How does incarceration affect juveniles

What are the effects of locking up a child under 14 or 15 in a police cell or a juvenile justice detention centre? Teenage children are also experimenting with how to relate to the world around them, as well as testing social and cultural boundaries. Locking children up during these crucial years affects their development. For example, given many children in detention have been victims of abuse, there is significant potential for re-traumatisation. Research on the pathways of children with a disability into the criminal justice system shows the earlier these children have contact with police, the greater their likelihood of being held in police cells and then juvenile justice detention.

They are likely to not receive disability and health services, or other supports such as disability-appropriate education and counselling.

They are also more likely to transition into adult prison. They have significantly lower educational outcomes than their peers and are much more likely to develop further mental illness and chronic health problems. It entrenches children in an offending culture. These negative outcomes for children have resulted in calls to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility — the age at which the state can hold a person responsible for a criminal offence. In Australia, this is ten years of age.

Australia is one of the few affluent countries to have such a low age. There is common law protection for children aged ten to But in practice this has limited capacity to protect children in this age range. There is overwhelming evidence that managing children through the criminal justice system leads not to rehabilitation and reformation, but to greater entrenchment in the criminal justice system.

Yet, every year we place hundreds of children under 14 in detention. In particular, the low age of criminal responsibility adversely affects Indigenous children. The impulsivity dimension focuses on questions that ask respondents how much they agree or disagree with several items asking about problem-solving behaviors and work ethic e.

This scale has an average of 2. The second temperance scale assesses self-control. These items include responses about trouble getting along with others, paying attention and getting work done on a scale of 1 to 4.

Again, to measure change in psychosocial development post-confinement, we create a six-item temperance scale at Wave 3 that asks respondents about things such as following their instincts, getting so excited they lose control, and going out of their way to avoid problems.

The social-temporal scale follows the measurement in [ 59 ] and includes questions that ask respondents how true each of the following has been for them in the past week: 1 enjoyed life, 2 felt just as good as other people, and 3 felt hopefully about the future.

The scale ranges from 0 to 3, with an average of 1. The scale has an alpha of 0. Similar replication of the above perspective subscales occurs at Wave 3, using an average of two items enjoying life and feeling just as good as other people in order to capture the social-temporal dimension of perspective.

Here, scores range from 0 to 3 with a mean of 1. Two additional single items capture future orientation: living to age 35 and whether or not respondents live their lives without consideration for the future. Each item ranges from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater levels of future orientation. Outcome measures. Outcome measures are derived from Wave 4. Transition to adulthood is measured along three dimensions: education, employment, and relationship formation.

Over half of respondents work full-time. Seventy percent of workers are in career-type work by the late 20s. Finally, union formation is measured by marriage and cohabitation. Here, the outcome measure captures ever reporting a residential union. Roughly half of respondents are married and half report ever cohabiting.

Control measures. Table 2 shows descriptive information for all measures. Roughly one-third of the sample is non-white, with an average age of about 15 and a half at Wave 1 and just over 28 at Wave 4. Just over half of all adolescents lived with both parents at Wave 1, with over one-third of adolescents having at least one parent that completed college. Respondents are fairly evenly split between rural, urban, and suburban residence.

General delinquency is controlled for in Wave 1 using a summative measure of eleven adolescent behaviors graffiti and property damage, theft, and fighting , each of which is scored as a 4-level ordinal measure 0—3 ; the general delinquency scale thus ranges from 0 to This summative measure accounts for any remaining differences in delinquency not captured by the key measure of confinement in adolescence.

The average delinquency level for all youth is 2. Analyses begin with significance tests to assess group-level differences in means for each measure of psychosocial development at Wave 1 and Wave 3. Next, the effects of confinement on psychosocial development in young adulthood are measured using standard regression models.

Here, a lagged dependent variable is included to account for any differences in the baseline Wave 1 measure of psychosocial development. The model isolates the effect of confinement on development by minimizing any stable within-person or unmeasured elements psychosocial development. Finally, to assess juvenile confinement effects and psychosocial development affect attainment in early adulthood, we use logistic regression models for each outcome measures first assess the effect of confinement on our attainment measures net of controls and second include Wave 3 psychosocial development the more proximal measure to determine whether and how psychosocial development diminishes any direct effect of juvenile confinement on young adult attainment.

Results in Figure 2 show differences in levels of psychosocial development across groups in adolescence Wave 1. Non-delinquent adolescents report significantly higher levels of temperance self-control than delinquent youth non-confined or confined 2. Non-delinquent youth have significantly higher baseline levels of responsibility and social-temporal perspective than delinquent confined youth 4.

Delinquent non-confined and delinquent confined groups are statistically similar on all measures of psychosocial development except responsibility. Thus, prior to subsequent detention, delinquent youth are fairly similar in their levels of psychosocial development. Wave 1 psychosocial maturity. Figure 3 shows differences in psychosocial development as youth enter early adulthood Wave 3. Here all delinquent youth non-confined and confined report lower levels of perspective — believing they will live to age 35 than non-delinquent youth 4.

