© 2005 Behavioral Health Research Institute of the Southwest
612 Encino Place NE / Albuquerque, NM 87102 / 505.244.3099 / www.bhrcs.org

Drinking, Driving, and Drugs:
A Comparative Study of Juvenile Substance Abuse Offenders
in Bernalillo County, NM
By Nancy Owen Lewis, Ph.D. and Iyiin Chang, M.S.

8. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

To better understand juvenile drunk driving, this study examined the relationship between juvenile DWI and other substance abuse offenders referred to the Juvenile Probation and Parole Office in Albuquerque, NM, between July 1994-June 1995. These results, which are summarized below, are compared with state and national trends. The response by law enforcement and the consequences imposed by the juvenile justice system are discussed. Comparisons are made between juvenile and adult DWI offenders, and the implications for policies and programs are examined. The study concludes with a series of recommendations designed to address underage DWI.

Summary of Results

DWI offenders resembled alcohol and drug offenders in that most were male, Hispanic, and in the 16-17 age bracket. The majority lived in single parent households and a high percentage were no longer in school. Compared to the population of Bernalillo County, males, Hispanics, and residence in single parent households were over-represented among substance abuse offenders. The most common incident dates were Saturdays and Sundays. Most referrals were made by law enforcement and involved more than one offense. Most offenders had at least one referral prior to the study period, the most common being property offenses.

A more detailed history for all three groups revealed that property offenses were the most common referral for offenders under age 14, while substance abuse offenses were the most common referral for those in the 14-15 and 16-17 age groups. Of those who had a prior or subsequent substance abuse referral, drug offenses were the most common. Most offenders recidivated at least once, the most common offense being "other offenses" (see Appendix for description), while the least common were conduct offenses. Offenders with prior referrals were at greater risk for recidivism than first offenders. Other risk factors included male gender, non-Anglo ethnicity, school dropout, and residence with a divorced or separated parent.

Despite these similarities, the study revealed significant differences among the three groups. First, drug offenders far outnumbered both alcohol and DWI offenders. Of the 1518 juveniles that comprised the study population, 57.2% (N=869) were drug offenders; 35.0% (N=531) were alcohol offenders; while less than 8% (N=118) were DWI offenders. Secondly, their recidivism rates differed. Although drug offenders had the highest recidivism rate – 61.9% compared with 50.3% for alcohol and 44.1% for DWI offenders – drug offenders were younger than either DWI or alcohol offenders and thus had a longer time to reoffend before reaching age 18. Other differences are summarized below by offender category.

DWI Offenders. DWI offenders were older than the drug or alcohol offenders. Although most offenders were Hispanic, the DWI population had a higher percentage of Native Americans but a lower percentage of Blacks than the other two groups. The DWI group also had a higher percentage of school dropouts. DWI offenders not only averaged more offenses per referral, but a higher percentage of those additional offenses involved substance abuse. Analysis of their entire offense history (<7/94-6/30/97) revealed that DWI offenders had fewer referrals for property offenses but more referrals for "other" offenses than the other two groups.

DWI offenders also differed in terms of prior offenses. Substance abuse, the least common prior offense for drug and alcohol offenders, was the second most common offense for DWI offenders. A higher percentage of DWI offenders had prior DWIs and alcohol offenses than the other two groups. In terms of recidivism, a smaller percentage of DWI offenders had subsequent property and substance abuse offenses than the other two groups.

Arrest circumstances and response by the juvenile justice system also differed. The most common month for DWI arrests was May, while the least common months were July and September. Most occurred between midnight and 6 am. A higher percentage of DWI offenders were referred by law enforcement than was the case with the other two groups. DWI offenders were less likely to be referred within a month of the incident than the other two groups. In fact, a significant number of DWI offenders were referred 3-4+ months after arrest. Unlike the other two groups, most DWI referrals resulted in formal dispositions, the most common being the Consent Decree. Compared with drug and alcohol dispositions, a higher percentage of DWI dispositions involved referral to one or more programs, the most common being alcohol and drug education, restitution, counseling, and community service. In addition, a significantly smaller percentage of DWI referrals were dismissed by the court. The only DWI cases that were processed informally were those that were rejected by the district attorney’s office or referred to an out-of-town agency. Neither disposition was common among drug and alcohol offenders.

