School of Behavioural Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde and. Stanmore Community Youth Centre, Stanmore, New South g/ales,. Australia. Abstract.
Drug and Alcohol Review (i99o) 9, 225-23I
Curious, bored and wanting to feel good: the drug use of detained young offenders JOHN HOWARD & ERNIE ZIBERT School of Behavioural Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde and Stanmore Community Youth Centre, Stanmore, New South g/ales, Australia Abstract The drug use and related perceptions of 292 young offenders, 94 % of those resident in the nine detention ccntres operated by the New South Wales (NSW) Department of Family and Community Services, were surveyed. The average age of the detainees was i6. 3 years and 9o.i% were male. Illicit drug use had commenced about 2 years after the use of non-medicinal, but licit substances, and nearly 25% had used drugs from nine or more drug groupings. Alcohol (94.8%), analgesics (94.5 %) and nicotine (9z.4%0) were the drugs most used, with 86.6% having used cannabis, 53.3 % stimulants, 48.5% inhalants, 40.5% hallucinogens and 25.8% narcotics. The major reasons given for use were: wanting to f e d good, curiosity and boredom. Familial drug use was common and heroin was perceived as the drug most dangerous to both body and mind. The results are discussed and suggestions made regarding appropriate services for adolescents, as most surveyed did not or would not use those which exist. Introduction groups of adolescents and their difficulties are well documented and often include: dysfunctional families, dangerous behaviour, homelessness, depression, anger, higher than average suicidal ideation and attempts, educational failure, physical, emotional and sexual abuse by parents and others, little ability to successfully negotiate for what they want in a pro-social manner, impulsivity, and often a desperate search for a sense of belonging and worth E4]Incarcerated young people cost the community a great deal, approximately $9o0 per week per person in NSW E5]- Additionally, whilst the causal relationship between drug use and crime is complex, it is evident that much crime is drug-related ~6]. Incarceration is notoriously ineffective in preventing further criminal behaviour on release and often increases the likelihood of such an event due to the negative impact of
Various surveys have been conducted in Australia to ascertain the extent of substance use by young people [i,2]. The New South Wales Drug and Alcohol Authority and now the Directorate of the Drug Offensive have regularly surveyed New South Wales (NSW) secondary Students since x97I [i]. The data provide an indication of trends in drug use for adolescents in NSW. However, there are well recognised at-risk groups, such as young offenders who are underrepresented in the above surveys as most have left or been encouraged to leave school before Year i% and are usually not attending Technical and Further Education courses [3]" Young offenders who are placed in custody are generally seen as those whose freedom would pose greatest threat to the community and possibly themselves. They must be regarded as one of the most at-risk
John Howard, MA, Senior Lecturer in Psychologyand Coordinator,Clinical Drug DependenceStudies,MacquarieUniversity,BalaclavaRoad, North Ryde, NSW 21o9, Australia. Ernie Zibert, BA, Drug and AlcoholCounsellor,StanmoreCommunityYouth Centre, NSW Departmentof Family and CommunityServices,Stanmore,NSW 2o48, Australia.Correspondenceand requestsfor reprintsto Mr Howard. 225
226
/ohn Howard & Ernie Zibert Table 1. i2
Male Female
~ o
13 x4
Age of sample 15 i6 17 I8 19 20 Total
2 x7 37 78 87 35 x 3 6 9 ii o
3 o
i o
262 3°
institutional living [7]. As a number of young people in custodial settings have been involved in prostitution and/or intravenous drug use, they present a significant health risk for the spread of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV); acting as a bridge to the non HIVinfected adult population [8]. It is obvious then that attention to high risk groups such as young offenders is essential, if their 'drug problems', related difficulties and their consequent impact on the broader community is to be effectively addressed. Do the drug use patterns of incarcerated young offenders differ from the average adolescent? Grundall [2~ found significant differences between institutionalised Victorian youth and secondary school students in their use of most drugs~ students used fewer drugs less frequently than those in institutions. Can these findings be generalized to the NSW situation?
