DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Shay Bilchik, Administrator

From the Administrator

The number of substance-abusing

youth who become involved in the

juvenile justice system is increasing.

Between 1992 and 1996 alone,

juvenile arrests for drug abuse

violations increased 120 percent.

Adolescent substance abuse and

delinquency share common issues

involving school, family, and peers.

The juvenile justice system must

develop and use innovative strategies

for early identification and intervention

for juvenile drug offenders entering

the system if we are to prevent—or

at least reduce—the serious consequences that continued adolescent

substance abuse poses for troubled

youth, their families, and communities.

Capacity building is one such strategy.

It calls for committed interagency

collaboration in developing and

implementing effective services within

the unique context and supportive

environment of the community.

This Bulletin also features a discussion of an OJJDP-funded project

conducted by the American Probation

and Parole Association in cooperation

with the Center for Substance Abuse

Treatment. It describes three innovative methods that can be used by

juvenile justice professionals to

identify substance-abusing youth and

take appropriate steps to intervene.

I am pleased to share this information

with the juvenile justice field.

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

December 1997

Capacity Building for

Juvenile Substance

Abuse Treatment

Tanya Dickinson and Ann Crowe

In late 1995, the American Probation

and Parole Association (APPA), in cooperation with the Center for Substance

Abuse Treatment (CSAT) and the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), began work on a project designed to bring innovative substance

abuse services strategies to juvenile probation and parole professionals. In addition to focusing on increasing skills for

working with substance-abusing youth

within the juvenile justice system, the

project is also working to enhance coordination and collaboration between juvenile

justice and other systems, particularly

substance abuse treatment providers,

that concurrently serve the same youth.

The 18-month, $300,000 project grant was

jointly funded by CSAT and OJJDP.

Juvenile Delinquency

and Substance Abuse

Adolescent Substance

Abuse

When young people engage in alcohol

and other drug use, they, their families,

and their communities usually suffer. In

some cases, because of the strong association between substance abuse and delinquency, an increased burden is also

placed on the juvenile justice system.

Since 1992, the high rate of illicit drug use

among youth has been steadily increasing.

◆ According to the Monitoring the Future

study (previously called the High

School Senior Survey), which has measured the use of alcohol, tobacco, and

other drugs by the Nation’s youth

since 1975, drug use among 12th graders peaked in 1981, with slightly more

than 65 percent of seniors having reported past use of an illicit drug. This

figure dropped to a low of 40.7 percent

by 1992. In 1993, however, this downward trend began to reverse. By 1996,

50.8 percent of high school seniors reported having used illicit drugs (Monitoring the Future Study, University of

Michigan, 1996).

◆ Young people are using mood-altering

substances at increasingly younger

ages. The National Household Survey

on Drug Abuse (Gfroerer, 1996) shows

an overall decline in the average age of

first use of alcohol, from 17.2 years in

1975 to 15.9 years in 1993; daily cigarette use, from 18.6 years in 1975 to

16.8 years in 1994; and, especially,

marijuana use, from 18.9 years in 1975

to 16.3 years in 1994.

◆ Studies of drug use among youth involved in the juvenile justice system

indicate high levels of abuse. Since

1990, the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF)
2

program conducted by the National

Institute of Justice has measured substance abuse among male detainees/

arrestees in 12 jurisdictions across the

country. Like the data from the Monitoring the Future study, the DUF data

show increases in illicit drug use by

youth in nearly all sites between 1993

and 1995. In 1995, youth testing positive for at least one drug ranged from

19 percent in Portland, OR, to 58

percent in Washington, D.C. DUF data,

which do not include information on

alcohol use by juveniles, showed in

1995 that the illicit drug most frequently used by delinquent youth was

marijuana (National Institute of Justice, 1994 and 1995).

Consequences of

Adolescent Substance

Abuse

Persistent substance abuse among

youth is often accompanied by an array of

problems, including academic difficulties,

health-related consequences, poor peer

relationships, mental health issues, and

involvement with the juvenile justice system. There are also significant consequences for family members, the community, and society in general.

◆ Declining grades, absenteeism from

school and other activities, increased

potential for dropping out, and other

school-related problems are associated

with adolescent substance abuse.

Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller (1992)

cite research that indicates both a low

level of commitment to education and

higher truancy rates. Cognitive and

behavioral problems experienced by

alcohol- and drug-using youth may not

only interfere with their academic performance but may also disrupt learning by their classmates (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1992).

◆ Health-related consequences of teenage substance abuse include accidental injuries, physical disabilities and

diseases, and the effects of possible

overdoses. Death through suicide, homicide, accidents, and illness may be

the final outcome for youth involved

with alcohol and other drugs. Information drawn from the preliminary 1994

estimates of the Drug Abuse Warning

Network (DAWN) indicates that drugrelated hospital emergency episodes

for youth ages 12–17 increased by 17

percent in 1994 over the rates for 1993.

Significantly, there was a 50-percent

increase in hospital emergency episodes related to marijuana/hashish use

in this age group between 1993 and

1994. DAWN is a national survey conducted annually by the Substance

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to estimate drug-related

emergency department visits for various substances (McCaig, 1995).