Alcohol Offenders. Although most alcohol offenders were male, a significantly higher percentage were female compared with the other two groups. Analysis of offense history (<7/94-6/30/97) revealed that alcohol offenders had fewer substance abuse offenses than either the DWI or alcohol groups. The most common month for alcohol incidents was May, while the least common month was October. Most incidents occurred between 6 pm and midnight. Alcohol referrals were the least likely of the three groups to be processed formally. Of those that were handled formally, a higher percentage resulted in Nolle Prosequi and dismissals than was the case with DWI and drug offenders. Compared with the other two groups, a smaller percentage of alcohol dispositions involved a Consent Decree, Probation and Terms by Judgment, or a referral to programs such as alcohol education or counseling.

Drug Offenders. Drug offenders were significantly younger than the other two groups. Although most drug offenders were Hispanic, a significantly higher percentage were Black Analysis of their entire offense history (<7/94-6/30/97) revealed that a higher percentage of drug offenders were referred for property offenses than either the DWI or alcohol offenders. Compared with these two groups, a smaller percentage of drug offenders had prior "other" offenses, while a higher percentage had subsequent conduct offenses and offenses against persons. The most common month for drug incidents was September, while July was the least common month. The most common time for drug incidents was between 6 am and 2 pm. Although most drug offenders were referred by law enforcement, a higher percentage were referred by school officials than was the case with the other two groups. Of the three groups, drug offenders were most likely to be referred within a month of the incident. Most drug cases were processed informally. However, of those that were processed formally, the majority resulted in a referral to one or more programs.

Comparison with State and National Trends

Albuquerque. During the past four years, referrals to the AJPPO for substance abuse offenses increased by 72.6% – from 1,340 offenses in FY 92-93 to 2,313 offenses in FY 95-96 (Table 32). Most of this increase was due to a rise in drug offenses, which more than doubled during the past four years. In FY 92-93, there were 607 drug offenses . By FY 95-96, the number had increased to 1,585 offenses. Referrals for DWI offenses, on the other hand, increased by only 16% – from 99 offenses in FY 92-93 to 115 in FY 95-96. In contrast, alcohol offenses declined by 3% – from 634 in FY 92-93 to 613 in FY 95-96.

New Mexico. New Mexico resembles Albuquerque in its increase in juvenile substance abuse referrals. During the past 4 years, substance abuse offenses rose 75% – from 5,996 a slight reduction – from 501 in FY 92-93 to 499 in FY 95-96.

Table 32.
Substance Abuse Offenses, JPPO, Albuquerque, 1986-1996.

National Trends. Local and statewide patterns mirror national trends in the dramatic rise in drug offenses. During the past 10 years, juvenile drug violations increased 115%, while alcohol offenses declined nationwide. For every 10 juveniles arrested for an alcohol offense in 1995, 13 were arrested for a drug violation (Snyder 1997).

Survey data, however, indicate that alcohol is the substance of choice for American teens. According to the 1995 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, nearly 52% of high school students reported having at least one drink of alcohol during the past 30 days (U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services 1996). In contrast, 25% reported using marijuana and 3% reported using cocaine during this period. Similar trends are reported in New Mexico. The 1997 statewide school survey conducted among 7th, 9th, and 12th graders revealed that 34% of students drank liquor, and 40% drank at least one beer, wine, or wine cooler during the past 30 days (NM Dept. of Health 1998). In contrast, 24% said they used marijuana, while less than 4% reported using cocaine. The percentage of 12th graders who drank alcohol during the past year ranged from 68% for liquor to 76% for beer, wine, and wine coolers. In contrast, fewer than 44% used marijuana and 11% used cocaine.

During the past 10 years, arrests for juvenile drunkenness decreased 39%, while other liquor offenses dropped 18%. The biggest decrease, however, has been in juvenile DWI arrests, which declined 49% (Snyder 1997). Despite this decrease, survey data indicate that many teens drive after drinking. The 1995 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance reported that 15.4% of high school students had driven a vehicle after drinking alcohol within the past 30 days (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1996). Nearly 39% had ridden with a driver who had been drinking. A recent school survey in Albuquerque revealed that 28% of 11th graders and 36% of 12 graders said they had driven after drinking, at least once during the past year. (Search Institute 1996). Forty-nine percent had ridden with a driver who had been drinking.

