Male Versus Female Substance Abuse Patterns Among Incarcerated Juvenile Offenders: Comparing Strain and Social Learning Variables

Abstract

The present study explores gender differences in substance use among a juvenile correctional population. Hypotheses derived from general strain theory and differential association/social learning theory are evaluated in order to examine the relative importance of family transitions, family dysfunctions, victimization, and peer substance use. The data include information on approximately 5,000 incarcerated juveniles (89 percent males, 11 percent females). Comparisons across gender indicate similarity with respect to alcohol and marijuana, but earlier age of onset and greater current use among females for most other substances. Regression analyses reveal similarity across genders in the preeminence of peer substance use as a predictor, but mixed results with respect to the influence of family factors and victimization. Findings are consistent with the tenets of differential association/social learning theory on the whole, but also indicate potential differences in sources of strain for males and females with respect to age of onset of alcohol/marijuana use.

Keywords:

• male
• female
• substance abuse
• patterns
• juvenile offenders
• strain
• social learning

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, March 9–13, 2004. The authors would like to thank the University of Richmond for providing funding to support this research and the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice for its cooperation in the collection and analysis of the data. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor of this journal for their very helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Notes

1. This survey was formerly known as the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA).

2. Because of the large number of males in the population, the .05 significance level is rather meaningless, even though we do report it in the tables.

3. Based upon research indicating that alcohol/marijuana use may serve as a “gateway” to the use of other illicit substances (Hays & Ellickson, 1996; Yu & Williford, 1992), current frequency of hard‐drug use was regressed on a full model that included the other three substance use indices as well as the rest of the independent variables (table not included). Not surprisingly, including the other drug indices increased the explanatory power of the regression equations considerably for both males (R ² = .37) and females (R ² = .41), while simultaneously reducing the explanatory power of some of the remaining independent variables. Among the males, only drinking at home remained a significant predictor of current hard‐drug use (p < .01) and among the females, none of the original independent variables remained as a significant predictor of current hard‐drug use.

4. Our measure of gang involvement was very conservative in that we required youth to be identified as participating in gangs in two separate sections of the client profile. Only 3.5 percent of our female sample, or 20 girls, were identified as being involved in gangs using this particular measure. We are reluctant to draw any firm conclusions about the relationship between gang involvement and substance use among females based upon such a small number of gang‐involved females.