Who Will Become Productive Adults? Longitudinal Patterns of Gainful Activities and Institutional Placement Among Serious Adolescent Offenders

Background and Purpose: The US has more youth under 18 in juvenile prison than other countries, with a rate of 336 per 100,000 youth (Hazel, 2008). Yet, the majority of serious adolescent offenders eventually desist from offending, but studies have not found any differences in experiences in the juvenile justice system between those who persist and desist (Mulvey et al., 2010). Less attention has been paid to understanding which youth are most likely to engage in pro-social activities during the transition to adulthood, such as attending school or working. This study uses a longitudinal sample of serious adolescent offenders to identify the youth who make a successful transition into productive adults, identifies characteristics that differentiate these youth, and estimates associations between patterns of productivity in early adulthood and patterns of juvenile incarceration. 

Methods: Using seven years of monthly data from the Pathways to Desistance Study (N=1354), we used group-based trajectory modeling to identify longitudinal patterns of gainful activities, defined as regular attendance in school or at least part-time employment each month. We then examined the bivariate relationships between the identified trajectory groups and a range of individual, family, school, and community factors that might be related to adult outcomes. Finally, we estimated a joint trajectory model, incorporating a previously estimated group-based trajectory model of secure institutional placement, to estimate the relationship between patterns of institutional placement and patterns of gainful activities.

Results: We selected the four-group solution based on both model fit indicators and substantive considerations. One group demonstrated consistently high levels of gainful activities and another demonstrated consistently low levels of gainful activities. Two groups demonstrated medium-levels of gainful activities through most of the study period, but diverged into a high- and low- group at the end of the study period. We found differences by race, study site, school enrollment, IQ, parental SES and neighborhood. We also found that youth who were assigned to the trajectory groups with very little time in institutional placement had the highest probability of being in the high gainful activity group, and youth who spent much of the time in institutional placement had the highest probability of being in the low gainful activity group.

Conclusions and Implications: This study provides a more nuanced picture of how these youth are faring during the transition to adulthood. Whereas many of these youth could be identified as success depending on when they were interviewed, this model shows that some are struggling while others are able to demonstrate sustained success. While associations between longitudinal patterns of institutional placement and gainful activities are unsurprising, much research has been focused on predicting recidivism. Yet, such a focus obscures the potential these youth have for becoming productive adults, and without attention to these positive outcomes, juvenile justice intervention can cause harm. This highlights the need for social workers to engage in juvenile justice program and policy decisions.