Upload
trannhan
View
215
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Supported bySupported by
� Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention
� National Institute of Justice
� John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
� National Institute on Drug Abuse
� Pennsylvania Commission on Crime & Delinquency
� Arizona Governor’s Justice Commission
� Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
� William Penn Foundation
� William T. Grant Foundation
Reasons for the studyReasons for the study
� Richer information about serious adolescent offenders
� Picture of the desistance process
� Individual maturation
� Life changes
� Systems involvement
� Improved practice and policy in juvenile justice
� Risk assessment
� Targeted interventions and sanctions
Study DesignStudy Design
� Two sites: Philadelphia and Phoenix
� Enroll serious adolescent offenders
� 1,355 felony offenders, aged 14 -18
� Females and adult transfer cases
� Regular interviews over eight years
� Initial interviews
� Time point interviews
� Release interviews
� Other sources of information
� Collateral interviews
� Official records
Sanctions/
Interventions
Antisocial
Behavior
Psychosocial
Development
Mental health
Transition to
adult roles
Social
context
Individual
Characteristics
What we look atWhat we look at
� Individual functioning
� Background characteristics and history
� Mental health
� Psychosocial maturity
� Antisocial behavior (crime, substance use)
� Attitudes and beliefs
� Social contexts
� Peer
� Family
� Community
� Characteristics of sanctions and interventions
Life Event CalendarsLife Event Calendars
� Living arrangements
� School involvement
� Legal involvement
� Work
� Romantic relationships
� Social service involvement/sanctions
Progress so farProgress so far
� Entire sample past the 36 month follow-up point
� Over 90% of interviews completed at each time point
� Approximately 18,000 interviews
Who are these adolescents?Who are these adolescents?
� 16 years old on average
� 86% male
� Average of two prior court appearances
� About half appearing for a felony against a person
� Ethnically diverse
25%
29%
2%
44%
Caucasian African American
Hispanic Other
Over the first three yearsOver the first three years……....
� At least one institutional stay 82%
� Had at least one job 89%
� Average length of each job 6 weeks
� Report being in a gang 18%
� Re-arrested (thru 24 months) 57%
� Died 2% (30 adolescents)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent in
each setting
type
Contracted
residential
Contracted
Residential-MH
YDC.ADYC Detention Jail/Prison Other
Type of setting
Percent in each setting over three yearsPercent in each setting over three years
Contacts with Supervision and Services at Each Follow-up point
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Number of
contacts
6 mos 12 mos 18 mos 24 mos 30 mos 36 mos
Months after Initial Interview
Supervision Community-based services
Mean Self-Reported OffendingAcross Time by Site
0
1
2
3
4
5
12mos
24mos
36mos
Months after Initial Interview
Average Number
of acts
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Self Reported Offending over Three YearsSelf Reported Offending over Three Years
Males onlyMales only
0
2
4
6
8
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
Months after Initial Interview
Self Report Variety
Score
Group 4 Group 4
(15.1%)(15.1%)
Group 5 Group 5
(8.5%)(8.5%)
Group 2 Group 2
(33.8%)(33.8%)
Group 3 Group 3
(18.3%)(18.3%)
Group 1 Group 1
(24.2%)(24.2%)
Do Groups 4 and 5 differ Do Groups 4 and 5 differ
at baseline?at baseline?
� Demographics
� History of antisocial behavior
� Drug and alcohol problems
� Psychological maturity
� Attitudes toward the legal system
� Contextual factors
� Parental influences
� Peers
� Neighborhood
Do Groups 4 and 5 differ Do Groups 4 and 5 differ
over three years?over three years?
