chapin hall at the university of chicagojeffrey a. butts, ph.d. balancing justice and treatment:...

CHAPIN HALL AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO Jeffrey A. Butts, Ph.D.

Balancing Justice and Treatment: Some Lessons from the

RWJF Reclaiming Futures Initiative

Jeffrey A. Butts, Ph.D.Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago

September 4, 2008

Presented to


RWJF’s Reclaiming Futures Initiative• Improving justice interventions for drug-using youth

• Areas of focus:- Quality improvement- Screening and assessment- Leadership- Systems integration and agency coordination- Data systems- Family involvement - Community engagement

• Similar to many other efforts to improve systems


RWJF’s Reclaiming Futures Initiative

• Yet, different from other system change efforts

• Difficult to manage the inherent tensions between treatment and justice

Risk of Legal Coercion to Reduce Drug Use

Risk of Youth’sDrug Use

• Both place youth at greater risk of future offending and court involvement

Example –Panel study of 1,000 8th graders followed to age 22: • Researchers tested the effect of juvenile justice intervention on

school success, employment, and adult crime controlling for criminal record, poverty etc.

• Intervention reduces the chances of high school graduation and adult employment

• Intervention increases the number of predicted crimes during adult years by a factor of 5

Source: Bernburg and Krohn (2003). Criminology.


To Treat or Not To Treat

• Adolescent drug use is nearly normal behavior

• Most drug-using youthful offenders will age out of drug use, just as most adolescents desist with age

• The challenge is to identify which youth won’t desist

• Both juvenile court adjudication and drug abuse are potentially harmful to youth

• “Normal” drug use by itself should not be used as legal leverage to entangle youth in the formal justice system

• Inherent tensions between justice and treatment goals are eliminated only when the seriousness of a youth’s law violation justifies the use of coercive intervention


How Common is Teen Drug Use?Use in Past Month

by 10th Graders Alcohol Any use 33%Been drunk 18%

Source: Monitoring the Future 2007, University of Michigan.



by 10th Graders Any Illicit Drug 17%

Source: Monitoring the Future 2007, University of Michigan.



by 10th Graders Any Illicit Drug 17%Abuse/Dependence in

Past Year (12-17) Drug 5%

Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2006.



by 10th Graders Any Illicit Drug 17%Abuse/Dependence in

Past Year (12-17) Incl. Alc. 8%

Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2006.



by 10th Graders

Source: McReynolds et al. (2008). Crime & Delinquency.

Any Illicit Drug 17%Abuse/Dependence in

Past Year (12-17)

Assessment Center(Abuse in Past Month) Any SUD 11%

Any SUD 8% SUD “Substance Use Disorder”General Population

Justice-InvolvedYouth referred to an intake and assessment center soon after a first contact with police.



by 10th Graders

Source: Wasserman et al. (2005). Amer. Journal of Public Health.


Past Year (12-17)

Drug 5%Any SUD 11%

Any SUD 8%

Probation Intake(Abuse in Past Month) Any SUD 25%

Assessment Center(Abuse in Past Month)

General PopulationJustice-Involved

Youth referred to probation intake after initial screening by law enforcement or other agency.



by 10th Graders

Source: Aarons et al. (2001). Journal of the Amer. Acad. of Child and Adolesc. Psych.


Past Year (12-17)

Drug 5%Any SUD 11%

Any SUD 8%

Any SUD 25%

JJ Supervision Pop.(Abuse in Past Year)


Probation Intake(Abuse in Past Month)

Any SUD 37%


Youth formally involved with a juvenile justice agency; some but not all with previous out-of-home placements.



by 10th Graders

Source: Teplin et al. (2002). Archives of General Psychiatry


Past Year (12-17)

Drug 5%Any SUD 11%

Any SUD 8%

Any SUD 25%

JJ Supervision Pop.(Abuse in Past Year)


Probation Intake(Abuse in Past Month)

Any SUD 37%

Urban Juv Detention(Abuse in Past 6 Months) Any SUD 49%


Serious juvenile offenders held in the secure detention center of Cook County (Chicago) Illinois.


Why?

1. Do drug issues increase the seriousness of criminal behavior by juvenile offenders?

2. Do drug issues increase the coerciveness of the legal response to juvenile offenders?

Clearly, Drug Problems are More Common the Deeper One Looks into the Juvenile Justice Process

In a sense, drug-using youth accumulate in the “deep end” of the juvenile justice system…


Consider this…


Youth at a Juvenile

Assessment Center

What proportion have a substance use disorder?- McReynolds et al. (2008)11%

100%

Recall, rate of substance use disorders among all U.S. 12-17 year-olds.- SAMHSA (2006)

8%


Youth at a Juvenile

Assessment Center

Of these, what proportion have a substance use disorder?- Wasserman et al. (2005)11%

100%

Youth Referred to

Juvenile Probation

25%

About half of all arrested youth are referred to juvenile court authorities.- Juvenile Court Statistics, OJJDP

50%


8%


Youth at a Juvenile

Assessment Center

11%

100%

Youth Referred to

Juvenile Probation

25%

About 20 percent of all court referred youth are held in secure detention at some point.- Juvenile Court Statistics, OJJDP

Of these, what proportion have a substance use disorder?- Teplin et al. (2002)

Youth Held in Secure

Detention

49%

20%


8%


Youth at a Juvenile

Assessment Center

11%

100%

Youth Referred to

Juvenile Probation

25%

When they first enter the juvenile system, the prevalence of substance abuse among young offenders is similar to other teens.

