Have Questions?
1-877-882-9275
We Have Answers!

Don't Know What To Do?

Call Now to speak with a Certified Treatment Assesment Counselor who will guide you every step of the way.
This is a free service • 100% Confidential
1-877-882-9275

Treatment Help Request

Contact us now to get immediate help: 1-877-882-9275

The Impact of Drugs and Families

  1. "In 1999 State and Federal prisons held an estimated 721,500 parents of minor children. A majority of State (55%) and Federal (63%) prisoners reported having a child under the age of 18. Forty-six percent of the parents reported living with their children prior to admission. As a result, there were an estimated 336,300 US households with minor children affected by the imprisonment of a resident parent."

    Source: Mumola, Christopher J., US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, Incarcerated Parents and Their Children (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, August 2000), p. 1.

  2. The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that 2.8% of all children under age 18 have at least one parent in a local jail or a State or Federal prison a total of 1,941,796 kids. One in 40 have an incarcerated father, and 1 in 359 have an incarcerated mother.

    Source: Greenfield, Lawrence A., and Snell, Tracy L., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Women Offenders (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 1999), p. 8, Table 18.

  3. "A majority of parents in both State (62%) and Federal (84%) prison were held more than 100 miles from their last place of residence."

    Source: Mumola, Christopher J., US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, Incarcerated Parents and Their Children (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, August 2000), p. 5.

  4. "Black children (7.0%) were nearly 9 times more likely to have a parent in prison than white children (0.8%). Hispanic children (2.6%) were 3 times as likely as white children to have an inmate parent."

    Source: Mumola, Christopher J., US Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, Incarcerated Parents and Their Children (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, August 2000), p. 2.

  5. Approximately 516,200 women on probation (72% of the total), 44,700 women in local jails (70% of the total), 49,200 women in State prisons (65% of the total), and 5,400 women in Federal prisons (59% of the total) have minor children.

    Source: Greenfield, Lawrence A., and Snell, Tracy L., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Women Offenders (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 1999), p. 7, Table 17.

  6. "The number of offenders under age 18 admitted to prison for drug offenses increased twelvefold (from 70 to 840) between 1985 to 1997. By 1997 drug offenders made up 11% of admissions among persons under 18 compared to 2% in 1985."

    Source: Strom, Kevin J., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Profile of State Prisoners Under Age 18, 1985-1997 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, February 2000), p. 4.

  7. "Fifty-eight percent of offenders admitted under 18 in 1997 were black and 25% were white, representing a gradual change from 1990, when blacks comprised 61% of admissions and whites 21% (table 6). The racial characteristics of persons admitted under 18 had shifted more dramatically between 1985 and 1990. During this period the percentage of black admissions increased from 53% to 62%, and the percentage of whites fell from 32% to 21%. Hispanic admissions, as a proportion of all persons under age 18 entering State prison, have remained stable from 1985 to 1997."

    Source: Strom, Kevin J., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Profile of State Prisoners Under Age 18, 1985-1997 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, February 2000), p. 6.

  8. Despite the fact that federal spending on the drug war increased from $1.65 billion in 1982 to $17.7 billion in 1999, more than half of the students in the United States in 1999 tried an illegal drug before they graduated from high school. Additionally, 65% have tried cigarettes by 12th grade and 35% are current smokers, and 62% of twelfth graders and 25% of 8th graders in 1999 report having been drunk at least once.

    Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy: Budget Summary (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1992), pp. 212-214; Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy: 2000 Annual Report (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2000), p. 97, Table 4-2; Johnston, L., Bachman, J. & OMalley, P., Monitoring the Future: National Results on Adolescent Drug Use Overview of Key Findings 1999, (Washington, DC: NIDA, 2000), pp. 3-6.