◆ The danger of contracting HIV or other

sexually transmitted diseases is increased for substance-abusing youth if

they engage in high-risk behaviors, including the use of psychoactive substances (particularly those that are

injected) or activities resulting from

poor judgment and impulse control

while experiencing the effects of moodaltering substances. Rates of AIDS diagnoses currently are relatively low

among teenagers when compared with

most other age groups. Nevertheless,

because the disease has a long latent

period before symptoms appear, many

young adults with AIDS may actually

have been infected with HIV as adolescents.

◆ Alcohol-related traffic fatalities for

youth have declined, but young people

are still overrepresented in this area. In

1995, more than 2,000 youth ages 15–

20 were killed in alcohol-related car

crashes (National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 1997).

◆ Substance-abusing youth may be alienated from and stigmatized by their

peers. These young people also often

disengage from school and community

activities, thus depriving their peers

and communities of positive contributions they might otherwise have made.

◆ Depression, developmental lag, apathy,

withdrawal, and other psychosocial

disorders are frequently linked to substance abuse among adolescents. Users are at higher risk than nonusers for

mental health problems, including suicidal thoughts, attempted suicide,

completed suicide, depression, conduct problems, and personality disorders. Marijuana use, which is prevalent

among youth, has been shown to interfere with short-term memory, learning,

and psychomotor skills. Motivation

and psychosexual/emotional development may also be influenced (Bureau

of Justice Statistics, 1992).

◆ Many aspects of family life are jeopardized, sometimes resulting in family
3

dysfunction. Siblings and parents are

profoundly affected by alcohol- and

drug-involved youth (Nowinski, 1990),

who often drain family financial and

emotional resources (Bureau of Justice

Statistics, 1992).

◆ High economic and social costs can

result from monetary expenditures and

emotional distress related to alcoholand drug-related crimes, increased

burdens for the support of adolescents

and young adults who are not able to

become self-supporting, and greater

demands for medical and other treatment services for these youth

(Gropper, 1985).

Connection Between

Adolescent Substance

Abuse and Delinquency

Possession and use of alcohol and

other drugs are illegal for all youth. Because substance abuse and delinquency

are inextricably linked, arrest, adjudication, and intervention by the juvenile justice system are eventual consequences

for many young people engaged in such

behavior. Substance abuse and delinquency often share the common factors

of school and family problems, negative

peer groups, lack of neighborhood social

controls, and a history of physical or

sexual abuse (Hawkins et al., 1987; Wilson

and Howell, 1993). Substance abuse is

also associated with violent and incomegenerating crime by youth, which increases

community residents’ level of fear and the

demand for juvenile and criminal justice

services, thereby further increasing the

burden on these resources. Gangs, drug

trafficking, prostitution, and youth homicides are other related social and criminal

justice problems often linked to adolescent substance abuse.

◆ The DUF program found that male juveniles arrested for drug offenses (e.g.,

sales, possession) had the highest rate

of positive drug tests when compared

with youth arrested for other types of

crimes. However, a substantial rate of

drug use was also found among youth

who committed violent, property, and

other crimes (National Institute of Justice, 1996).

◆ Survey of Youth in Custody, 1987 (Beck,

Kline, and Greenfeld, 1988) found that

more than 39 percent of youth under

age 18 were under the influence of

drugs at the time of their current offense. More than 57 percent reported

having used a drug within the previous

month.

◆ A study of 113 delinquent youth in a

State detention facility found that 82

percent reported being heavy (daily)

users of alcohol and other drugs just

prior to admission to the facility; 14

percent were regular users (more than

two times weekly); and 4 percent reported occasional use (DeFrancesco,

1996).

◆ A study conducted in 1988 in Washington, D.C., found that youth who both

sold and used drugs were more likely

to commit crimes than those who only

sold drugs or only used drugs. Heavy

drug users were more likely to commit

property crimes than nonusers, and

youth who trafficked in drugs reported

higher rates of crimes against persons.

Youth in this sample were most likely

to commit burglary or sell drugs while

using drugs or seeking to obtain drugs.

About one-fourth of the youth also

reported attacking another youth to

obtain drugs. However, among the

youth in this sample, the majority who

committed crimes did not do so in

connection with drugs (Altschuler and

Brounstein, 1991).

Drug Testing in the

Juvenile Justice

System

OJJDP has funded several APPA

projects to investigate innovative and

appropriate methods to identify and

intervene with substance-abusing youth.

These projects included drug recognition

techniques, drug identification and

testing, and, most recently, comprehensive

intersystem service delivery. The latter

emphasized collaboration among juvenile

justice, substance abuse treatment, and

other youth-serving systems and provided

training in intervention skills for juvenile

probation and parole line officers.

The first two APPA projects funded by

OJJDP designed and delivered training

and technical assistance to help juvenile

justice agencies initiate or enhance programs to identify, screen, and test juveniles

for illicit drug use. Three methods were

subsequently recommended for use within

the juvenile justice system: assessment
4

instruments and techniques, drug

recognition techniques, and chemical

testing. Combining all three methods is

considered the best approach.