Substance-abusing offenders, however, are more likely to be retained through to the more restrictive stages of justice processing.

Youth Held in Secure

Detention

49%

The preponderance of drug-abusing youth in the deep end of the justice system is a function of how case decisions are made. Drug-abusing youth are treated more coercively.


8%

Thus, they are a larger subgroup by the end of the juvenile justice process.


• This may be an accurate and legitimate use of resources if drug-using youth are higher-risk and in need of stronger sanctions.

• Just what type of drug users are referred to the juvenile justice system?

Youth with Identified Drug Issues are Handled More Coercively in the Juvenile Justice System


Substance Use Disorders

Abuse Disorders (past month)Alcohol 2%Marijuana 4%Other drug 1%

Dependence DisordersAlcohol 1%Marijuana 5%Other drug 1%

No Disorder Detected 89%

Among Youth Referred to a Juvenile Assessment Center

Source: McReynolds et al. (2008)

Abuse Disorders (past month)Alcohol 7%Marijuana 10%Other drug 3%

Dependence DisordersAlcohol 3%Marijuana 13%Other drug 4%

No Disorder Detected 75%

Among Youth Referred to Juvenile Probation Intake

Source: Wasserman et al. (2005)


• 10%-25% of youthful offenders have substance use issues that could be called problematic – either abuse or dependence

• Most of these substance use issues (80%-90% involve alcohol and marijuana only

Substance Use Disorders


The Key Policy Question:How Serious Does a Teen’s Use of Alcohol and Marijuana Have to be to Pose a Greater Threat to his or her Future than the Threat Posed by Juvenile Court Adjudication and the Criminal Record that may Follow?


Two Dimensions in Decision Making

• Severity of substance abuse

• Severity of criminal behavior


Total Population of Youth Offenders


Severity of Criminal Behavior



Severity of Drug-Using

Behavior




BehaviorSeverity of Criminal Behavior

If we combine the two dimensions…




Minimum Intervention

Maximum Intervention

Justice

Treatment

Coercion for Public Safety

IatrogenicRisk

Coercion for Treatment?

When is it appropriate to use the justice system to coerce youth into compliance, knowing that coercion itself present risks to their future?

How far down into less serious offenses can coercion be used before we introduce

“iatrogenic” risks – making things worse?






Justice

Treatment


IatrogenicRiskIatrogenic Risk Could be Eliminated With Perfect and

Objective Knowledge of 4 Factors:

1. Actual harm caused by a youth’s current drug use

2. Trajectory and impact of future drug use

3. Methods for selecting and delivering treatment

4. The effectiveness and behavioral impact of treatment

Our Knowledge Will Never Be Perfect







Justice

Treatment


IatrogenicRisk


To the extent we have only imperfect knowledge, our willingness to use coercion for

treatment goals alone should be limited to serious drug problems.






Justice

Treatment IatrogenicRisk

Injustice


Imperfect Knowledge



In Juvenile Justice, Treatment Must Be…• Largely community-based, non-coercive

• Designed for the vast majority of youth who are drug using, sometimes abusing, but not drug dependent

• Ready to address a wide range of drug use but still appropriate for the 90% of youthful offenders who use only alcohol and marijuana

• Designed to avoid unwarranted legal coercion by providing services, activities and supports that are actually appealing to non-mandated, voluntary clients

• Free of any financial incentives that lead to excess use of formal adjudication and court-ordered treatment


Jeffrey A. Butts, Ph.D.Research Fellow

Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago

[email protected]

www.chapinhall.org

www.jeffreybutts.net


Aarons, Gregory A., Sandra A. Brown, Richard L. Hough, Ann F. Garland, and Patricia A. Wood (2001). Prevalence of Adolescent Substance Use Disorders across Five Sectors of Care. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(4): 419–26.

Bernburg, Jón Gunnar and Marvin D. Krohn (2003). Labeling, Life Chances, and Adult Crime: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Official Intervention in Adolescence on Crime in Early Adulthood.” Criminology 41(4): 1287-1318.

McReynolds, Larkin S., Gail A. Wasserman, Robert E. DeComo, Reni John, Joseph M. Keating, and Scott Nolen (2008). Psychiatric disorder in a juvenile assessment center. Crime & Delinquency, 54(2): 313-334.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2007). National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Teplin, Linda A., Karen M. Abram, Gary M. McClelland, Mina K. Dulcan, and Amy A. Mericle (2002). Psychiatric Disorders in Youth in Juvenile Detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59(Dec): 1133-1143.

Wasserman, Gail A., Larkin S. McReynolds, Susan J. Ko, Laura M. Katz, and Jennifer R. Carpenter (2005). Gender Differences in Psychiatric Disorders at Juvenile Probation Intake. American Journal of Public Health, 95(1): 131-137.

References

chapin hall at the university of chicagojeffrey a. butts, ph.d. balancing justice and treatment:...

Documents