by participating in illegal behavior. Hirschi thought that improving the bonds of juveniles would decrease crime because teenagers would not want to put important relationships at risk, and that the stronger the bonds are the less likely youth are to participate in crime (Regoli, Hewitt, & Delisi, 2011, p. 147). He also personally believed that the bonds to family members are some of the most important bonds a juvenile could form (Regoli, Hewitt, & Delisi, 2011, p. 147). Family therapy incorporates this theory because its main focus is the strengthening of family ties. By increasing family member involvement and working out conflicts, family-based therapy helps bring people together. Therefore, stronger bonds that may have previously been missing are formed between family members. The desired affect is that because of these relationships, the juvenile will have greater bonds to society and his or her family and will therefore resist relapse in order to maintain these bonds. Thus far, this approach has seemed to be working quite well, “Studies from the 1970s to the present have rather consistently reported that children who are strongly tied to parents are less likely to become delinquent…These children avoid delinquency because such behavior would jeopardize their parents’ affection” (Regoli, Hewitt, & Delisi, 2011, p. 147). Drug courts use the theory of reintegrative shaming in treating juvenile substance abusers. Reintegrative shaming is “disapproval that is respectful of the person, is terminated by forgiveness, does not label the person as evil, nor allows condemnation to result in a master status trait” (Harris, 2006, p. 328). It is usually imposed as a punishment that is meant to strengthen the bond between the delinquent and the community. This allows the offender to see the error of their ways without being labeled and stigmatized as a delinquent. By the avoidance of labeling, drug courts can focus more on rehabilitation and programs such as education, volunteering, skills training, health care, and mental health treatment. John Braithwaite, who designed reintegrative shaming, believed that showing the juvenile the public’s disapproval of their actions would lead to reduced offending in the future (Harris, 2006, p. 328). Braithwaite believed that traditional courts used stigma shaming, which he attributed to higher levels of future offending. “Conversely, stigmatizing shaming is not respectful of the person, is not terminated by forgiveness, labels the person as evil, and allows them to attain a master status trait” (Harris, 2006, p. 328).Personal Assessment: It was very interesting to conduct my research on substance abuse programs for juveniles. Coming in to this project, I thought I knew quite a bit about underage drinking and drug use, but the actual national statistics blew me away. I was surprised over and over again when researching for the section on why we need programs by the actual number of teens who use drugs, and some of the actual substances that are abused. Also, it was interesting to find out more about drug courts. I have always been fascinated by the concept ever since learning about them last year in Intro to Criminal Justice, and furthering my knowledge about their processes and concepts was my favorite part of conducting the research. Reintegrative shaming is a great idea that connects juveniles to the community and all of its resources. It allows teenagers to see how society was affected by their actions, and works on preventing the behavior from happening again rather than just putting them out-of-sight and out-of-mind. Although drug usage rates have decreased slightly from the 1990’s, juvenile substance abuse is still a major problem in not only the United States, but the world. It affects millions of individuals, families, and communities every year. It not only costs us money, but lives. It is time we fight for a revolution in terms of the country’s views, and finally end the “War on Drugs” for good. It is ineffective, punishment oriented, and wastes billions of dollars overall. The “get tough on crime” policies incapacitates a number of non-violent drug offenders, many of which are juveniles in detention centers, taking up even more space in an already overcrowded system. A focus on treatment would be beneficial not only to substance abusers of all ages, but to offenders in general. Various forms of treatment programs, such as family-based and multisystemic therapy, along with the concept of community courts, focus on treatment and rehabilitation. Although these programs are relatively new, early studies have shown them to be successful. Juvenile drug offenders will, at some point, all return back to the community. It is up to us to return them better off than they were when they entered the juvenile justice system. Otherwise, the prisons and jails will continue to act as revolving doors for a long time to come. References Chassin, L. (2008). Juvenile Justice and Substance Abuse. Future of Children, 165-183. Retrieved from Gaudio, C. M. (2008). A Call To Congress To Give Back The Future: End The “War On Drugs” and Encourage States to Reconstruct the Juvenile Justice System. Family Court Review, 212-227. Retrieved from Green, C. A. (2006). Gender and Use of Substance Abuse Treatment Services. Alcohol Research and Health, 55-62. Retrieved from Hallfors, D., Cho, H., Brodish, P. H., Flewelling, R., & Khatapoush, S. (2006). Identifying High School Students “At Risk” for Substance Use and Other Behavioral Problems: Implications for Prevention. Substance Use and Misuse, 1-15. Retrieved from Harris, N. (2006). Reintegrative Shaming, Shame, and Criminal Justic. Journal of Social Issues, 27-46. Retrieved from Ho, C., Kingree, J., & Thompson, M. (2004). Demographic Differences in Substance Use Problems Among Juvenile Delinquents. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 747-754. InfoFacts - High School and Youth Trends. (n.d.). National Institute on Drug Abuse. Retrieved from Juvenile Drug Courts: Strategies in Practice. (2003). U.S. Department of Justice, 1-10. Retrieved from Multisystemic Therapy (MST)-NIDA. (n.d.). National Institute on Drug Abuse. Retrieved from Mulvey, E. P., Schubert, C. A., & Chassin, L. (2010, December). Substance Use and Delinquent Behavior Among Serious Adolescent Offenders. The Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Retrieved from NIDA Drugs of Abuse and Related Topics - Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations - FAQs. (n.d.). National Institute on Drug Abuse. Retrieved from Regoli, R. M., Hewitt, J. D., & DeLisi, M. (2011). Delinquency in society: the essentials. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett. Roberts, A. R. (2004). Juvenile justice sourcebook: past, present, and future. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Rodgers, J., & Barnett, P. (2000, August 26th). Two separate tracks? A national multivariate analysis of differences between public and private substance abuse treatment programs. US National Library of Medicine. Retrieved from Schmidt, L., Greenfield, T., & Mulia, N. (2006). Unequal Treatment: Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Alcoholism Treatment Services. Alcohol Research and Health, 49-55. Retrieved from Substance Abuse and Homelessness. (2009, July). National Coalition for the Homeles. Retrieved from TASC Historical Timeline. (n.d.). Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities. Retrieved from Terry, J. (2009, October 21). Pros & Cons Of Public Drug Rehabilitation Facilities. . Retrieved from ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download