Assessment Instruments

and Techniques

Assessment instruments and techniques

can be used to distinguish alcohol and

drug users from nonusers, make initial

treatment recommendations, make case

management decisions, and provide information for a continuum of services.

Assessment may occur at any stage in

a youth’s movement through the juvenile

justice system. Coordination of assessment

strategies and the sharing of information

is vital to ensure that youth receive the

continuum of services they need. Once

collected, assessment information must

be integrated, evaluated, and used appropriately in decisionmaking regarding individual youth.

Assessment procedures allow for the

gathering of information about alcohol or

drug use other than current or recent use,

which is detectable through drug recognition techniques or urinalysis. Such longterm data can be used to help develop an

effective intervention plan. Many assessment approaches also gather information

about the social context of a youth’s substance abuse problems—when, where,

why, and with whom youth use alcohol

and other drugs can be important information to have for case management

purposes.

Drug Recognition

Techniques

Drug recognition techniques were developed initially to help law enforcement officers identify motorists in traffic-arrest

situations who were impaired by alcohol

or other drug use. These techniques were

later adapted by the Orange County (California) Probation Department and applied

in community corrections settings. The

department used its findings to expand

the period for detecting illicit drug use.

Drug recognition techniques offer a systematic and standardized process for

evaluating observable physical reactions

to specific types of drugs. There are three

key elements in the process:

◆ Verifying that the person’s physical

responses deviate from normal.

◆ Ruling out a non-drug-related cause of

the deviation.

◆ Using diagnostic procedures to determine the category or combination of

substances that is likely to cause the

impairment (e.g., assessing pupil constriction or dilation).

Drug recognition techniques identify

the category of chemical substances ingested (e.g., central nervous system depressants, cannabis, central nervous system stimulants), but they cannot identify

specific drugs within each category. However, a skilled practitioner can determine

with a high degree of accuracy whether a

youth is currently under the influence of a

substance or has used a particular drug

or combination of drugs for up to 72

hours after ingestion, although the

amount of the substance consumed cannot be determined.

Initial training for staff to become proficient in using drug recognition techniques can be costly, but once staff are

trained, ongoing expenses are minimal.

The techniques are cost efficient because

they can often screen out youth who do

not show symptoms of current or recent

substance use, thereby eliminating the

need for costly urinalysis. For example, if

the symptoms for several classes of drugs

are not apparent, it is unlikely that the

quantity of these substances or their metabolites remaining in the body is sufficient for urinalysis to produce a positive

finding. (Marijuana and phencyclidine

(PCP) may be exceptions, because low

levels sometimes may be detected

through urinalysis for as long as 3–4

weeks after ingestion.)

Drug recognition techniques allow the

trained practitioner to detect physical

symptoms of drug use, such as:

◆ Changes in the eyes, including dilation

or constriction of pupils, reactions to

light, and characteristics related to eye

movements.

◆ Injection sites.

◆ Performance on motor tests, such as

walking a straight line, standing on one

leg, and placing a finger on the nose.

◆ Movements that indicate muscle

rigidity.

Drug recognition techniques offer several advantages. They provide immediate

results with which to confront youth if

indication of substance use is present,

and they are minimally intrusive as compared with the collection of body fluids

required for urinalysis. Moreover, the process is systematic and standardized, reducing the possibility of bias or error by

trained staff.

Not all categories of drugs are equally

detectable using drug recognition techniques, and the specific drugs ingested

cannot be determined. Therefore, use of

these techniques alone may not conclusively determine the exact substance

used or detect the effects of illicit drugs

that have minimal influence on the physical responses measured.

Chemical Testing

The most physically intrusive and most

expensive of the three drug identification
5

methods described herein is chemical

testing. It is also the most accurate. Of

several scientific methods available—

including urinalysis, blood analysis, hair

analysis, and saliva tests—saliva and

breath analysis for alcohol and urinalysis

for drugs other than alcohol are the methods currently recommended, because

they are reliable and relatively inexpensive compared with other methods of

chemical testing. Because alcohol evaporates quickly from urine, urinalysis is generally not used to detect alcohol.

Immunoassays detect chemical reactions between antibodies and a drug or

drug metabolite. They are generally used

for initial tests and are considered reliable for detecting the presence of illicit

drugs in a person’s system. A positive result may be confirmed via a statement of

admission by the youth, repetition of the

test, or performance of a second test using a different methodology. For legal proceedings, the third option is preferred,

especially where a youth’s freedom is at

stake. Chromatographic methods of urinalysis separate the drug or its metabolite from the urine and can quantify the

amount of a substance that is present.

These tests are often used to confirm

positive results of initial tests and can

provide a quantitative measure of the

level of drugs in an individual’s system.

Because different drugs remain in the

body for varying lengths of time (ranging

from a few hours to several days), it is

helpful, for purposes of retesting, to know

the youth’s drug(s) of choice. Random

rather than scheduled retesting is generally recommended, as some youth may

learn to schedule their substance use to

circumvent scheduled testing. In addition,

some youth may attempt to taint a urine

sample by ingesting something before giving the sample or by adding something to

the specimen after it leaves the body.