  9. Researchers for the federal government used data from the 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse to examine adolescent drug use. They found that "Within the community domain, higher levels of neighborhood cohesiveness were significantly associated with lower odds of past year marijuana use for whites (OR = 0.72) and blacks (OR = 0.81), but not for Hispanics or youths in the "other" category (Table 3.7). Exposure to prevention messages in the media was significantly associated with lower odds of past year marijuana use for whites (OR = 0.68) and Hispanics (OR = 0.63), but not for blacks or youths in the "other" category."

    Source:  Wright, Douglas & Michael Pemberton, "Risk and Protective Factors for Adolescent Drug Use: Findings from the 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse," DHHS Publication No. SMA 04-3874, Analytic Series A-19 (Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, January 2004), p. 60.

  10. Researchers for the federal government used data from the 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse to examine adolescent drug use. They found that "Within the family domain, higher levels of parental communication about substances were significantly associated with lower odds of past year marijuana use among Hispanic youths (OR = 0.67), but not among youths of other racial/ethnic groups (Table 3.8). Within the peer/individual domain, participation in two or more extracurricular activities was significantly associated with lower odds of past year marijuana use among whites (OR = 0.45), blacks (OR = 0.64), and Hispanics (OR = 0.70), but not for youths in the "other" category (Table 3.9). Within the school domain, strong sanctions against illegal drug use were significantly associated with lower odds of past year marijuana use among whites (OR = 0.48), Hispanics (OR = 0.61), and youths in the "other" category (OR = 0.31), but not for blacks (Table 3.10). Finally, exposure to prevention messages in school was associated with lower odds of past year marijuana use for whites (OR = 0.60) and Hispanics (OR = 0.55), but not for blacks or youths in the "other" category."

    Source:  Wright, Douglas & Michael Pemberton, "Risk and Protective Factors for Adolescent Drug Use: Findings from the 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse," DHHS Publication No. SMA 04-3874, Analytic Series A-19 (Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, January 2004), p. 60.

  11. The Federal drug control budget request for FY 2001 includes $8.2 Billion for the Justice Department, $1.03 Billion for the Defense Department, and only $750 Million for the Education Department.

    Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy: 2000 Annual Report (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2000), p. 94, Table 4-1.

  12. A federal report by the U.S. Center on Substance Abuse Prevention noted that "adolescence is a period in which youth reject conventionality and traditional authority figures in an effort to establish their own independence. For a significant number of adolescents, this rejection consists of engaging in a number of 'risky' behaviors, including drug and alcohol use. Within the past few years, researchers and practitioners have begun to focus on this tendency, suggesting that drug use may be a 'default' activity engaged in when youth have few or no opportunities to assert their independence in a constructive manner."

    Source: Maria Carmona and Kathryn Stewart, A Review of Alternative Activities and Alternatives Programs in Youth-Oriented Prevention (National Center for the Advancement of Prevention, under contract for the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, 1996), p. 5.

  13. A federal report by the U.S. Center on Substance Abuse Prevention stated that "alternative programming appears to be most effective among those youth at greatest risk for substance abuse and related problems." According to the report, alternatives are defined as, "those that provide targeted populations with activities that are free of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs."

    Source: Source: Maria Carmona and Kathryn Stewart, "A Review of Alternative Activities and Alternatives Programs in Youth-Oriented Prevention," National Center for the Advancement of Prevention, under contract for the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, CSAP Technical Report 13, 1996, pp. 3, 20.

  14. Researchers on a grant from NIDA found that school drug testing has no impact on student drug use. According to the researchers, "Does drug testing prevent or inhibit student drug use? Members of the Supreme Court appear to believe it does. However, among the eighth-, 10th-, and 12-grade students surveyed in this study, school drug testing was not associated with either the prevalence or the frequency of student marijuana use, or of other illicit drug use. Nor was drug testing of athletes associated with lower-than-average marijuana and other illicit drug use by high school male athletes. Even among those who identified themselves as fairly experienced marijuana users, drug testing also was not associated with either the prevalence or the frequency of marijuana or other illicit drug use."