�� Justice system interventionJustice system intervention
�� Social service interventionSocial service intervention
�� EmploymentEmployment
�� Ordered lifestyleOrdered lifestyle
�� Number of movesNumber of moves
�� Routine activitiesRoutine activities
�� Alcohol useAlcohol use
54321
GROUP
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Error bars: 95.00% CI
Percent of time in institution Percent of time in institution over three years for each groupover three years for each group
Percent
time in
institution
Average Percent Average Percent in Each Setting at Each Time Pointin Each Setting at Each Time Point
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent
Jail/Prison Detention YDC/ADJC ContractedRes
Setting Type
Group 4
Group 5
Average Percent Receiving Supervision & Community-based Services at Each Time Point
0
20
40
60
80
100
Average
Percent
Supervision Community-based Services
Group 4
Group 5
ConclusionsConclusions
� In serious offenders,
� Small group (8-9%) with high and continued offending
� Larger group with high and declining offending (15%)
� Largest group reports low levels of offending, but stillspends about 30% of follow up period in institutional care
� Can’t predict the high end persisters from desistersvery well from baseline characteristics
� Over the follow-up period,
� systems involvement and work history don’t differfor these groups
� level of substance use and stability of dailyroutine do differ
Why Should Substance Use Predict Offending (or Desistance)?
Deviant
Peers
Need for
Income
Intoxication
Impaired Coping and Competence:
*Effects on Developing Brain
*Reward + Self-RegulationAdult Roles
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
M A C E H M A C E H
Pathways
MTF
Offenders are More Likely to Have Used Substances than their Same Age Peers
(compared to Monitoring the Future 10th graders)
Males Females
M = Marijuana A = Alcohol C = Cocaine E = Ecstasy H= Hallucinogens
Offenders Have High Rates of Substance Use Disorders (Past Year Diagnoses)
0
10
20
30
40
50
A-A C H - A-A C H
Alcohol Drug
Males Females Some substance use
diagnosis:
Community
Samples
37% 35% 5-17%
A-A = African-American C= Caucasian, non-Hispanic H = Hispanic
Males with Substance Use Disorders at the Beginning Report More Non-Drug Offenses (at each Follow-up)
Non-drug Offenses
N=1129
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
BL 6mo 12mo 18mo 24mo 30mo 36mo
Diagnosed Undiagnosed
There is Variability in Substance Use There is Variability in Substance Use
Over Time (Males)Over Time (Males)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
base 6mo 12mo 18mo 24mo 30mo 36mo
Months after Initial Interview
Sum of Substance Use
Frequency Scores
Abstainers Abstainers
(13.4%)(13.4%)
Low Low
(34.6%)(34.6%)
Moderate Moderate
(33.4%)(33.4%)
High Declining High Declining
(7.6%)(7.6%)
High High
Stable Stable
(11.0%)(11.0%)
Patterns Over Time in Substance Use Are Related to Patterns Over Time in Offending
( Males)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Abstainers Low Use Moderate Use High
Declining
High Stable
Low SRO Low Moderate SRO Moderate SRO Desistors High SRO
Decliners and Stable/Frequent User Groups are
NOT Different (at Initial Interview) in:
� Age
� Race/ethnicity
� Family Structure
� Baseline Substance Use Disorder
� Parental Alcohol or Drug Problems
� Aspirations for Work and Family
� Substance Use Treatment
� Perceptions of Procedural Justice
� School Enrollment at 6-month Assessment
�� ButBut--at the first interview, compared to at the first interview, compared to
““Stable/Frequent UsersStable/Frequent Users””
““DeclinersDecliners”” were:were:
��Less likely to be in a gang Less likely to be in a gang
��Less impulsive Less impulsive
��More committed to staying out of future More committed to staying out of future
troubletrouble
A Word About TreatmentA Word About Treatment
� Significant Short Term (6-month) effects on
� Alcohol Use
� Marijuana Use
� Offending
� Controlling for “Street Time”
� Above and Beyond Drug Testing
� Not a one-shot “Inoculation”
� Chronic, Relapsing, Remitting Disorder
� 68% of males with an initial disorder got treatment in the first year
Summary and Implications
� Substance Use is:
� Prevalent
� a Strong Predictor of Offending
� There is Variability in Substance Use Over Time(not very predictable from initial factors)
� Treatment had Short Term (but not long-term)effects on Substance Use and Offending
� Chronic, Relapsing, Remitting Disorder
� Justice System Involvement can be anOpportunity for Treatment
(NIDA: Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment forCriminal Justice Populations, July 2006)
Attitudes Toward the Law
�� How adolescents experience and evaluate the law influences: How adolescents experience and evaluate the law influences:
�� whether they cooperate with legal authorities whether they cooperate with legal authorities
�� whether they obey the lawwhether they obey the law
�� how they react to punishmenthow they react to punishment
�� Four influences on legal socialization: Four influences on legal socialization:
�� Punishment costs Punishment costs –– loss of freedomloss of freedom
�� Punishment risks Punishment risks –– will you be caught and punished?will you be caught and punished?