Therefore, urination should always be

observed by a same-sex staff member.

A record must be kept of the location

of the urine specimen and test results at

all times, and this record must note each

person who has handled either the specimen or the test results. The record should

document specimen collection, handling,

storage, transportation, and testing and

the dissemination of results. All specimens, supplies, and equipment should be

kept in a locked storage area.

Youth Case

Management

Youth case management is often the

primary task of juvenile justice practitioners. Depending on where a youth is

within the juvenile justice process, intervention strategies employed may differ:

◆ For preadjudicated youth in detention

centers, intervention may focus on using information to develop an effective

case plan to help the youth stop the

behavior.

◆ For adjudicated youth on probation,

the same intervention tasks are appropriate, but drug testing may also be

introduced as a supervisory tool to

monitor compliance with probation

conditions. Noncomplying youth may

receive graduated sanctions with treatment interventions to help them control their behavior. Drug test results

of pre- or postadjudicated youth are

not generally used to bring new drugrelated charges against them.

Identifying substance-abusing youth in

the juvenile justice system is an important first step for intervening in both their

substance abuse and their delinquent behavior. Drug testing can help youth overcome denial of their behavior, and as a

form of intervention can often help them

achieve and maintain recovery and curtail

other delinquent behaviors. Over time,

effective drug identification will help

juvenile justice agencies achieve a balanced approach to the problem, including

community protection, youth accountability, and development of skills and other

competencies among youth that will help

them depart the juvenile justice system

as more capable and productive members

of society (Bazemore and Umbreit, 1994).

Although drug testing poses an additional expense for juvenile justice agencies and yet another task for personnel to

perform, it can often save money by helping staff manage cases more appropriately and by preventing further substance

abuse and delinquency that often result in

youth recidivism. However, the most important reason for implementing drug

identification procedures is their ultimate

benefit for individual youth, their families,

and communities. When lives can be reclaimed from patterns of substance abuse

and delinquency, the personal and social

advantages are immense.

Capacity Building in

the Juvenile Justice

System

The current project APPA is conducting began in 1995 and built on APPA’s and

OJJDP’s earlier collaboration. The major

tasks undertaken by this project included

the following:

◆ Appoint a seven-member advisory panel

representing substance abuse services

and juvenile justice, training, and youth

advocacy professionals to steer

development of project deliverables.
6

◆ Identify and highlight up to five innovative community-based programs that

provide substance abuse services to

youth in the juvenile justice system.

◆ Develop and refine three training curriculums and manuals.

◆ Develop and present training seminars:

❖ Developing a Collaborative and

Comprehensive Plan To Provide Effective Substance Abuse Services

for Juvenile Offenders (Systems

Development). Systems development refers to initiation or enhancement of cooperation, coordination,

and collaboration among all systems that intervene with substanceabusing youth, especially the juvenile justice and substance abuse

treatment systems. Other systems

that might become integrally

involved include health care, mental

health, education, child welfare, and

others.

❖ Working With Substance-Abusing

Youth: Knowledge and Skills for Juvenile Probation and Parole Professionals (Skills Development).

❖ Working With Substance-Abusing

Youth: Knowledge and Skills for

Juvenile Probation and Parole

Professionals (Train-the-Trainer).

◆ Provide followup technical assistance

to teams participating in systems development and site-specific technical

Systems Development Curriculum and Training: Developing a Collaborative and

Comprehensive Plan To Provide Effective Substance Abuse Services for Juvenile

Offenders

Cooperation, coordination, and

collaboration are the “three C’s” that

form the basis of this curriculum and

the effective interagency relationships

it recommends—common-sense yet

difficult tasks that require the active

commitment of all personnel and

practitioners to plan new initiatives to

respond to the decreasing resources

and increasing demands placed on

human services systems.

Two of the Nation’s greatest causes of

concern over the past two decades

have been the increase in adolescent

substance abuse and the rising

juvenile crime rate. The causes of

adolescent substance abuse and

juvenile delinquency are many and

varied, but the two are inextricably

linked. The systems development

curriculum focuses on developing

effective interagency coordination and

collaborative responses to these

behaviors in the hope that scarce

resources can be more effectively

used to serve the growing number of

substance-involved delinquent youth.

The primary goal is to assist jurisdictions through a collaborative planning

process that will allow them to develop,

implement, and refine their own

comprehensive strategies, recognizing

that there are no right answers, only

effective ones that must be modified to

fit the needs of individual communities.

Each participating jurisdiction determines the scope and type of services it

should plan and provide.

During the training seminar, 5- to 10-

person jurisdictional planning teams

comprising representatives of juvenile

justice, substance abuse services, and

other interested stakeholders are introduced to a training map with various

“landmarks” to guide their learning

experience and tasks upon their return to

their communities (see figure at bottom

of page 7). Landmark 1 is the jumping off

point, where participants discuss what

they expect and how the process ahead

may help meet them. To ensure that each

participant has basic knowledge of the

primary systems involved in the planning

effort, the group discusses the history

and present demands of the juvenile

justice and substance abuse service

systems.

