Purpose We examine two research questions. First, does a history of child maltreatment victimization significantly increase the likelihood of maltreatment perpetration during adulthood? Second, do safe, stable, and nurturing relationships (SSNRs) during early adulthood serve as direct protective factors, buffering protective factors, or both to interrupt intergenerational continuity in maltreating behaviors? Methods Data come from the Rochester Youth Development Study that followed a community sample from age 14 to 31 with 14 assessments. Maltreatment victimization records covering birth through 17 were collected from Child Protective Services records as were maltreatment perpetration records from age 21 to 30. Data on five SSNRs were measured during three interviews from age 21 to 23. Results There is a significant relationship between maltreatment victimization and maltreatment perpetration (OR = 2.57; 95% CI = 1.47, 4.50). Three of the five SSNRs investigated—relationship satisfaction, parental satisfaction, and attachment to child—served as direct protective factors, significantly reducing risk for those who had been maltreated. However, none of the interaction terms—between maltreatment victimization and the SSNR—were statistically significant, indicating that the SSNRs did not serve as buffering protective factors Conclusions Although a history of maltreatment significantly increases the risk of subsequent perpetration of maltreatment, enhancing safe, stable, and nurturing relationships with intimate partners and with children during early adulthood can decrease the odds that a victim of maltreatment will become a perpetrator. Mandated reporters and service providers should be aware of the risk posed by earlier maltreatment and be prepared to ameliorate that risk, in part by strengthening supportive social relationships.

We investigate adolescent risk factors, measured at both early and late adolescence, for involvement in child maltreatment during adulthood. Comprehensive assessments of risk factors for maltreatment that use representative samples with longitudinal data are scarce and can inform multilevel prevention. We use data from the Rochester Youth Development Study, a longitudinal study begun in 1988 with a sample of 1,000 seventh and eighth graders. Participants have been interviewed 14 times and, at the last assessment (age 31), 80% were retained. Risk factors represent 10 developmental domains: area characteristics, family background/structure, parent stressors, exposure to family violence, parent-child relationships, education, peer relationships, adolescent stressors, antisocial behaviors, and precocious transitions to adulthood. Maltreatment is measured by substantiated reports from Child Protective Services records. Many individual risk factors (20 at early adolescence and 14 at later adolescence) are significantly, albeit moderately, predictive of maltreatment. Several developmental domains stand out, including family background/structure, education, antisocial behaviors, and precocious transitions. In addition, there is a pronounced impact of cumulative risk on the likelihood of maltreatment. For example, only 3% of the youth with no risk domains in their background at early adolescence were involved in later maltreatment, but for those with risk in 9 developmental domains the rate was 45%. Prevention programs targeting youth at high risk for engaging in maltreatment should begin during early adolescence when risk factors are already at play. These programs need to be comprehensive, capable of addressing the multiple and interwoven nature of risk that is associated with maltreatment.

No abstract

Age is the only factor used to demarcate the boundary between juvenile and adult justice. However, little research has examined how age guides the juvenile court in determining which youth within the juvenile justice system merit particular dispositions, especially those that reflect the court's emphasis on rehabilitation. Drawing on scholarship on the court's origins, attribution theory, and cognitive heuristics, we hypothesize that the court focuses on youth in the middle of the range of the court's age of jurisdiction-characterized in this article as "true" juveniles-who may be viewed as meriting more specialized intervention. We use data from Florida for court referrals in 2008 (N = 71,388) to examine the decision to proceed formally or informally and, in turn, to examine formally processed youth dispositions (dismissal, diversion, probation, commitment, and transfer) and informally processed youth dispositions (dismissal, diversion, and probation). The analyses provide partial support for the hypothesis. The very young were more likely to be informally processed; however, among the informally processed youth, the youngest, not "true" juveniles, were most likely to be diverted or placed on probation. By contrast, among formally processed youth, "true" juveniles were most likely to receive traditional juvenile court responses, such as diversion or probation.The origins of the juvenile court derive from a conceptualization of juveniles as different than adults. To the court founders, for example, youth were viewed as less culpable than adults and more responsive to rehabilitation (Bernard and Kurlychek, 2010;Feld, 1999). They were considered to be more deserving of society's benign intervention. The guiding philosophy of the juvenile court, captured in the philosophy of parens patriae, emphasized the notion that the juvenile court should act much as a caring parent would, intervening where appropriate with a firm hand (Mears, 2012). Punishment featured prominently in this vision, but accountability and rehabilitation were, if anything, more central (

Background Previous literature has found continuity for intimate partner violence, but little research has explored continuity between dating violence and adult IPV or whether protective factors may attenuate this relationship. Aims This research hypothesized a positive relationship between dating violence in early adulthood and later adulthood IPV and that support and attachment would provide buffering and direct protection for this relationship. Methods Data from the Rochester Youth Development Study were used to explore these questions through negative binomial regression. Results Dating violence was statistically significantly related to an increase of adult IPV. Family support, parental reports of attachment to the subject, peer support, and parenting-related social support all were protective factors that provided a direct effect for those respondents perpetrating dating violence. None of the protective factors provided buffering protection between dating violence and adult IPV. Conclusions Results confirm significant continuity between dating violence and IPV and that support from peers and family, parenting-related support, parental reports of attachment, protect an individual from continuing to engage in intimate partner violence throughout adulthood. Bolstering these supportive relationships may help provide points of intervention to interrupt the link between early dating violence and later adulthood IPV.