    Source:  Yamaguchi, Ryoko, Lloyd D. Johnston & Patrick M. O'Malley, Relationship Between Student Illicit Drug Use and School Drug-Testing Policies," Journal of School Health, April 2003, Vol. 73, No. 4, p. 164.

  15. According to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, "Drug testing of students is more prevalent in schools where drugs are used, kept or sold than in schools that are drug free. While only 23 percent of drug-free schools drug test students, 38 percent of non-drug-free schools conduct some type of drug testing.
    "Drug testing is not associated with either significantly lower risk scores or lower estimates of student body drug use. The average risk score of teens attending a school that is not drug free but has drug testing is 1.69; the average risk score of students at non-drug-free schools without drug testing is 1.50. The estimate of students using illegal drugs averages 40 percent for non-drug-free schools with testing and 34 percent at non-drug-free schools without testing."

    Source:  QEV Analytics, "National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse VIII: Teens and Parents" (New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, August 2003), pp. 20-21.

  16. Researchers examining the effectiveness of ONDCP's anti-drug media campaign reported in late 2003 that, "The NSPY [National Survey of Parents and Youth] did not find significant reductions in marijuana use either leading up to or after the Marijuana campaign for youth 12 to 18 years old between 2002 and 2003. Indeed there was evidence for an increase in past month and past year use among the target audience of 14- to 16-year-olds, although it appears that the increase was already in place in the last half of 2002, before the launch of the Marijuana Initiative. It will be worthwhile to track whether the nonsignificant decline from the second half of 2002 through the first half of 2003 is the beginning of a true trend. There was a significant decrease in lifetime marijuana use among youth 16 to 18 years of age from 2002 to 2003; however, since this significant decrease was not replicated in either the directly relevant past year or past month time periods, it is difficult to ascribe the change to the campaign."

    Source:  Hornik, Robert, David Maklan, Diane Cadell, Carlin Henry Barmada, Lela Jacobsohn, Vani R. Henderson, Anca Romantan, Jeffrey Niederdeppe, Robert Orwin, Sanjeev Sridharan, Adam Chu, Carol Morin, Kristie Taylor, Diane Steele, "Evaluation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: 2003 Report of Findings," Delivered to National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services By Westat & the Annenberg School for Communication, Contract No. N01DA-8-5063, December 22, 2003, p. 4-15.

  17. In its evaluation of ONDCP's Antidrug Media Campaign, researchers from Westat and the Annenberg School of Communication in 2003 concluded: "In sum, the analysis of the NSPY data does not support a claim that use among the target audience of 14- to 16-year-olds has declined with the initiation of the Marijuana Initiative. Contrarily, it appears to have increased in the past year compared to prior measurement, although the increase appears to have occurred before the start of the Marijuana Initiative and was only maintained during the first half of 2003. The MTF [Monitoring the Future] data does show declines, particularly for 8th and 10th graders. However, these declines cannot be confidently attributed to the operation of the Campaign."

    Source:  Hornik, Robert, David Maklan, Diane Cadell, Carlin Henry Barmada, Lela Jacobsohn, Vani R. Henderson, Anca Romantan, Jeffrey Niederdeppe, Robert Orwin, Sanjeev Sridharan, Adam Chu, Carol Morin, Kristie Taylor, Diane Steele, "Evaluation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: 2003 Report of Findings," Delivered to National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services By Westat & the Annenberg School for Communication, Contract No. N01DA-8-5063, December 22, 2003, p. 4-15.

  18. In its evaluation of ONDCP's Antidrug Media Campaign, researchers from Westat and the Annenberg School of Communication in 2003 concluded: "In the previous reports, based on both favorable trends over time and cross-sectional associations, there was evidence supportive of Campaign effects on talking with children; on beliefs and attitudes regarding monitoring of children; and, in the case of the cross-sectional associations, on doing fun activities with them. These results still hold when Wave 7 parent reports are added, although youth reports of monitoring and talking behaviors are not consistent with parent reports and thus call into question the favorable changes in behavior that may be associated with the Campaign."

