Summary

1. Treatment as Punishment: What Every Drug Treatment Provider Should Know About Juvenile JusticeJeffrey A. Butts, Ph.D.University of ChicagoPresentation to theJoint Meeting on Adolescent Treatment Effectiveness 2006Baltimore, MarylandMarch 29, 2006 www.chapinhall.org

2. The juvenile justice system is a complicated blend of political symbols and conflicting or hidden agenda • Overlap between crime and substance abuse suggest that justice and treatment agencies should work together, but they should do so with full knowledge of each other’s perspectives and missions • Juvenile justice has always been a pseudo-legal process that uses treatment to advance punitive goals • Substance abuse interventions involve considerable risks for youth • The benefits of imposing treatment on youthful offenders should at least outweigh the risks Summary www.chapinhall.org

3. Popular accounts of juvenile court history too often accept the self-interested views of reformers • Juvenile courts were founded to serve punitive goals too • Criminal courts were unable to intervene aggressively with youth • Not hindered by due process, juvenile courts had powers similar to “civil commitment” for mental health cases • Early 1900s police and prosecutors altered procedures to send more youth to the new juvenile courts rather than keep them in adult court • e.g., a Congressional study in the 1920s estimated that more than half the so-called “misdemeanors” handled in D.C. juvenile court were actually felonies downgraded to qualify for juvenile court Historical Origins Sources: Butts, Jeffrey A. & Ojmarrh Mitchell (2000). Brick by brick: Dismantling the border between juvenile and adult justice. Criminal Justice 2000, Volume 2. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice. Schlossman, Steven L., Love and the American Delinquent, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977. Watkins, John C. Jr., The Juvenile Justice Century. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 1998. www.chapinhall.org

4. Ironically, “liberal” Supreme Court rulings during the 1960s and 1970s led to the gradual criminalization of juvenile courts and this helped to set off a movement toward greater punishment Recent Changes 1960s 2004 Automatic criminal 3 States 37 States court transfer laws Prosecutor transfer laws 2 States 15 States Blended sentencing laws 0 States 26 States Sources: Feld, Barry C., “The Juvenile Court Meets the Principle of the Offense: Legislative Changes in Juvenile Waiver Statutes,” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 78 (1987):471-533. Griffin, Patrick. 2005. "National Overviews." State Juvenile Justice Profiles. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. Online. Available: http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/. www.chapinhall.org

5. Is the juvenile justice system still treatment oriented, just because it says it is? What can we learn from the official “purpose clauses” of state juvenile court laws? www.chapinhall.org

6. TRADITIONAL Child Welfare Approach: statues emphasize promotion of the welfare and best interests of the juvenile as the sole or primary purpose of the juvenile court system. For example: … juveniles should be "treated, not as criminals, but as children in need of aid, encouragement and guidance." legal authorities should use "all reasonable means and methods that can be established by a humane and enlightened state, solicitous of the welfare of its children, for the prevention of delinquency and for the care and rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents." Official purposes of juvenile justice Source: National Center for Juvenile Justice (http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/overviews/faq9.asp) www.chapinhall.org

7. TRADITIONAL Purpose clauses adapted from the National Council’s (NCJFCJ’s) "Standard Juvenile Court Act“ (1959) Juveniles should receive... "the care, guidance, and control that will conduce to his welfare and the best interest of the state, and that when he is removed from the control of his parents the court shall secure for him care as nearly as possible equivalent to that which they should have given him." Official purposes of juvenile justice Source: National Center for Juvenile Justice (http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/overviews/faq9.asp) www.chapinhall.org

8. TRADITIONAL Purpose clauses adapted from the “Legislative Guide” published by the federal Children’s Bureau (1960s) (a) "to provide for the care, protection, and wholesome mental and physical development of children" involved with the juvenile court; (b) "to remove from children committing delinquent acts the consequences of criminal behavior, and to substitute therefor a program of supervision, care and rehabilitation;" (c) to remove a child from the home "only when necessary for his welfare or in the interests of public safety;" and (d) to assure all parties "their constitutional and other legal rights". Official purposes of juvenile justice Source: National Center for Juvenile Justice (http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/overviews/faq9.asp) www.chapinhall.org

9. BARJ Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ): juvenile courts should balance three primary interests: 1) public safety, 2) individual accountability to victims and the community, and 3) the development in offenders of skills necessary to live law-abiding and productive lives. Some states are less faithful than others to the BARJ concept, focusing on the first 2 elements, while diluting the meaning of #3 Official purposes of juvenile justice Source: National Center for Juvenile Justice (http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/overviews/faq9.asp) www.chapinhall.org