Because all politics (and seminars) are

local, landmark 2 is a discussion of how

these systems operate in their individual

jurisdictions and how they may be

improved through coalition development

and other strategies. Participants are

guided through a community mapping

process that is interactive as well as

informative, and the results are used to

guide team responses to future exercises

and planning processes.

Developed in conjunction with the

project’s advisory panel, landmark 3 is

the conceptual model—akin to a market

analysis—that requires each team to

analyze their community’s resources and

desires before designing a product they

believe will meet their future needs.

Whereas landmark 1 is concrete in nature

and landmarks 2 and 3 require participants to envision and brainstorm a

community’s possibilities, landmarks 4, 5,

and 6 progressively return the trainee

teams to the concrete by asking them to

examine demands made upon them and

their agencies and realistic procedures to

use upon returning to their communities.

Landmark 4 asks the teams to review

who the stakeholders are in the issue

of providing comprehensive services to

substance-involved youth in the

juvenile justice system, what their

motives are, and how their interests

and needs can be thoroughly assessed and used to determine future

courses of action.

Landmark 5 treats the more mundane

yet vital issues of missions, accountability, and momentum, all of which are

addressed through recommendations

and discussions of mission statements,

management principles, policies and

procedures, and performance-based

measures.

Landmark 6 is arguably the most vital

activity in which the teams participate.

Based on their learning experiences

during training, each team is asked to

complete an action plan that will guide

activities upon return to their communities. The trainers meet with each team

individually to help them refine their

plan and assess their future technical

assistance needs.

Upon return to their communities, the

teams are eligible to apply for followup

technical assistance to support their

progress in the implementation of their

action plan. The diversity of communities represented by the planning teams

is reflected in their visions, action plans,

and technical assistance requests. The

diversity of these components is one of

the curriculum’s greatest strengths,

because it provides ample opportunities for cross-fertilization of ideas and

exposure to a variety of operating

methods.
7

Developing a Collaborative and Comprehensive Plan To Provide Substance Abuse Services to

Juvenile Offenders

Introductions

and

Expectations

Back Home

To Continue

the Journey

Day 3

Day 2

Day 1

Conceptual

Model Taking

It Home

Group

Consultations

Stakeholder Mapping

and

Needs Assessment

Local

Issues

Systems

Issues

assistance to individual jurisdictions

needing systems development support.

◆ Conduct followup evaluation activities

of the technical assistance and training

programs.

APPA also prepared articles for publication in professional journals and highlighted the project at its annual and winter institutes. With the assistance of its

advisory panel, project monitors, and numerous professional consultants, APPA

staff developed high-quality publications,

training curriculums, and technical assistance presentations. The products and

services developed with these funds will

remain available to interested professionals through CSAT’s Addictions Technology

Transfer Centers, OJJDP’s network of

training and technical assistance providers, and APPA’s training and technical assistance and publications divisions.

Project Development

and Deliverables

Although the project’s scope has expanded since its inception, it is true to its

original focus—providing services and

skills to juvenile justice professionals and

professionals in related fields to guide

their development. Discussion of the

project’s development and tasks follows.

Advisory Panel

To obtain guidance and input from

field practitioners in the development of

the project’s products and services, APPA

staff, in conjunction with CSAT and OJJDP

project monitors, identified seven individuals experienced in juvenile substance

abuse services, juvenile justice, training

development and presentation, and youth

advocacy. These experts were invited to

APPA’s offices in Lexington, KY, for two

intensive weekend planning sessions to

create and refine the following:

◆ A model for jurisdictions interested in

developing a comprehensive plan for

delivery of services to substanceinvolved youth in the juvenile justice

system.

◆ A list of criteria necessary for the

implementation of a successful juvenile justice/substance abuse program.

◆ An initial review process for the fieldnominated innovative juvenile justice

substance abuse programs.

◆ An outline for the three training seminars and their materials.

The committed participation of this

multifaceted advisory panel contributed

invaluably to the project’s broad base of

support and diverse and effective products.

Innovative Juvenile Justice/

Substance Abuse Service

Providers

The project’s first task after the planning sessions was to send out nearly

1,000 nomination forms to representatives

of the juvenile justice and substance

abuse services communities requesting

nominations of innovative juvenile justice

programs serving substance-involved

youth. The advisory panel received 93

program nominations ranging across the

prevention-intervention-treatment spectrum. The programs ultimately chosen

through collaboration among project

staff, the OJJDP project officer, and the

advisory panel—The Bridge, Columbia,

SC; In-Home Intensive Treatment and

Supervision, Brooklyn, NY; Juvenile Assessment Center, Orlando, FL; Outdoor

Intervention Program, Minden, NV; and

Washakie County Youth Alternatives,

Worland, WY—also varied across this

spectrum. Each program served a distinct

population at a level appropriate to its

needs and through a variety of means.

Some were publicly operated; others were

operated by private not-for-profit organizations or by public/private partnerships.

