Patterns of incarceration among youth after detention: A 16-year longitudinal study

Harrison, Anna J.; Jakubowski, Jessica A.; Abram, Karen M.; Teplin, Linda A.; Welty, Leah J.

doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104516

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in their analysis of the impact of the Scottish youth justice system, McAra and McVie (2007) found that recidivism rates were highest for youth drawn furthest into the criminal justice system, even when controlling for various risk factors (McAra and McVie, 2007). These findings are in line with various ethnographic studies that have demonstrated how diversion can contribute to decreasing the future odds of custody and its harmful effects, and protect delinquent youth from a system of continuous coercive supervision (Fagan and Kupchik, 2011; Harrison et al, 2020; Paik, 2011; Travers, 2012).…”

Section: Prior Research On the Effects Of Community Sanctionssupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Yet, ethnographic studies in youth justice have emphasized how any diversion from criminal justice system processing could significantly contribute to decreasing the future odds of custody and its harmful effects as mentioned before (Fagan and Kupchik, 2011; Harrison et al, 2020; Travers, 2012). Additionally, diversion could (temporarily) protect delinquent youth from enrolment in (and the possible harmful effects of) a system of continuous community supervision as a coercive measure of control (Paik, 2011).…”

Section: Prior Research On the Effects Of Community Sanctionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Community sanctions in youth justice compared to other youth crime responses: A meta-analysis

Koops-Geuze

Weerman

2021

European Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This meta-analysis examines the official recidivism effects of two types of community sanctions in youth justice, namely community service and behavioural intervention programmes. Two analyses were conducted: a comparison between the effects of community sanctions and custodial sanctions, versus a comparison between the effects of community sanctions and dismissals. Following a systematic literature search, data extraction and analysis, mean effect sizes were calculated utilizing (log) odds ratio as the main effect measure. To explore heterogeneity, a meta-regression was conducted with four moderator variables: methodological rigour, referral stage, main focus of sanction and sample risk level. The hypotheses were that recidivism would be significantly lower for delinquent youth subject to community sanctions compared with those subject to custodial sanctions, but that differences in recidivism between delinquent youth subject to community sanctions versus dismissals would be insignificant. In total, 23 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion ( Ncust = 7, Ndism = 16). Final results were in favour of the hypotheses, namely, significantly lower recidivism rates for community sanctions compared with custodial sanctions, and no significant differences for community sanctions compared with dismissals. For both comparisons, the 95% confidence interval indicated the effects varied from just below zero to substantially in favour of community sanctions. Finally, moderator analysis revealed that studies of lower methodological quality and mixed referral stages were more likely to report larger effect sizes.

show abstract

Section: Prior Research On the Effects Of Community Sanctionssupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Prior Research On the Effects Of Community Sanctionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community sanctions in youth justice compared to other youth crime responses: A meta-analysis

Koops-Geuze

Weerman

2021

European Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The clinical significance and predictive validity of extracted subgroups were assessed by comparing later adaptive functioning assessed at age 21 years, including high‐school completion, mental health symptoms, substance use disorder, and involvement in the criminal justice system. Interactions between the identified subgroups and sex/gender were explored due to well‐known sex/gender differences, especially in drug use (Becker et al, 2016), mental health (Else‐Quest et al, 2006; Salk et al, 2017), and incarceration (Harrison et al, 2020). We hypothesized that heterogeneous subgroups would be identified as distinct subgroups in urban adolescents; and a more problematic subgroup (e.g., low individual assets with substance use) would be related to poorer adjustment at age 21 years, indexed by lower high‐school completion, poorer mental health, more substance use disorder, or greater incarceration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Substance use and individual assets in urban adolescents: Subgroups and correlates in emerging adulthood

Min

Kim

Minnes

et al. 2022

Journal of Adolescence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction To investigate patterns of divergence in adolescent adjustment, this study examined the co‐occurring patterns of adolescents' individual assets (e.g., school engagement, values) and substance use, and whether the co‐occurring patterns were associated with later functioning in emerging adulthood. Methods Participants were 358 (54% females), predominantly African American, urban adolescents, recruited at birth for a prospective study on the effects of prenatal substance exposure in the Midwest United States. Individual assets, using the Developmental Assets Profile, substance use (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana), via biologic assays and self‐report, and substance use‐related problems were assessed at age 15 years. High‐school completion, substance use disorder, mental health symptoms, and legal problems were assessed at age 21 years. Results Latent class analysis identified five classes as follows: high assets with low substance use (C1, 10.2%); moderate assets with low substance use (C2, 28.7%); low assets with low substance use (C3, 32%); moderate assets with high substance use (C4, 9.4%); and low assets with high substance use (C5, 19.2%). Despite similar levels of assets, adolescents in C5 reported more life adversities (suboptimal caregiving environment, daily hassles, non‐birth parents' care) than those in C3. C4 and C5 reported more substance use disorder at age 21 years than the three low substance use classes; adolescents in C5 were less likely to complete high school than those in C2. More females in C5 reported greater mental health symptoms than those in C1 and C3, and criminal justice involvement than those in C1. Conclusions The current findings underscore the significance of substance use in adolescence in disrupting healthy transition to adulthood, especially among females in the context of low individual assets.

show abstract

“…Juvenile justice (JJ) involved youth present with a complexity of psychosocial needs (Abram et al, 2015; Harrison et al, 2020), often rooted in ecological conditions and social determinants of health (SDOH; Bernburg et al, 2006; Wylie & Rufino, 2018). SDOH are specific conditions in environments that affect quality of life outcomes, assuming that socioeconomic conditions (e.g., poverty, safe neighborhoods, food access) affect how people are able to take care of themselves (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SDOH are specific conditions in environments that affect quality of life outcomes, assuming that socioeconomic conditions (e.g., poverty, safe neighborhoods, food access) affect how people are able to take care of themselves (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019). In addition to such SDOH problems, JJ youth are frequently involved in many systems of care, such as the child welfare system (Lee, 2016) and behavioral health systems (Harrison et al, 2020). Understanding the interaction of ecological factors and potential multisystem involvement requires a theoretical approach to guide practitioners through the complexity of needs, and Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) Ecological Systems Theory (EST) has high utility in this regard.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting ecological systems theory: Practice implications for juvenile justice youth.

Snyder¹,

Duchschere²

2022

Translational Issues in Psychological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Youth involved in the juvenile justice system face a multitude of challenges and have many psychosocial needs that span across different contexts and service systems. Practitioners working within the juvenile justice population may thus struggle to determine how to navigate such needs and provide effective care. This article describes how the application of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory may be particularly useful to elucidate therapeutic considerations to working with juvenile justice involved youth. We provide descriptions of each subsystem within Bronfenbrenner’s model and how they relate to the unique needs of justice-involved youth, provide a case example to illustrate relevant interventions within each subsystem that focuses on existing setting strengths, and end with practitioner recommendations to address psychological well-being with the juvenile justice population.

show abstract

Patterns of incarceration among youth after detention: A 16-year longitudinal study

Cited by 5 publications

References 76 publications

Community sanctions in youth justice compared to other youth crime responses: A meta-analysis

Community sanctions in youth justice compared to other youth crime responses: A meta-analysis

Substance use and individual assets in urban adolescents: Subgroups and correlates in emerging adulthood

Revisiting ecological systems theory: Practice implications for juvenile justice youth.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About