�� Crime payoffs Crime payoffs –– social rewards, thrillssocial rewards, thrills
�� Procedural justice Procedural justice –– fair and respectful treatment byfair and respectful treatment by
police and judgespolice and judges
What Influences Legal Socialization?
Procedural Justice
Legitimacy Legal
Cynicism
Social CostsPunishment CostsPunishment Risks
Social RewardsPersonal Rewards
Attitudes about the Legal System
Legitimacy
Social Costs
Social RewardsPersonal Rewards
Procedural Justice
How Does Legal SocializationInfluence Offending?
LegitimacyLegal Cynicism
Social CostsPunishment
CostsPunishment Risks
Social Rewards Personal Rewards
Self-Reported Offending
Procedural Justice
Legal Socialization and Crime
Social CostsPunishment Costs Punishment Risks
Personal Rewards
Self-Reported Offending
Procedural Justice
What Police Do Matters
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Low Medium High
SRO Variety
Punishment Risk Procedural Justice
The Importance of Legal SocializationThe Importance of Legal Socialization
� Harsh punishment may have unintended effects
� Crime rates increase when youthexperience harsh punishment
� Police matter
� Fair and respectful treatment by the policehelps to reduce crime
� Social relationships with family and other adults also matter
� Loss of status is a not a real cost to youthcaught doing crimes, and it may backfire
� Adolescent offenders are rational
� They do weigh costs risks and rewards,but not always in a way that leads to desistance
� Immature youth are less rational
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Jail-Prison YDC-ADJC Contract Res Contract Res-
MH
Average Number of different services
=PA = AZ
Level of services provided to
youth differs across residential settings
ApproachApproach
� Identified two “treatable” types of problems
� Mood/anxiety problems
�Mental health-related treatment:
individual or treatment on a mental health
unit
� Substance use problems
�Drug and alcohol services
� Control for site, gender, ethnicity, days in
setting
� Focus on four most common settings
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent Receiving M
H Tx
Detention Jail-Prison YDC-ADYC Contracted
Residential
Percent Receiving Mental Health Treatment
in Different Setting Types
No mood/anxiety
problemsHad mood/anxiety
problems
�In detention : 3X
�In YDC-ADJC: 4X
� In Jail-Prison: No Difference
�In Contract. Res: No Difference
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent Receiving SU Tx
Detention Jail-Prison YDC-ADJC Contracted
Residential
Percent Receiving Substance Use
Treatment in Different Setting Types
No Substance Use
Problems
Had Substance use
Problems
�In Detention: 5X
�In Jail-Prison: 3X
�In YDC-ADJC: 4X
�In Contract. Res.:
No Difference
What is the relationship
between supervision/services
and adjustment in the
community after release
from an institution?
