[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-424190-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-424190-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","juvenile-drug-crimes-drive-35-increase-in-detention-rates-from-1988-to-1997","Juvenile Drug Crimes Drive 35% Increase In Detention Rates From 1988 To 1997","","Juvenile drug-related crimes drove a 35% rise in detention rates between 1988 and 1997, with the largest change occurring among female juveniles. A major increase in detention for person offenses and a sharp rise for girls were reported, alongside notable growth in Black youth involvement in crimes against people. The coverage details how detention patterns remained steady outside drug offenses and how Proposition 36 shifted nonviolent drug cases toward treatment.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/","Healthcare",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/juvenile-drug-crimes-drive-35-increase-in-detention-rates-from-1988-to-1997/424190/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/juvenile-drug-crimes-drive-35-increase-in-detention-rates-from-1988-to-1997/424190.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"A glass of water","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-28",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",10,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"How much did juvenile detention rates increase from 1988 to 1997?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Juvenile drug crimes drove a 35% increase in detention rates from 1988 to 1997, according to the reported figures.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What change was most surprising in the detention population?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The biggest and most surprising change was a large increase in the number of female juveniles held in detention, especially for person offenses.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What does Proposition 36 require for nonviolent drug cases?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Proposition 36 requires treatment instead of jail for nonviolent drug offenders and directs the state to provide monthly funding for this shift.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},424190,1790925208,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,110,115,120,123,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":125},"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":107,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":116,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},962090760832,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","November 24,2000Vol.31,No.46  \nIN THIS ISSUE  \nCalifornia Will Adopt NewJuvenile Standards………2Michigan's Center For HighestRisk Youths Makes Gains...2New Penalties Are ExpectedTo Increase Jail Population..3Texas Surpasses CaliforniaFor Women's Detention……3States With 10 LargestFemale Inmate Populations..3Girls'Delinquency Rises 83%In 1990s,OJJDP Reports……3Detention Resource AnalyzesCrowding In Youth Units ..…4OJJDP Offers Jobs Guide..4Geriatric Health Care DemandGrows Rapidly In Utah……4  \nIN THE COURTS  \n4th Circuit Okays SurpriseDrug Testing Of Officers..4Federal Jury Upholds PrisonBan On Racist Literature……5  \nACROSS THE STATES  \nArk.,Calif.,Del.……………5  \nI.,La.,Md.,N.M…………6Nev.,Tenn.,Tex.,Wash....7  \nDEATH ROW  \nDelaware……  ……………7  \nFUNDING  \nDomestic Violence……………8Two Grants For Study………8  \n# CorrectionSpIGEST\n\nThe only independent news service for the corrections professional  \n# Juvenile Drug Crimes Drive 35%IncreaseIn Detention Rates From 1988 To 1997\n\nJuvenile drug crimes more than youths assigned to detention rose at  \ndoubled in the 1990s and acted as a slower rate of 51 percent.the driving force behind a 35 per-The biggest change was amongcent increase in the number of  female juveniles,OJJDP said.Girlsyouths held in detention.detained for person offenses soaredThe most surprising change,155 percent.however,was the large increase inInf:OJJDP,Detention in Delinquencythe number of girls held for violent(FS-200017),800-638-8736.crimes.Blacks committing crimesagainst people also rose sharply.  \n## CALIFORNIA TREATMENTCENTERS AREN'T READY\n\nGov.Gray Davis and AttorneyGeneral Bill Lockyer pledged towork with the new law that requirestreatment for nonviolent drug abus-ers instead ofjail  \nBut they contend Californiafaces difficult problems in settingup treatment facilities for about  \n36,000 drug abusers by July I in asystem that already has long waitinglists for those seeking treatment.  \nAs an example,they point toSan Francisco that began a treat-ment program five years ago andstill can't handle the caseload.  \n\n| Juveniles In Detention Due To Drugs   |  |\n| --- | --- |\n| Case Type  \u003Cbr>Detained  \u003Cbr>All Cases   1   |  |\n| Percent Change 1988 t01997   |  |\n| 51  \u003Cbr>125  \u003Cbr>All Youth   |  |\n| 52  \u003Cbr>124  \u003Cbr>Male   |  |\n| 44  \u003Cbr>132  \u003Cbr>Female   |  |\n| 144  \u003Cbr>White  \u003Cbr>67   |  |\n| 42  \u003Cbr>93  \u003Cbr>Black   |  |\n| Drug cases for all juveniles in-   |  |\n\nSan Francisco District AttorneyTerence Hallinan estimates his of-fice handles about 8,000 felonydrug arrests each year,most ofwhich he refers to treatment.  \nVoter passage of Proposition 36that requires treatment instead ofjail for nonviolent drug also directsthe state to provide funding of $10million a month.  \nThe Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention saidthe number of juvenile cases rosefrom 1.2 million in 1988 to 1.8 mil-lion in 1997,but the “most dramaticchange in the detention populationwas the influx of female juvenilescharged with person offenses.”  \nThe number in detention for allcrimes matched the growth in juve-nile court cases.  \nExcept for drug offenses,theuse of detention remained constant.  \nThe rise in drug crimes amongjuveniles cut about evenly acrossrace and sex lines.  \ncreased 125 percent during the 10-year period.but the number of  \nAlthough the state will probablyhave to increase funding for drugabuse treatment,state officials saidthe cost would still be lower thanbuilding and operating prisons  \nMimi Silbert,president andCEO of the Delancey Street Foun-dation,San Francisco's largesttreatment provider and the nation'slargest privately funded treatmentprogram,worries California mistak-enly will turn to quick-hit treatmentprograms in its rush.  \nBoth treatment programs andprobation departments now willhave to deal with the sort of chronicdrug addicts who previously wouldhave spent time in a jail or prison.  \nIn Arizona,which three yearsago passed an initiative similar tothe one adopted in California,stateofficials find that one of eve","cbCaic1p1Md69Vps","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaic1p1Md69Vps","pdf",2541728,"English","# CorrectionSpIGEST\n## Juvenile Drug Crimes Drive 35% Increase In Detention Rates From 1988 To 1997\n## California Treatment Centers Aren't Ready\n## California Will Adopt New Youth Standards","[{\"question\":\"How much did juvenile detention rates increase from 1988 to 1997?\",\"answer\":\"Juvenile drug crimes drove a 35% increase in detention rates from 1988 to 1997, according to the reported figures.\"},{\"question\":\"What change was most surprising in the detention population?\",\"answer\":\"The biggest and most surprising change was a large increase in the number of female juveniles held in detention, especially for person offenses.\"},{\"question\":\"What does Proposition 36 require for nonviolent drug cases?\",\"answer\":\"Proposition 36 requires treatment instead of jail for nonviolent drug offenders and directs the state to provide monthly funding for this shift.\"}]","Juvenile Drug Crimes Drive 35% Increase In Detention Rates From 1988 To 1997 | PDF",1790633279,23]