10. PUNITIVE Clauses that emphasize language emerging in the 1980s and 1990s: punishment, deterrence, accountability, and/or public safety Purpose clauses loosely characterized as "tough," in that they stress community protection, offender accountability, crime reduction through deterrence, or outright punishment, either predominantly or exclusively. In some states, lawmakers simply adapted traditional legislation by inserting words like “punishment” and “protection of public safety” as the first in a longer list of juvenile court purposes. Official purposes of juvenile justice Source: National Center for Juvenile Justice (http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/overviews/faq9.asp) www.chapinhall.org

11. Approach Followed in State Purpose Clauses TRADITIONAL BARJ PUNITIVE Explicit Are these the least punitive states? Implicit or Partial Not classified: AZ, CO, DE, NE, NY, OK, SD, VA Source: National Center for Juvenile Justice (http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/overviews/faq9.asp) www.chapinhall.org

12. Indicators of “Punitive“ Juvenile Justice State has legislatively expanded use of 1 point punitive sanctions in juvenile courts State excludes all 17-year-olds 1 point from juvenile court jurisdiction State excludes all 16-year-olds 1 point from juvenile court jurisdiction State imposed death sentence for crime 1 point committed under age 18 (before 2005) State actually executed offender for crime 1 point committed under age 18 (before 2005) State juvenile courts have authority 1 point to "blend" adult-system sanctions State uses prosecutor discretion 1 point for criminal court transfers State uses automatic (i.e., legislative) 1 point exclusion for criminal court transfers 8 points possible Source: Various statutory analyses by the National Center for Juvenile Justice. www.chapinhall.org

13. Most Punitive States in Red States Ranked According to Scores on the Punitive Scale Least Punitive States in Green Sources:Griffin, Patrick (2005). National Overviews. State Juvenile Justice Profiles. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. Sickmund et al. (1997). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1997 Update on Violence, Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. www.chapinhall.org

14. Approach Followed in State Purpose Clauses TRADITIONAL BARJ PUNITIVE Explicit Implicit or Partial Not classified: AZ, CO, DE, NE, NY, OK, SD, VA Source: National Center for Juvenile Justice (http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/overviews/faq9.asp) www.chapinhall.org

15. Approach Followed in State Purpose Clauses TRADITIONAL BARJ PUNITIVE Explicit Implicit or Partial Not classified: AZ, CO, DE, NE, NY, OK, SD, VA Source: National Center for Juvenile Justice (http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/overviews/faq9.asp) www.chapinhall.org

16. Approach Followed in State Purpose Clauses TRADITIONAL BARJ PUNITIVE Explicit Implicit or Partial Not classified: AZ, CO, DE, NE, NY, OK, SD, VA Source: National Center for Juvenile Justice (http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/overviews/faq9.asp) www.chapinhall.org

17. In systems that express both rehabilitative and punitive goals, research shows that the punitive mission inevitably prevails • In cases of drug-using youth, the desire to treat substance abuse problems leads justice officials to lose sight of their mission to provide a just and proportionate response • Eventually, possible drug “problems” are used as leverage to coerce youth into compliance with court-ordered sanctions • Even minor drug problems and minor delinquent charges, taken in combination, can result in detention and other serious punishments • An example – juvenile drug courts Drug Treatment in Punitive Systems www.chapinhall.org

18. The use of punishment is also justified by the prevalence of substance abuse problems among youthful offender populations… But, the amount of drug and alcohol problems you see among juvenile offenders depends on where you look… www.chapinhall.org

19. Prevalence of AOD Problems in Juvenile Offenders 1. Domalanta, D.D., M.L. Risser, R.E.Roberts, J.M.H. Risser (2003). Prevalence of Depression and Other Psychiatric Disorders Among Incarcerated Youths. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(4): 477-484. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. www.chapinhall.org

20. The Evidence Suggests 3 Key Conclusions: 1. Drug use is fairly common among youth in the juvenile justice system, but widespread among youth in general 2. At least 80 to 90 percent of all substance use by juvenile offenders involves the use of alcohol and marijuana – the use of other drugs is far less prevalent. 3. The vast majority of drug-involved juvenile offenders, at least 90 percent, are not dependent or addicted – they use and sometimes abuse alcohol and other drugs, but have not reached a state of dependence. www.chapinhall.org

21. Policy Question:How do we balance justice goals with substance abuse concerns? www.chapinhall.org