    Source:  Hornik, Robert, David Maklan, Diane Cadell, Carlin Henry Barmada, Lela Jacobsohn, Vani R. Henderson, Anca Romantan, Jeffrey Niederdeppe, Robert Orwin, Sanjeev Sridharan, Adam Chu, Carol Morin, Kristie Taylor, Diane Steele, "Evaluation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: 2003 Report of Findings," Delivered to National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services By Westat & the Annenberg School for Communication, Contract No. N01DA-8-5063, December 22, 2003, p. 6-1.

  19. Federal research shows that the ONDCPs anti-drug media campaign is ineffective. According to NIDAs 1998 Household Survey, "exposure to prevention messages outside school, such as through the media, was fairly widespread but appeared to be unrelated to illicit drug use or being drunk". NIDA goes on to report, "Nearly 80% of youths who used illicit drugs and more than three-fourths of youths who were drunk on 51 or more days in the past year reported being exposed to prevention messages outside school."

    Source: Office of Applied Studies, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings 1998 (Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, US Department of Health and Human Services, March 2000), p. 174.

  20. "Our results are consistent in documenting the absence of beneficial effects associated with the DARE program. This was true whether the outcome consisted of actual drug use or merely attitudes toward drug use. In addition, we examined processes that are the focus of intervention and purportedly mediate the impact of DARE (e.g., self-esteem and peer resistance), and these also failed to differentiate DARE participants from nonparticipants. Thus, consistent with the earlier Clayton et al. (1996) study, there appear to be no reliable short-term, long-term, early adolescent, or young adult positive outcomes associated with receiving the DARE intervention."

    Source: Lynam, Donald R., Milich, Richard, et al., "Project DARE: No Effects at 10-Year Follow-Up", Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, August 1999), Vol. 67, No. 4, 590-593.

  21. Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) in the US operate under a "One Strike" policy regarding drug use that is so over-reaching that even drug use by a guest can be grounds for eviction. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, "The 1998 amendments of the 1996 Extension Act provisions on ineligibility of illegal drug users and alcohol abusers confirm that a PHA or owner may deny admission or terminate assistance for the whole household that includes a person involved in the proscribed activity. With respect to a PHA or owner's discretion to consider rehabilitation for a household member with the offending substance abuse problem, the rule would permit a PHA or owner to hold the whole household responsible for that members successful rehabilitation as a condition for continued occupancy and avoidance of eviction."

    Source: Federal Record, Vol. 64, No. 141, Friday, July 23, 1999, p. 40266; see also Community Safety and Conservation Division, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, "One Strike and You're Out," from the web at http://www.hud.gov/pih/programs/ph/de/programs/onestr.html last accessed Nov. 7, 2000.

  22. Research assessing the impact of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) found that the termination of addiction disability payments has had a negative effect. According to the study, "A qualitative analysis, featuring in-depth interviews with 101, nonrandomly selected former recipients revealed that disability benefits promoted housing autonomy, successful cohabitation, and overall housing stability. The termination of benefits, at a time of diminishing social services (e.g., cash and housing assistance) and a housing market explosion, increased various types of homelessness for respondents and dependency on family and friends. Such negative living outcomes, in turn, further escalated the risk of drug and alcohol use, criminal participation, and victimization."

    Source:  Anderson, Tammy L., Caitlin Shannon, Igor Schyb, and Paul Goldstein, "Welfare Reform and Housing: Assessing the Impact to Substance Abusers," Journal of Drug Issues (Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, Winter 2002), Vol. 32, No. 1, p. 265.

  23. Research assessing the impact of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) found that the termination of addiction disability payments has had a negative effect. According to the study, "First, PRWORA of 1996 has destabilized the housing situations of the respondents and has placed them at greater risk for various types of housing problems and homelessness. Second, these housing complications have exacerbated numerous social problems (drug and alcohol abuse, crime, and victimization). It is important to consider, however, that changes in the housing market, decreased housing subsidies, and individual characteristics and behaviors also played a role in these negative outcomes. "More specifically, we found considerable housing dependency, at some level, for all respondents, albeit most often among those who currently had no SSI benefits. Problematic dependence on family, friends, and significant others (doubling up or sharing housing with other adults) was most common, followed by dependence on state-funded program. Independent living (e.g., having one's own place and paying one's own rent), which we would hope for most by middle-age, was an uncommon occurrence."