Methods
A survey was conducted during January and February i989, in all nine Detention Centres operated by the NSW Department of Family & Community Services. Detainees are those who have been refused, or who cannot meet bail conditions, as well as those whose cases have been finalized by committal to a youth rather than adult facility.
Aboriginal, 29 (9.9 %) as coming from a non-English speaking and i75 (59.5%) from English speaking backgrounds. There were twice the number of Aborigines serving committals as were remanded, whereas among the other ethnic groups the ratio of remands to committals was more equitable.
Assessment procedure The questionnaire used was a revised form of one originally piloted by the second author in I987 [9] to incorporate that used by Crundall for Victorian young offenders [21. The questionnaire contained 84 items. Use of xi different drugs or drugs from specific drug groupings was examined: (x) analgesics, (2) sedatives/ hypnotics, (3) anti-anxiety agents, (4) other medicines, (5) alcohol, (6) nicotine, (7) cannabis, (8) hallucinogens, (9) stimulants, (io) narcotics, (ii) inhalants. The results and analysis which follow relate to these eleven 'groups' or categories and it is recognized that some drugs have their own 'group' (i.e. alcohol, nicotine and cannabis) whilst the others are combined. This format allows comparisons with other relevant studies [i,2]. Participation was anonymous, voluntary and with a standardised introduction as previous research indicates this reduces non-compliance rates and the level of fabrication [Io]. One interviewer was used in this study interviewing each young person separately, reading all questions, including response alternatives, This was an attempt to control for any literacy difficulties, and to ensure uniformity of interviewing style. Data were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Revised Version (spss-x).
Results
Age at which drug use commenced The sample Two hundred and ninety-three young persons were surveyed which was 94% of young persons detained at that time in the State of NSW, Only one female chose not to participate; 37 % were remanded and 63% were serving a period of time in a juvenile detention centre. Of the total sample 263 were male (9o.i%) and 29 (9.9 %) female with more males than females in every age group (see Table i). The average age was I6. 3 years (see Table i) and the majority (64.4%) were charged with property offences, such as stealing motor vehicles and breaking, entering and stealing, and a minority with crimes against persons (ii.6°/0). In this sample 89 (30.4 %) identified themselves as
The average age at which the sample began use of licit substances for non-medicinal purposes (e.g. alcohol, nicotine, non-prescription use of benzodiazepines) was H years. By age i4, 91.3% of English speaking persons and 8t.6% of Aborigines had commenced, whereas only 64.3% of non-English speaking persons had begun drug use by this age (Table 2). From elaboration during questioning, the average age of commencement of illicit drug use was approximately 2 years later. Two Aborigines and two persons from an English speaking background said that they had never consumed any drugs, and one non-English speaking person reported never taking any drugs due to religious belief.
Drug use of detained young offenders Table a.
Age at which drug use began by ethnicity of sam)ole Ethnicity
Age drug use began
Aboriginal
5-1o years
English speaking background
25 (z8.7%) 46 (52.9% ) I6 (I8.4°/0) 87
II-I 4 years
15+ years Total
Table 3.
Frequency %
Non-English speaking background
Total
7 (25,o%) ii (39.3%) Io (35.7o/0) 28
iOl (32.2%) 145 (50,5 % ) 41 (I4.3°/0) 287
69 (4o.I%) 88 (51.2%0) 15 (8.7%) I72
Number of different drug groups used by respondents Number of drug groups 5 6 7 8
i
2
3
4
3 i.o
3 I.o
8 2.7
25 8.5
Table 4.
35 II.9
40 I3.7
36 12.3
9
35 36 ~ 1 . 9 12.3
io
1i
4I I4.O
3° io,6
Frequency of drug use by the sample Frequency of use
Drug group Analgesics % Sedatives/ hypnotics % Anti-anxiety agents % Other medicines % Alcohol % Nicotine %0 Gannabis % Hallucinogens % Narcotics % Stimulants % Inhalants %
Note:Total n = 291.
