Incarceration of juveniles for drug abuse or drug-related crimes does not significantly reduce recidivism rates. A study found recidivism rates were 67% for incarcerated juveniles and 8.9% for non-incarcerated juveniles, but a statistical analysis found no significant difference. Arrest rates for juvenile drug crimes from 2000 to 2008 also did not change significantly. While incarceration aims to deter drug abuse, other non-incarceration methods may be equally or more effective for some juveniles.

1. Juvenile Drug Abuse
By Karen O’neal

2. Juvenile and drug abuse
To incarcerate or Not to incarcerate
How can society make a positive impact on the youth
to decrease drug abuse and the crimes relating to it?
What methods are successful and what methods
remain unchanged? Criminal behavior of juveniles
continue even today. In order to reduce the drug abuse
related criminal behavior of juveniles, a problem must
be assessed, evaluated, and addressed! Any ideas?

3. Problem statement
• Incarceration of juveniles shows no significant
difference in the rate of juvenile drug abuse or
drug abuse related crimes.

4. Concerns
• One major dilemma faced in the United States is drug
abuse and the effects it has on society as a whole,
according to the Uniform Crime Reporting Arresting Data
Survey. It showed that arrests for drug abuse violations
increased over 20% and continues to be a problem today.
(Levin & Langan, 2002, expression NCJ193427)In an effort
to reduce drug abuse related crime, it must take in
consideration the factors surrounding the behavior of the
juveniles; this can be seen as the precedent and
antecedent of any drug abuse relationship. While
incarceration is one method of trying to deter drug abuse
and the related crimes, other methods has been proven to
be effective with some juveniles

5. Drug abuse
• Definition-Drug abuse, by definition, is anyone who has one or
more of the following symptoms: recurrent use of drugs and failure
to fulfill major obligations at work, school, or at home (American
Psychiatric Publishing, Inc., 2010, para.2).
• Drug dependence- anyone who has three or more of the following
problems
– Tolerence- less effective with same amount of drugs
– Withdrawal- any symptoms caused by the absence of the drug
– Using more for longer periods than intended
– Desire to, but unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control use
– Social, recreational, family, work, school, and other areas are affected
– Continued use regardless of knowledge and possible consequences
(DSM-IV Diagnosis of Substance Abuse or Dependence) according the
American Psychiatric Association.

6. Importance!
• To decrease a problem, the root or cause of
the problem must be addressed; otherwise,
the issues may remain or at least for longer
periods and increased consequences than may
be necessary. So the problem statement
restated: Incarceration of juveniles for drug
abuse or drug abuse related crimes has no
significant effect on the reduction of the
crime.

7. Let’s take a look at the “z” test with
two sample proportions: Incarceration
and non incarceration
• It is suspected that the sample of drug abuse offenders
would have a lower recidivism rate with non-
incarceration methods of intervention that the 67% or
incarceration recidivism rate. Therefore, the following
hypothesis statement is made:
• H0: p =.67 or 67% þ = 67%
• H1: p ≠ .67 or 67%
• P = 8.9% of drug abuse population
• q= 1-p

8. Incarceration
• Because of the size of the sample, a “z” test for proportions will be use with the
“z” distribution as the sampling distribution.
• An alpha level of .01 will be used with a one-tailed test. The critical level of “z” at
this level is 2.33. The critical region are all values less than or equal to 2.33. The
null hypothesis will be rejected if z is less than or equal to 2.33.
• Percents are converted back to proportions by dividing by 100.
• Z = ^p-p/√p(q)/n
• Z = 0.23-.089/√.089(1-.089)/100
• Z =0.14/√.08/100
• Z =0.14/√.0008
• Z=0.14/.028
• Z=.5 or 50%
• Based on a z distribution curve, the obtained value of z is .50 standard deviations
less than the critical region; which indicated that the null hypothesis would be
rejected because the obtained critical value is less than the critical value of z. The
recidivism rate of incarcerated juveniles is .5 or 50%

9. Non-Incarceration
• After one year, juveniles who were rearrested
for the same type of crime, which was drug
abuse or drug abuse related crimes, was
compared to non-incarcerated juveniles who
recidivated or returned to treatment during
the same period.

10. • Using a non-directional two-tailed research hypothesis, it will be
discovered whether there is a significant difference in the
recidivism rate of drug abuse or drug abuse related crimes.
• The hypothesis is therefore stated as follows:
• H0: p1 =p2
• H1: p1 ≠ p2
• Z test will be used again due to the sample size.
• Alpha level will be .01, which for a two tailed test, the critical level
of z is ± 2.58. Because of the fact it is a two tailed test, the critical
values lie on both sides of the z distribution curve and consists of
values less than or equal to 2.58 or greater than or equal to 2.58.
• It would result in failing to reject the null hypothesis if the obtained
value in between -2.58 and 2.58.

11. Estimated population proportion for
both samples
• Using two proportion sample sizes, but the same estimated
population proportion to determine whether it is a
significant difference.
• Based on earlier documented data from the Bureau of
Justice Survey, the proportion of recidivated juveniles is .22
or 22% within one year. For non-incarcerated juveniles, the
proportion of recidivism was .024 in one year or 2.4%. The
total sample population is 120. Therefore, the calculations
are as follows:
• ^p (for total population) = n1 ^p1 + n2^p2/ n1 +n2
• ^p =(60)(.22) +(60)(.024)/60 +60
• =14.64/120
• = 0.12

12. Standard error
• Now to find the standard error estimate of the difference between
population proportions is the following: √^p^q *√n1 +n2/n1n2
• √.12 *.88√60 +60/60*60
• =√.11*√120/3600
• =.33 *√.033
• =.33*.57
• =0.188
• Now to find the obtained z value, the numbers or simply plugged in
formula whereas z =^p1-^p2/ √^p^q*√n1 +n2/ n1n2
• =.23 -.024/0.188
• =.21/.188
• =1.12

13. Results
• The obtained statistical value is 1.12. Because it lies
between the two critical regions, meaning 1.12 is
greater than -2.58 and less than 2.58, the result is to
fail to reject the null hypothesis. This indicates that
there is no significant difference in the recidivism rate
between incarcerated and non incarcerated juveniles
who abuse drugs or commit drug abuse related crimes.
• As a result of the methods used to determine the
recidivism rate of drug abuse offenders, although it
doesn’t show a significant difference in the rate of
recidivism

14. Impact from Incarceration
• Based on the arrest rate of juveniles by the
National Center for Juvenile Justice in October 31,
2009, arrest rates did not change significantly.
Between the year of 2000 and 2008, there were
600 out of 100,000 youths arrested for drug
abuse violations, which did not show a significant
difference of arrested youths in former or post-
dated years. In 2000, the rate was 622.8, and
eight years later the rate went to 540 per
100,000. This is a difference of 82 children in
eight years(National Center for Juvenile Justice,
2009).

15. Other facts
• As a result of two federal statutes, the law suspends or
forever terminates a drug offender’s eligibility for
federal college loans and grants and they are not
eligible for the Pell Grants that formerly provided the
means to obtain a college degree in prison. This was
based on the 1998 and 1994 federal statute. They are
even ineligible for work study for funds to help with
college, regardless of the type of federal offense,
whether violent, non-violent, or misdemeanor. Yet this
does not include the offense for rape, robbery, or
murder according to the War on Drugs facts data base
(Blumenson & Nilsen, 2002, p. 70

16. In Conclusion
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Incarceration Recidivism
Non Incarceration Recidivism
Missing data