Response by Law Enforcement. The fact that drug arrests outnumber alcohol offenses does not reflect actual usage rates, for as survey data show, more teens drink alcohol than use drugs. Rather, differing arrest rates may indicate differential enforcement. This in turn may reflect perceptions about the seriousness of drug as opposed to alcohol violations, many of which are considered status offenses. In Albuquerque 18.6% of drug offenders are referred by school officials, compared to only 3% of alcohol offenders. These data suggest that school officials may be more likely to refer a youth for a drug offense than an alcohol violation. In fact, the most common incident time for drug offenders is 6 am to 2 pm, while most alcohol offenders are apprehended between 6 pm and midnight. Does this reflects differences in use or differential enforcement? Drug offenders are also more likely to be referred within a month of the incident – 72.2% compared to 61.6% of alcohol offenders.

Consequences. Juvenile drug offenders referred to the AJPPO experience more consequences than alcohol offenders. A higher percentage of drug offenders were processed formally – 38.3% compared to 26.2% of alcohol offenders. This is true even when prior referrals are considered. Of those offenders with 3 or more prior referrals, 65.3% of the drug cases were processed formally, compared with 51.1% of the alcohol cases. A higher percentage of drug offenders were referred to drug and alcohol education, counseling, community service, or other programs. Of the cases that were processed formally, 56.2% of drug offenders were referred to one or more programs, compared with only 36.7% of alcohol offenders. Nearly 29% of formal alcohol cases were dismissed, while another 43.9% resulted in a Nolle Prosequi. In contrast, only 19.2% of the drug cases were dismissed and 28.8% resulted in a Nolle Prosequi.

Juvenile vs. Adult DWI Offenders. This study revealed that 33% of juvenile DWI offenders referred to AJPPO were involved in a crash. In contrast, only 19% of adult DWI arrests (21+) in Bernalillo County and 17% statewide involved a crash (Motor Vehicle Records, 1995). These statistics can be interpreted in several ways. First, as national studies have shown, juvenile drivers, including those impaired by alcohol, are over-represented in crash statistics. Sixteen-year-old drivers, for example, crash twenty times more often than older drivers (AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety 1997). However, these data may also indicate that juveniles are less likely to be arrested unless a crash is involved. Juveniles tend to be under-represented in DWI arrests, for as Snyder and Sickmund (1995) point out, drivers under 21 account for 1% of DWI arrests, but comprise 14% of fatally injured impaired drivers.

In Bernalillo County, the average BAC for juvenile DWI offenders was .11 – compared to .17 for impaired adult drivers in New Mexico (NM Traffic Safety Bureau 1996). As for impaired drivers involved in crashes, the average BAC was .13 for juvenile offenders in Albuquerque, compared to .148 for impaired underage drivers (<21) in New Mexico. In contrast, the average BAC for impaired adult drivers (21+) involved in crashes was .184. National figures are comparable. In 1994, the average BAC for impaired drivers in fatal crashes was .17 for adults, compared with .12 for persons ages 16-19 and .11 for those under 16 (Greenfield 1998).

These differences between juvenile and adult BACs are not unusual, for studies have shown that underage drivers are impaired at lower levels of blood alcohol than adults. Augustyn and Simons-Morton (1995) point out that although alcohol use increases the crash risk for all drivers, for young people the risk increases at very low blood alcohol concentrations.

Conviction rates differ, as well. Motor vehicle records for 1990-1995 revealed a conviction rate of 18.9% for juvenile DWI offenders in Bernalillo County, compared with a 63.7% conviction rate for 18-20 year olds and 58.5% for adults (21+). The statewide conviction rate for juveniles was also considerably lower -- 30.6% compared with 75.1% for 18-20 year olds and 71.3% for adults (21+). To determine why juvenile conviction rates are so low, the policies and procedures utilized by AJPPO and the court system were examined. The results revealed that in accordance with their policy, 82.7% of juvenile DWI cases in Bernalillo County resulted in formal dispositions . In fact, of the cases that were processed informally, 40% were rejections from the children’s court attorney, while the remaining 60% were referrals to out-of-town agencies. Although the majority of Bernalillo County Juvenile cases do not result in convictions, most offenders are required to comply with certain terms and conditions before their cases are closed. Of the 86 DWI cases that were formally processed, the most common disposition was Consent Decree (N=61), which generally involved a referral to one or more programs. The four most commonly used programs were drug and alcohol education, restitution, counseling, and community service. In 95% of the Consent Decree cases (N=58), the records indicated the offender was officially "released from probation."