The primary unifying characteristics

across programs were that they served

youth in the juvenile justice system and

had surveyed and involved the community and related agencies in the development and implementation of their services. Their community and interagency

involvement, combined with the delivery

of quality services to the target populations, qualified these programs for consideration.
8

Training and Technical

Assistance Materials

Project staff, with input from the advisory panel members, developed two

manuals for participants in the Systems

Development and Skills Development

training seminars. They are:

◆ Developing a Collaborative and Comprehensive Plan To Provide Effective Substance Abuse Services for Juvenile

Offenders (Systems Development).

◆ Working With Substance Abusing Youth:

Knowledge and Skills for Juvenile Probation and Parole Professionals (Skills

Development).

In addition, a trainer’s guide was developed to accompany the Skills Development

manual for use in the Train-the-Trainer

program.

Training Seminars

The intent of each of the three training

seminars developed under the auspices of

this project is as follows:

◆ Developing a Collaborative and Comprehensive Plan To Provide Effective

Skills Development Curriculum and Training

Working With Substance-Abusing Youth: Knowledge and Skills for Juvenile Probation and Parole

Professionals

APPA developed a manual and training

curriculum for juvenile probation and

parole professionals working with

substance-abusing youth. The manual

and curriculum contain five modules:

◆ Problem Overview.

◆ Screening and Assessment.

◆ Juvenile Justice Responses to

Substance Abuse and Delinquency.

◆ Maintaining Success.

◆ Program and Professional Issues.

Substance abuse prevention, intervention, and treatment are essential to

promoting the health and development

of substance-abusing youth and to

maintaining safe communities. The first

point at which juvenile probation and

parole professionals must become

active with youth is screening and

assessment. Each young person must

first be screened and then receive

ongoing monitoring for alcohol and

other drug use. If use is detected,

additional assessment services must

be provided to help determine the

appropriate plan for intervention.

Juvenile probation and parole professionals must understand the potential

progression of substance abuse and

be able to identify characteristic

behaviors that help distinguish a

problem’s severity and related issues.

They also often need to work with

substance abuse treatment professionals and other service providers to

obtain comprehensive assessments of

the substance abuse of the youth with

whom they work.

Intervention includes prevention,

strategies to change behavior, and

close collaboration with treatment

programs and other service providers

working with youth. Prevention programming involves individual, family, and

community strategies to preclude the

initiation of substance use or interrupt the

progression of alcohol and other drug

use.

The curriculum and training programs

emphasize restorative justice and a

strengths perspective in working with

substance-abusing youth. The strengths

perspective emphasizes recognizing and

using the capabilities, talents, competencies, and hopes of youth and their

families rather than focusing solely on

problems, needs, and pathologies.

Strategies for changing behavior that are

addressed in the manual include:

◆ Behavioral contracting.

◆ Education.

◆ Positive reframing.

◆ Replacing substance-abuse language

and culture with prosocial ones.

◆ Modeling of appropriate values and

behaviors by significant adults.

◆ Positive structuring of time and

activities.

◆ Counseling techniques.

Counseling techniques draw from

solution-focused, brief-treatment approaches that are designed to help youth

and families identify problems and

possible solutions that will empower them

to resolve present and future difficulties.

This approach builds on the youth’s

existing personal, family, and community

strengths, using their combined competency and positive mental health rather

than concentrating on problems and

pathology. This perspective emphasizes

understanding the youth’s world view and

soliciting youth and family involvement in

case planning. Specific interviewing

techniques are emphasized in the

training curriculum.

In addition to work with individual

youth, group and family work strategies are recommended. Implementing

group strategies for substance-abusing

youth is especially useful because

these strategies provide meaningful

roles and activities for youth, channel

peer pressure, help youth develop

skills and competencies, encourage a

sense of belonging, and provide a safe

place for youth to try out new behaviors, attitudes, and values.

The relationship between families and

adolescent substance abuse is often

reciprocal. Family factors frequently

contribute to the initiation and progression of alcohol and other drug use,

and adolescent substance abuse has

a dramatic impact on the family.

Recommended approaches for

working with families include family

therapy, parent support groups, and

parent education and prevention

groups. The latter two may be provided

fully or in part by juvenile justice

agencies. Engaging and enlisting

family members to work cooperatively

with juvenile probation and parole

officers is an important goal for

effective intervention.

This comprehensive manual and

accompanying training agenda provide

the basis for juvenile probation and

parole professionals to intervene

effectively with substance-abusing

youth. The strengths perspective and

solution-focused, brief-treatment

strategies provide important tools for

the juvenile probation and parole

professional’s repertoire of skills.
9

Substance Abuse Services for Juvenile

Offenders (Systems Development).

This seminar was designed to form a

core planning group of juvenile justice

and substance abuse providers from a

single jurisdiction to develop a service

delivery strategy for their unique

population. The seminar advocated

coalition development and community

involvement in addressing the problem

of providing services to substanceabusing youth in each jurisdiction.

◆ Working With Substance-Abusing

Youth: Knowledge and Skills for Juvenile Probation and Parole Professionals

(Skills Development). This seminar was

designed for line-level practitioners

who want to develop specific intervention skills to aid them in supervising

at-risk or substance-abusing clients.