    Source:  Anderson, Tammy L., Caitlin Shannon, Igor Schyb, and Paul Goldstein, "Welfare Reform and Housing: Assessing the Impact to Substance Abusers," Journal of Drug Issues (Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, Winter 2002), Vol. 32, No. 1, p. 289.

  24. Research assessing the impact of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) found that the termination of addiction disability payments has had a negative effect. According to the study, "While the aim of SSI addiction disability termination was, for conservatives, to force individuals to take greater responsibility in their lives and to decrease dependence on governmentally funded programs, this goal appears nearly impossible to achieve given the lack of resources had by this under-skilled and poor population. Nor did the policy change necessarily decrease their risk of continued involvement in drugs and crime. We estimate that losing a stable housing situation has placed respondents at greater risk for continued drug and alcohol use, something not considered by extant etiological work on individual substance abuse. These consequences could mean a greater dependence of this population on state and federally funded programs."

    Source:  Anderson, Tammy L., Caitlin Shannon, Igor Schyb, and Paul Goldstein, "Welfare Reform and Housing: Assessing the Impact to Substance Abusers," Journal of Drug Issues (Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, Winter 2002), Vol. 32, No. 1, p. 290.

  25. "Research and clinical experience teach that when, as here, the personal risks of seeking medical care are raised to intolerably high levels, it is more likely that prenatal care and patient candor - and not drug use - will be what is deterred, often with tragic health consequences."

    Source: American Public Health Association, along with South Carolina Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Nurses Association, et al., Amicus Curiae brief in support of plaintiff in case of Ferguson v. City of Charleston, et al., Docket Number 99-0936, from the web at http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/99-936/99-936fo4/brief/brief01.html last accessed Nov. 7, 2000.

  26. A case recently argued before the US Supreme Court (Ferguson, Crystal v. City of Charleston, et al.) involves the rights of mothers to seek medical care during pregnancy without fear of prosecution for a positive urine drug test. The Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University reports that "because a live fetus was a 'person' under South Carolina law, a woman who used cocaine after the 24th week of pregnancy could be found guilty of the crime of distributing an illegal substance to a person under the age of 18."

    Source: Northwestern University, On The Docket (Evanston, IL: Medill School of Journalism), from the web at http://www.medill.nwu.edu/docket/cases.srch?-database=docket&-layout=lasso&- response=%2fdocket%2fdetail.srch&-recID=32842&-search last accessed Nov. 7, 2000.

  27. Regardless of similar or equal levels of illicit drug use during pregnancy, black women are 10 times more likely than white women to be reported to child welfare agencies for prenatal drug use.

    Source: Neuspiel, D.R., "Racism and Perinatal Addiction," Ethnicity and Disease, 6: 47-55 (1996); Chasnoff, I.J., Landress, H.J., & Barrett, M.E., "The Prevalence of Illicit-Drug or Alcohol Use during Pregnancy and Discrepancies in Mandatory Reporting in Pinellas County, Florida," New England Journal of Medicine, 322: 1202-1206 (1990).

Find Top Treatment Facilities Near You

  • Detoxification
  • Inpatient / Residential
  • Private / Executive
  • Therapeutic Counseling
  • Effective Results
Call Us Today!

1-877-882-9275

Speak with a Certified Treatment Assesment Counselor who can go over all your treatment options and help you find the right treatment program that fits your needs.

drug-rehabs.org

1-877-882-9275

Discuss Treatment Options!

Our Counselors are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to discuss your treatment needs and help you find the right treatment solution.

Call Us Today!

drug-rehabs.org

1-877-882-9275