Never
i- 5 times
6-i 9 times
20-39 times
More than 40
i6 5.5
34 iL6
86 i9.2
36 I2. 4
r49 51.2
I6Z 55-7"
34 II.6
38 I2. 9
I2 4.I
45 I5. 5
I43 49.I
54 18.6
24 8. 3
19 6. 5
5I 17. 5
18 6.2 15 5.2 zz 7.6 39 13,4 173 59"5 216 74.2 136 46.7 I5o 51.5
32 ii.o 20 6. 9 5 1.7 i8 6.2 42 I4.4 I4 4.8 45 I5.4 59 ~o.2
56 I9. 3 35 i2.o 2 0. 7 i8 6.1 31 IO,6 II 3.8 23 7.9 3° io. 3
31 io. 7 i6 5.5 o o.o 15 5.2 II 3.8 4 1.4 ii 3.8 1i 3.8
I54 52.9 205 7o.4 262 90.0 2Ol 69.i 34 I1. 7 46
I5.8 76 ~6.i 4I i4.i
227
98.5
28.7
9 .8 89.o o.o o.o o,o o.o o.o o.o o.o
275
129
:43 273 276 269 252 ::8 75 i55 I4:
Note: Total n = 2 9 : .
Analgesics Sedatives/ hypnotics Anti-anxiety agents Medicines Alcohol Nicotine Cannabis Hallucinogens Narcotics Stimulants Inhalants
For health reasons %
46.2 21.6 50.4 49.: 57.9 52.5 48.o 53.5 50.4
25.6
3.3
Because l have seen other people use it %
79.7 33.3 76.8 5°.6 92.1 85.6 9o.7 84.5 66"7
57-4
5.1
Because I makes me feel good %
21.o 4.8 :7.8 :3 .8 :7.5 16.1 2o.o 15.5 :3.5
4.7
o.o
So people will notice me %
29. 4 :5.o 5L4 32 "3 46.0 42.4 34.7 36.: 36-9
:7 .8
2. 9
It makes me feel like one of the group %
5:-0 21.6 50.7 58"4 54-4 46.6 53'3 53-5 56.0
35.7
5.5
Because I am bored %
Table 5. Percentage of user: nominating each reason for use
74.: 36.3 64-9 59-: 7:-4 79-7 7o.7 80.6 84.4
46.5
7 .6
Because I want to know what it is like %
26.6 io. 3 23.2 :6.7 22.6 25.4 25. 3 22.6 22.0
20.2
3.3
Because I don't like to obey rules %
:4.7 7.7 8. 7 5.9 6.3 i9. 5 :8. 7 :8. 7 :6. 3
8.5
z.5
Because of the danger involved %
3.5 8.4 L8 36.8 0.4 0.8 4.o 2.6 0. 7
9.3
0.7
other reason %
Some
t~
g~
oo
Drug use of detained young offenders
229
Frequency of drug use
Perceptions of a drug problem
Ninc out of tcn surveyed had used from more than thrcc of the H drug 'groups',over 74% from fiveor more, and nearly one quarter from more than nine. A drug from every 'group' was used by io.6% of the sample (see Table 3). Table 4 shows the numbcr who have used from each of thc 'groups' and the frequency of use. Alcohol (94.8%) was the most used, and over 9oO/ohad tried,on at least one occasion, analgcslcs,othcr mcdicincs, and nicotine. While 86.6% of the sample had smoked cannabis, narcotics were the least tried drugs (25.8%). Apart from the narcotics, however, a drug from each 'group' had been triedby more than 4o% of the sample. Most young persons who had used inhalants took them bctwccn r and 5 times. However, of those young persons who had tried onc or more stimulant,narcotic, sedative/hypnotic or analgesic,or cannabis, nicotine or alcohol, the majority had used them 4o times or more. Alcohol and nicotine wcrc uscd on morc than 4o occasions by 70.4% and 9o.oO/oof young pcrsons. The proportion of young persons who had consumed cannabis on more than 40 occasions is effectively identical to that of alcohol.