◆ Working With Substance-Abusing

Youth: Knowledge and Skills for Juvenile Probation and Parole Professionals

(Train-the-Trainer). This seminar was

designed to provide professional trainers with the skills, methods, and materials necessary to replicate the skills

development seminar.

Technical Assistance

Each core planning group participating

in the systems development seminar was

eligible to apply for followup technical

assistance from APPA staff or outside consultants. Such assistance ranged from

providing experienced practitioner consultants to help plan a juvenile drug court

to facilitating stakeholder meetings to

help a statewide planning group develop

a collaborative approach to intervening

with substance-abusing youth.

In addition to the systems development seminar, various jurisdictions at the

county and State levels requested and

were granted site-specific technical assistance, which primarily took the form of

miniseminars on systems development

modified to fit recipient needs.

Evaluation

To measure the behavioral and attitudinal effects of participating in the systems and skills development seminars,

APPA distributed postseminar questionnaires to all participants. The results have

been positive, reflecting an empowered

and focused group of individuals applying

the tenets they learned and practiced.

Many jurisdictions and practitioners

representing substance abuse services,

community corrections, and other interested parties and agencies have benefited

from the direct involvement of APPA,

CSAT, and OJJDP in presenting comprehensive solutions to the issue of substanceabusing youth involved in the juvenile

justice system. As the training seminars

are replicated, in part through participants in the train-the-trainer seminars,

and project products are more widely

distributed, it is expected that the number of participants will continue to grow.

Innovative Juvenile Justice Programs Serving Substance-Involved Youth

The Bridge,

Columbia, SC

Program: Multilevel (State and local)

interagency coalition.

Serves: High-risk, postinstitutional

youth.

Focus: Intensive treatment; comprehensive services (through

referral, purchase).

Funding: Funded originally by CSAT

grant; now funded through

State addictions agency’s

budget appropriation.

In-Home Intensive Treatment

and Supervision,

Brooklyn, NY

Program: Interagency coalition (State

level).

Serves: High-risk, postinstitutional

youth.

Focus: Dual supervision/intensive

treatment.

Funding: Now defunct. Funded

originally by CSAT grant;

State juvenile justice agency

was unable to obtain

continuation funding.

Juvenile Assessment Center,

Orlando, FL

Program: Public/private sector coalition,

funding, and service delivery.

Serves: All youth arrested.

Focus: Comprehensive, central

juvenile booking/assessment

unit with onsite social detoxification unit.

Funding: Facilities and operations costs

are derived from health,

substance abuse and mental

health, juvenile justice, city/

county, and nonprofit human

services agencies.

Outdoor Intervention Program

(Douglas County Probation),

Minden, NV

Program: Single-agency program with

strong, diverse community

involvement.

Serves: County’s juvenile probationers/

other high-risk youth.

Focus: Prevention/early intervention

during/through wilderness

adventure experience.

Funding: Department budget, grants,

donations, and inkind

contributions.

Washakie County Youth Alternatives,

Worland, WY

Program: Communitywide planning and

operating effort in a rural,

frontier area.

Serves: Status offenders, juvenile

misdemeanant probationers.

Services are also provided to

parents, and prevention

programs target youth at risk

for substance abuse and

delinquency.

Focus: Prevention/early intervention

for juvenile misdemeanants,

plus family services.

Funding: County appropriation and

various grants.

DIVISION

YOUTH

FOR

NEW

YORK

STATE
10

The Future

APPA anticipates that products and

services developed under this initiative

will continue to be available.

This project exemplifies the challenges

and opportunities presented by committed interagency collaborations—a primary focus of the training and technical

assistance developed under this initiative.

Without this shared commitment, the intersystem flavor that worked to enhance

the project’s products and service delivery would have been lost.

References

Altschuler, D., and Brounstein, P. 1991.

Patterns of drug use, drug trafficking, and

other delinquency among inner-city adolescent males in Washington, DC. Criminology 29(4):589–622.

Bazemore, G., and Umbreit, M.S. 1994.

Balanced and Restorative Justice. Program

Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Beck, A.J., Kline, S.A., and Greenfeld,

L.A. 1988. Survey of Youth in Custody, 1987.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Statistics.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1992 ( December). Drugs, Crime, and the Justice System. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

DeFrancesco, J.J. 1996. Delinquency

and substance abuse: A brief analysis.

Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention

Services 11(2):77–78.

Gfroerer, J. 1996. Preliminary Estimates

From the 1995 National Household Survey

on Drug Abuse. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration.

Gropper, B.A. 1985 (February). Probing

the Links Between Drugs and Crime. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., and Miller,

J.Y. 1992. Risk and protective factors for

alcohol and other drug problems in

adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention.

Psychological Bulletin 112(1):64–105.

Hawkins, J.D., Lishner, D.M., Jenson,

J.M., and Catalano, R.F. 1987. Delinquents

and drugs: What the evidence suggests

about prevention and treatment programming. In Youth at High Risk for Substance

Abuse, edited by B.S. Brown and A.R.

Mills. Rockville, MD: National Institute on

Drug Abuse.