Policy and Program Implications

These results indicate a need to provide programs and services to address the special problems of juvenile substance abuse offenders, including their high recidivism rates. By 6/30/97, nearly 57% of the study population had recidivated at least once. Subsequent offenses were not restricted to alcohol or drug abuse, but included "other" and property offenses – the two most common violations.

Before this problem can be adequately addressed, the needs of this population must first be determined. At present, offenders who participate in the Alcohol and Drug Education Program are briefly assessed for alcohol problems using the Alcohol Involvement Scale. However, records show that less than 10% of substance offenders were referred to that program. Given the high rate of first and second offenders that recidivate, it is important that all substance abuse offenders be screened for substance abuse and psychosocial problems.

It is also important that this information be used to make referrals to programs that can address those issues. Such programs should be sensitive to gender and ethnicity. Education should be considered, and family issues addressed. Although AJPPO has implemented many offender programs, computer records indicate that only 45% of substance abuse offenders are referred to a program. Of the three groups, alcohol offenders are the least likely to receive a referral – 39.2% compared with 46.1% of the drug offenders and 56.7% of the DWI offenders.

Programs need to be evaluated to determine which are the most effective in reducing recidivism and promoting healthy behavior. To accomplish this task, participation should be tracked electronically through a centralized system. At present, tracking through the main computer system is restricted to "date released from probation." Although individual in-house programs do monitor attendance, their records are kept separately. To simply these procedures, it is recommended that a centralized, computerized tracking system be implemented for all program referrals.

It is also recommended that consequences be imposed not only on multiple or DWI offenders, but also on first and second offenders, including those referred for alcohol violations. This supports a recommendation by the Children, Youth, and Families Department (1995: 3) to:

"Hold kids accountable for their actions when they first get in trouble. Our system must respond effectively to kids who are in trouble for the first time as well as the 2.7% of kids who are serious or chronic offenders committed to our facilities."

By addressing substance abuse offenders when they first enter the system, the AJPPO has an opportunity to effectively intervene with a problem that could lead to serious addiction. The progression from use to dependency, which may occur within one to three years for youth, occurs more rapidly in adolescents than it does in adults. Adolescents, however, also have the capacity to move through the stages of recovery more rapidly. As Acoca (1995:1,5) points out, the juvenile justice system can play a key role:

"Given their special role, juvenile and family court judges have the capacity to successfully intervene with substance dependent youth through the appropriate use of community resources."

This " capacity for intervention" must also include the juvenile probation and parole officers who conduct the preliminary inquiries and monitor the cases. The fact that most substance abuse cases are handled informally by the AJPPO makes it imperative that appropriate interventions be applied at this level.

To reduce underage DWI, it is critical that substance abuse be addressed among alcohol and drug offenders, as well, for as this study has shown, a close relationship exists among these three offenses. In fact, 26% of the DWI arrests included at least one additional substance abuse offense, alcohol being the most common violation. In addition, nearly 35% of the DWI offenders had a prior alcohol (16.1%) or drug (18.6%) referral.

In short, to reduce juvenile substance abuse offenses, including DWI, this study makes the following seven recommendations:

1. Enforce underage drinking laws.
2. Treat alcohol offenders seriously and impose appropriate sanctions.
3. Screen all substance abuse offenders, including first offenders, for substance abuse and psychosocial problems.
4. Refer substance abuse offenders to counseling, educational or other programs that address the problems revealed in the screening.
5. Use programs that are sensitive to gender, ethnicity, and family issues, including the special needs of single parent households.
6. Track program participation and sentence compliance through a centralized computer system and impose consequences for failure to comply.
7. Conduct recidivism studies to evaluate program effectiveness and use the results to design new programs or to improve existing ones, as needed.