When asked whether they believed they had a current drug 'problem' (i.e. dependence or social or legal adverse consequences), or had such a problem in the past, 25.8% of the sample reported that they felt they had a current problem and 33.3% felt that they had had problems with drugs on at least one occasion during their life. When asked whether they felt their parents and peers would perceive them as having a drug problem, 36.8% indicated that they believed that their parents would, and 30.9 % indicated that their peers would. Similar drug usage by peers was reported by 84.8% of the sample and 33.8% identified at least one family member as having a drug problem: mostly brothers and fathers. For n.2% two or more family members were identified as having a drug problem. Overall, 28.8% had made at least one attempt at drug rehabilitation--mostly counselling. Whilst only 8.2% had been admitted to residential drug rehabilitation programs, another 25.i% felt they needed to have been in such programs. From elaboration during the survey, not using programs or leaving early, appeared to be related to perceptions of them as irrelevant, too adultoriented or frightening.
Reasonsfor Drug Use
Perceived danger of drugs
Table 5 displays the percentages of the overall sample who provided a particular reason as to why they used drugs from particular categories. Curiosity, boredom, and a desire to feel good were the three major reasons for use identified. For the specifically medicinal drugs (e.g. analgesics, anti-anxiety agents and sedative/hypnotics), the reasons given for use, other than health, refer to consumption for non-medical purposes. As shown by Table 5 'bccause it makcs me feelgood' (i.e. the perceived effect)was the most popular rcason provided for thc use of drugs in 7 of the 11 drug categories. These categoriesin descending rank order arc:cannabis, narcotics, hallucinogens, stimulants, anti-anxiety agents, alcohol and sedative/hypnotics. It was the second most popular reason given for the use of inhalants and the third most popular reason for smoking. For narcotics and cannabis, over 90% of those who had consumed these drugs said they did so in order to feel good. Curiosity features as the next most stated reason for drug consumption. The majority of young persons ranked it as the major reason for taking the drugs nicotine and inhalants. For seven out of the remaining nine drug groups, it was the second most frequently given reason. Boredom was found to be the third most often reported reason for the use of narcotics, stimulants, inhalants, sedatives/hypnotics, and anti-anxiety agents, but was not identified as the principal reason for the use of any drug. Indeed, its highest ranking occurred with nicotine, where it was second.
When asked which specific drug does most damage to one's mind, heroin was most frequently cited (26.6%), followed by 'speed' (amphetamines) (22.9%), then an inhalant (i3.5%). In relation to damage to one's body again heroin was seen as the most dangerous (44.8%), followed by 'speed' (21.8%). Only 8% identified alcohol and 5.9 % nicotine as dangerous drugs.
Support networks Friends were perceived as the most likely persons with whom problems could be discussed (57.9 %) followed by parents (47.6%). Parents were perceived as the most interested (63.4%) and helpful (67.2%) in the lives of the respondents. Professionals and youth workers were mostly not perceived as interested in, helpful, or likely to be sought out for any assistance. Discussion
The typical profile The average picture which emerged from this survey of young persons in NSW detention centres is as follows: A male, aged i6 to ~7, who began using drugs (usually licit at first) at about age ii, beginning illicit use more consistently at age 13 to 14. He is a polydrug user, usually including alcohol, nicotine, cannabis and analgesics, and then stimulants, benzodiazepines,
23o
John Howard ~# Emie Zibert
(mostly valium and serapax) and sedatives/hypnotics (mainly rohypnols). He is less likely to have consumed hallucinogens or inhalants, and is even more so to have used narcotics. He reports using drugs because of wanting to feel good, curiosity, boredom and peer influence. He has a i in 4 chance of having been involved in counselling for his drug use in the past, but has less than x in ro chance of having been in a detoxification or rehabilitation unit. He has a i in 4 chance of perceiving himself as having a drug problem and mostly perceives his peers as using similar drugs. There is a 1 in 3 chance of him perceiving a family member as having a drug problem, most likely being his father or brother. He believes heroin to be the most dangerous drug, followed by stimulants, but is unlikely to view alcohol or nicotine as dangerous. His parents and friends are seen as the most interested in him and helpful. Female young offenders have been shown to be virtually as likely to consume the same variety of drugs with the same frequency as their male counterparts [i1]. Notwithstanding sample size this study supports these findings, and that incarcerated females generally consume both illicit and licit drugs for the same reasons as incarcerated males. No significant features emerged in relation to ethnicity, other than the apparent later age at which drug Use emerged for those from non-English speaking backgrounds.