� Define “aftercare” period
� Six month following release from placement associated
with the study index petition
� Examined outcomes that indicate signs of negative and
positive adjustment
� Engagement
� Antisocial activity
� System involvement
� Considered duration and intensity of Supervision and
Community-based services
� Duration = Number of aftercare months with at least 1
contact
� Intensity = Number of contacts per month
Approach
ResultsResults
�� Duration of supervision reduces negative Duration of supervision reduces negative
outcomes by about outcomes by about ½½
�� Effects of intensity of services are less clearEffects of intensity of services are less clear
�� Effects hold when other factors consideredEffects hold when other factors considered
�� Parental monitoringParental monitoring
�� Peer associationsPeer associations
�� Caring adultsCaring adults
In our sample of serious offenders:
ConclusionsConclusions
�� Majority of youth in each setting report Majority of youth in each setting report
receiving multiple types of treatmentreceiving multiple types of treatment
�� Detention and stateDetention and state--run facilities do a better job run facilities do a better job
matching mental health and substance use matching mental health and substance use
treatment with those who need ittreatment with those who need it
�� Duration of supervision is important for Duration of supervision is important for
reducing the chances of negative adjustmentreducing the chances of negative adjustment
Family and Peer Family and Peer
Influences on Influences on
Offending and Offending and
ReRe--OffendingOffending
Effective Parenting CombinesEffective Parenting Combines
Warmth and ControlWarmth and Control
NeglectfulNeglectfulAuthoritarianAuthoritarian
IndulgentIndulgentAuthoritativeAuthoritative
High
High
Low
Low
WARMTH
CONTROL
Offenders’ Parents Are More Diverse
Than Most People Think
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Authoritative Authoritarian Indulgent Neglectful
Community
RPD Sample
Community data from: Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1992
Problem Behavior Is Linkedto Quality of Parenting
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Aggressive
Offending
Income
Oiffending
Substance
Use Problems
Substance
Dependence
Authoritative
Authoritarian
Indulgent
Neglectful
Ineffective
Parenting
Ineffective Parenting Is More Common in Distressed Neighborhoods
Low Social
Capital
Neighborhood
Disorder
Concentrated
Poverty
Residential
Instability
OffendingDeviant Peers
Ineffective Parenting Leads to Offending Mainly Because It Increases Affiliation with Deviant Peers
Ineffective
Parenting
Re-OffendingDeviant Peers
Role of Context Is Similar in PredictingRe-Offending After Re-Entry from Placement
Ineffective
Parenting
Low Social
Capital
Implications for Aftercare
� The context to which offenders return
matters
� Programs should attempt to
�Minimize affiliation with deviant peers
after re-entry
� Improve quality of parenting
� Increase family’s integration into the
community and access to community
resources
Who are these girls?
9.2 years10.4 yearsAge of first self-reported
antisocial act
16%7%Sentenced as adults
37%11%Proportion of time spent
“locked up” over 3 years
2.31.3Number of prior petitions to
court
14.3 years14.9 yearsAge at first petition
to court
MALEFEMALE
Prevalence of Placements Over 3 Years
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Percent
Contracted Res Contracted Res
MH
YDC/AYDC Detention Jail/Prison Other
Male Female
Youths may have experienced multiple placements over the 3 year follow-up
Gender Differences in Mental Health and Substance Abuse
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Percent Diagnosis in Past Year
Affective
Disorder
PTSD Alcohol Abuse
/Dependence
Drug Abuse
/Dependence
Male Female
Gender Differences in Historyof Victimization
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Victim of
Violence
Beaten Up Attacked with
Weapon
Shot at Raped
Male Female
Percent at Baseline
The “Boyfriend” Factor….
� Number of romantic partners:
� Females: 8 partners
� Males: 14 partners
� Age of 1st sexual encounter
� Females: 13.7 years
� Males: 12.9 years
� Number of sexual partners
� Females: 5 partners
� Males: 10 partners
� Average age of current partner
� Females: 18.5 years
� Males: 16.3 years
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Per
cent
0 1~2 3~4 5~6
Gender Differences in Self-Reported Offending
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Mean Number of Self-
Reported Acts
6 12 18 24 30 36
Months After Initial Interview
Male Female
Are Chronic Female Offenders Different From Girls Who Do Not Offend Chronically?
� There is variability among these girls…..
� Chronic Female Offenders are more likely to be….
� Less psychosocially mature
� Less future oriented
� Less responsible
� Less able to consider others
� More impulsive
� More likely to be a victim of violence
� More likely to have anxiety and a diagnosis of PTSD
� More likely to have a drug dependence disorder
Conclusion Conclusion
� Preliminary results from a large, comprehensive, operationally successful, ongoing study
� Considerable variability
� Offending patterns over time
� Substance use over time
� Parenting
� Gender
� Substance use matters
� Strongly related to offending
� Treatment for substance use problems could have a short-term, positive effect
� Interventions matter
� Police behavior relates to attitudes
� State facilities do a good job of targeting services
� Involvement during the aftercare period matters