McCaig, L. 1995 (November). Preliminary Estimates From the Drug Abuse Warning Network: 1994 Preliminary Estimates of

Drug-Related Emergency Department Episodes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, Substance

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Monitoring the Future Study. 1996. Ann

Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research,

University of Michigan.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 1997 (February). 1995 Youth Fatal Crash and Alcohol Facts. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.

National Institute of Justice. 1994 (November). Drug Use Forecasting: 1993 Annual Report on Juvenile Arrestees/Detainees: Drugs and Crime in America’s Cities.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National

Institute of Justice.

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) was established to provide

national leadership for the Federal effort to enhance treatment approaches and

improve programs focusing on the treatment of alcohol and other drug abuse.

CSAT expands the availability and improves the quality of services that address

special needs of populations especially vulnerable to addictive disorders.

CSAT responds to these needs through various grants and demonstration

programs, which work to upgrade the quality and effectiveness of treatment and

recovery services for adolescents and many other populations. In addition, CSAT

provides technical assistance and training designed to provide the treatment field

and health care professionals with up-to-date how-to’s on managing treatment

needs.

Finally, the Center operates the National Drug and Alcohol Treatment Routing

Service (1–800–622–HELP), which offers alcohol and other drug abuse-related

information and/or referrals to people seeking treatment programs and other

assistance. Visit CSAT on the Web at www.samhsa.gov/CSAT.

American Probation and Parole Association

The American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) is an international

association consisting of individuals from the United States and its territories and

Canada who are actively involved with probation, parole, and community-based

corrections for both adult and juvenile offenders. APPA’s membership includes

representatives of all levels of government, including local, State/provincial, and

Federal agencies. Today, there are more than 24,000 professionals represented in

APPA’s individual, agency, affiliate, corporate, and educational institution membership categories.

APPA strongly supports research in community-based corrections and is committed to offering the most recent innovations to the field. Several research and

training projects funded by Federal Government agencies and private foundations

contribute to this knowledge base. In addition, APPA conducts semiannual training

institutes; publishes a quarterly journal, Perspectives, that disseminates articles

on field research, program evaluations, and supervision strategies; disseminates

other publications on topics relevant to community corrections; and conducts

training courses on special topics and technical assistance provided to State and

local jurisdictions. APPA also has a clearinghouse of information resources for its

members where files on current topics are maintained and information can be

furnished to members on request.
11

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the

Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

This Bulletin was prepared under grant

number 95–JN–FX–0026 from the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the author(s) and do

not necessarily represent the official position

or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

National Institute of Justice. 1995 (November). Drug Use Forecasting: 1994 Annual Report on Adult and Juvenile

Arrestees. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

National Institute of Justice. 1996

(June). Drug Use Forecasting: 1995 Annual

Report on Adult and Juvenile Arrestees.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National

Institute of Justice.

Nowinski, J. 1990. Substance Abuse

in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Guide

to Treatment. New York: W.W. Norton &

Company.

Wilson, J.J., and Howell, J.C. 1993 (December). Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Program Summary. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

For Further

Information

Additional information about testing

juveniles for drugs and the APPA project

can be found in the OJJDP Program Summary Drug Identification and Testing in

the Juvenile Justice System. Additional

sources of information are provided

below:

American Probation and Parole

Association

P.O. Box 11910

Lexington, KY 40578

606–244–8203

606–244–8001 (Fax)

E-Mail: appa@csg.org

www.csg.org/appa/appa/html

The Bridge

Katherine Yandle-Thornton

Department of Alcohol and Other Drug

Abuse Services

3700 Forest Drive, Suite 300

Columbia, SC 29204

803–734–9766

803–734–9663 (Fax)

E-Mail: kthornton@daodas.state.sc.us

Acknowledgments

This Bulletin was written by Tanya L. Dickinson and Ann H. Crowe, who served as

the coordinator and director, respectively, of the project, Capacity Building in the

Juvenile Justice System: Addressing the Need for Substance Abuse Treatment.

Ms. Crowe is a research associate at the American Probation and Parole Association, and Ms. Dickinson is presently director of program development at the

Volunteers of America of Kentucky in Louisville.

I–HITS

Mark French or Georgette Furey

New York State Division for Youth

Capital View Office Park

52 Washington Street

Rennselaer, NY 12144

518–473–8455

Note: This program is now closed. For further information about the program, contact Georgette Furey

at 518–474–1308.

Juvenile Assessment Center

Julianne Zabrecky

Florida Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services

Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health,

District 7 Program Office

400 West Robinson Street, Suite S–430

Orlando, FL 32801

407–245–0420

407–245–0583 (Fax)

Outdoor Intervention Program

Lance Crowley

Douglas County Juvenile Probation

Department

P.O. Box 218

Minden, NV 89423

702–782–9811

702–782–9808 (Fax)

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We

encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and

reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP

and the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as

how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP

materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments

and questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5212 (Fax)

E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

Washakie County Youth Alternatives

Laurel Clairmont

Washakie County Youth Alternatives

721 Big Horn Avenue

Worland, WY 82401

307–347–2760

307–347–6194 (Fax)
BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

Permit No. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 167251

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300