Variety and frequency of drug use Five features of this sample to note are; the relatively early age at which drug use commenced, the wide variety of drugs consumed, the frequency with which drugs are taken, perceived reasons for use, and treatment availability and use. The majority of those surveyed had tried substances from more than 7 of the different drug 'groups' specified. Findings from research for incarcerated juveniles are generally comparable [2]. Similarly aged school attenders report use of fewer substances with less frequency [i] in both groups, narcotics are the drugs which are least likely to have been tried, while alcohol and analgesics are the drugs most likely to have been used. Every type of medicine was used by at least some proportion of this sample, other than for its specific medicinal use. Analgesics were least 'misused' (1.4%) followed by the 'other medicine' category (6.8%) and the sedatives/hypnotics (31.5%). Anti-anxiety agents were the licit drugs used by the largest proportion of young persons for non-medicinal reasons (45.9%). These findings paraUel those of Crundall [2] that both the analgesics and other medications incorporated within the other medicine category, were 'generally used for
their intended purpose' (p.48), whilst the 'sleeping tablets' and 'sedatives' are 'likely to be used for purposes not originally intended' (p.52). The reasons for alcohol and nicotine consumption varied and tended to differ to those for the use of medicines. Alcohol was used primarily for the effect produced, whereas nicotine appeared to be consumed largely for social/situational reasons regardless of age, sex or ethnicity. This survey revealed that the drugs used most frequently were perceived as the least dangerous, a finding consistent with studies of other groups in Australia [i21. This is alarming when one considers the impact of both alcohol and nicotine in the development of a variety of diseases, the number of hospital beds occupied as a result, and the number of alcohol-related road deaths.
Illicit drug use The percentages who have ever used a particular illicit drug was larger for the offender group than similarly aged school students. For example, 86.6% of the sample had tried cannabis, whereas only approximately 40% of the Baker et aL school sample had done so [51- Of the illicit drugs only narcotics, stimulants and cannabis once tried had a tendency to be consumed with some regularly or high frequency (40 times or more). The hallucinogens and inhalants were found to be used either rarely (between i and 5 times) or on more than 40 occasions. It may be that these drugs are used by two differing groups: one for experimental reasons and another for social/recreational purposes. From discussions with the young people surveyed, it appeared that inhalant use was phasic and particular to specific subcultures (e.g. Aborigines and younger groups).