Youth who were incarcerated during adolescence report significantly lower levels than either non-delinquent or delinquent non-confined youth, or both on all dimensions except social-temporal perspective. Confined youth report significantly lower levels of responsibility 3. Wave 3 psychosocial development. We assess the robustness of these descriptive results in a multivariate model regressing psychosocial development in young adulthood on our sociodemographic controls, controlling for our lagged dependent variable the baseline measures of psychosocial development.

Results not shown indicate that youth who are incarcerated exhibit decreased responsibility and future-orientation relative to non-delinquent youth, and confined youth report significantly lower hopes of living to age 35 than both non-delinquent you and non-confined delinquent youth, controlling for any baseline differences in psychosocial development. Figure 4 presents odds ratios for two full regression models for each of six adult transitions by criminal justice involvement. Net of demographic controls for age, gender, race, parental education, family structure, and residential location, and psychosocial development, adolescent criminal justice involvement arrest or confinement reduces the odds of attainment in young adulthood.

Young adults who were confined as youth report significantly lower odds of full-time employment in their late 20s than youth who were arrested before age 18 but did not serve time in a juvenile correctional facility. Among those who work, delinquency is associated with reduced though not significantly odds of being in career-type work. Finally, juvenile delinquency arrest but not confinement reduces the odds of marriage by the late 20s and any criminal justice involvement arrest or confinement increase the odds of cohabitation relative non-delinquent youth.

We discuss the implications of these findings below. Odds ratios of effects of juvenile arrest and detention on young adult outcomes. Significant differences between reference group and non-delinquent group. This research explored the effects of the impact of juvenile confinement on the development of psychosocial maturity and the transition to adulthood.

Qualitative research suggests that individuals reentering society from a period of confinement struggle in many facets of their life related to relationships, friendships, education, employment and chemical and mental health issues [ 60 , 61 , 62 ]. Our quantitative findings suggest that not only confinement, but also formal criminal justice involvement arrest negatively impact outcomes for youth compared to youth who never experience confinement.

Importantly, prior to confinement, youth with similar levels of delinquency had roughly equal levels of psychosocial development. However, post-criminal justice involvement confinement or arrest , delinquent youth lag behind their non-delinquent peers on the psychosocial development measures of temperance impulsivity and control and perspective believing they will live to But, confined youth have significantly lower development of responsibility and perspective compared to delinquent youth who are not confined.

Therefore, as youth exit correctional facilities and struggle to transition to the community, they are lagging further behind other youth in their self-clarity, self-esteem, decision-making, and future orientation. This results in reduced likelihood of working full-time and dismal college completion rates by their late 20s.

Despite hopes that a period of confinement can be the turning point leading youth out of future offending behavior, the barriers produced by the context of confinement have real consequences for psychosocial development and attainment in adulthood.

Comparing these findings with the adult desistance literature, confined youth struggle to achieve success in the exact areas shown to promote desistance from crime in adulthood—employment and education see [ 1 , 63 ]. The most robust finding in our analysis relates to educational outcomes for individuals in their late twenties and early thirties.

Confined youth are four times more likely to not complete high school even when we control for psychosocial development. Thus, the combination of confinement with the decreased development of perspective leads to significantly lower levels of educational attainment.

This finding is particularly interesting considering that Thus, it appears the increased risk of not completing high school and the decreased odds of college completion are not from lack of educational access in juvenile correctional facilities but rather it appears the conditions of confinement, along with the decreased development of perspective and future orientation during this time, have long-term impacts post-confinement.

Overall, as shown in Figure 5 , the effects of criminal justice interventions in adolescence have far-reaching effects across multiple domains in the transition to adulthood. These are magnified when youth are placed in out-of-home settings. The far-reaching effects of criminal justice interventions in adolescence.

This study is not without limitations. First, Add Health does not include information on the type or security of placement for confined youth; however it is likely that confined youth in the Add Health data were in detention or training facilities because on average, We have attempted to mitigate some of this limitation by using the SYRP to provide a picture of adolescent confinement in general terms. We work with partners around the country to reduce the over-incarceration of youth, keep youth close to home and divert youth from the justice system whenever possible.

Hundreds of individuals nationwide are serving life without parole sentences for crimes they committed as juveniles. Every state charges juvenile justice costs, fees, fines, or restitution. The Blueprint for Chang e is designed to be a tool for all stakeholders to identify what they can do to promote educational success for youth in the juvenile justice system in their jurisdiction. Children in Prison.

What We Do. Our Cases. Recent News. How You Can Help. At home, we would call it child abuse. In many youth prisons, it is accepted practice. What We Do Juvenile Law Center engages in federal and state legislative reform, impact litigation, research, and public education to improve conditions for youth in prison.

Current issues Economic Justice. Youth Tried as Adults. Commonwealth v. Montgomery v.