Treatment The use of drugs by young persons is not necessarily a result of an inability to say 'no'; rather, it is the complex mix of curiosity, boredom, and wanting to feel good which were perceived as focal by those surveyed. Few community or residential drug programs exist for and were used by the adolescents surveyed, and other drug and alcohol specific or more general services were infrequently utilized, if at all. Elaboration during the survey suggested that drug programs were perceived as irrelevant, unapproachable, or frightening by many. Levine & Singer [131 found that young people most likely to use drugs are least likely to turn to formal agencies for help. Changes are clearly necessary. The first point of contact would seem to be extremely important. The setting, style, appearance and location of an agency can reduce the degree of alienation experienced, with low-key access an important strategy. Street-based services can provide accessible, easily
Drug use of detained young offenders accepted front line health and welfare information and materials (e.g. condoms, syringes), as well as harm reduction advice within the adolescent's current miliet~. If engagement occurs, they can provide a link to more main-stream agencies as necessary. Expectations of 'proper' motivation, readiness and so on, on admission to some adolescent programs (community or residential), can be unrealistic: ease of entry may be more important than 'motivation'. Motivation may grow via the engagement process and each exposure to a programme service can be positively reinforcing and part of a learning process; coming to terms with one's dependency/addiction and finding out what might help. Even though it would appear that by their offending behaviour, possible homelessness and street lifestyles, some adolescents may be unconcerned with parents or view them negatively, the survey highlighted their significance as helpful and concerned. Whatever the programme, family issues should not be ignored as some adolescents can return home if both family and the adolescent learn better adaptive and coping skills. Others need to separate adequately and leave the family behind rather than explode out of it, carrying the residue with them. Family work components need to be included to teach parents more effective and appropriate parenting skills and more realistic expectations. Some programmes have incorporated Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) approaches. A useful model is presented by Cohen [I4] which incorporates basic A A and N A principles with family support/work and after care [14]- Gifford [15] maintains that the N A model is the most appropriate one for adolescents. Discussions with respondents support such a view as there was a clear preference for NA. However, a too ready adoption of programmes based on disease model concepts should be avoided, especially as adolescents have problems identifying with older, formerly dysfunctional adults who suggest that they were like them when young. In addition, some programmes have been run, and the ideology dictated by those who came to recovery in their told-to late twenties. A philosophy of what worked and at what age for such people may dictate the model, with consequent little faith in the possibility of rehabilitating adolescent drug users [4]. When it is recognised that at least 30% of the total number of young offenders detained indicated that they had experienced notable problems associated with or as a consequence of their drug consumption, a substantial effort to expand services available within the juvenile justice system is warranted, particularly if minimising the extent and recurrence of drug-related problems is to be a priority.
23i
T h e lack of usage of available services revealed by this survey is of concern. T h e paucity of appropriate programmes and those which actively or covertly exclude adolescents place high risk youth and society in a difficult situation. This may leave adolescents with few choices but to return to the damaging environments from which many have tried to escape, with the consequent alarming risks of HIV infection, brain damage, prostitution, crime, suicidal behaviour and accidental death. References [I] Baker W, Homel P, Flaherty B, Tebilco P. The i986 survey of drug use by secondary school students in New South Wales, Sydney: New South Wales Drug and Alcohol Authority, Report A87/I t987. [2] Crundall I. Survey of drug use among young people in Victorian Youth Training and Reception Centres. Victoria: Health Department, i987. [3] Drew L, Jones R, Hill D, Graves G, Egger G, Nolan J. Improving comparability in drug-use surveys in Australia. Tech Info Bull i981166 (Suppl no.4): I-4o. [4] Howard J. Adolescents: treatment needs and issues. Paper preseuted at the Australian Therapeutic Communities Conference, Canberra, April i989 . [5] Department of Family and Community Services, NSW, Juvenile Justice Branch. Personal communication, December i989 . [6] Dobinson I, Ward P. Drugs and crime--phase II. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics & Research, 1987. [7] Rutter M, Giller H. Juvenile delinquency: trends and perspectives. Harmondsworth: Penguin, i983. [8] Hein K, AIDS in adolescents: a rationale for concern. New York State J of Med ~987~87(5):29o-5. [9] Zibert E. Drug use of young offenders. Unpublished, I987. [io] Rouse BA, Kozel NT, Richards LG. Self report methods of estimation of drug use: meeting current challenges to validity. NIDA Research Monograph, Washington: US Government printing office, i985 . [II] Newcombe MD, Bender PM. National household survey on drug abuse: population estimates i985. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1987. [12] McAllister I, Makkai T, Jones R. Attitudes towards drugs and drug use in Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health, i986. [13] Levine M, Singer SI. Delinquency, substance abuse and risk taking in middle-class adolescents. Beh Sc Law I988;6(3):385-4oo. [14] Cohen P. Promoting recovery and preventing relapse in chemically dependent adolescents. In Henry, P. (Ed) Practical approaches in treatment adolescent chemical dependency. New York: Hawthorn, 1989.
