Systemic and Individual Factors That Contribute to Re-Arrest of Status Offenders

Background and Purpose: Status offenses (i.e., truancy, incorrigible, possession of alcohol) that only minors can be arrested or charged are seen as less serious offenses.  National crime reports have shown status offenses accounting for over half the cases that are formally processed through the juvenile justice system (JJS).  Studies have shown that persistent involvement in status offenses can serve as a gateway to more serious offenses. Studies that have examined factors related to status offense indicated familial and school risk factors. However, minimal to no studies have examined factors such as disposition that are related to re-arrests of youth who've been arrested for status offenses.  This study aims to fill that gap by examining systemic and individual factors such as status offense type, age, sex, ethnicity of offender, circuit/ county, and case disposition on their impact on re-arrest of status offenders. 

Methods: State of Hawaii's juvenile justice data from fiscal years 2012- 2014 were used for the analysis. Cases in 2013 with no arrest record in 2012 were included. Those cases were then followed up to the end of fiscal year 2014 to examine whether the case was re- arrested. Re-arrest was coded into a binary variable with yes coded as ‘1’ and no coded as ‘0’. Bivariate analyses were run to examine for significant relationship between re-arrest and type of status offense, age, sex, ethnicity of offender, county/ circuit, and case disposition factors. Factors that held statistical significance were included in the regression model using logistic regression analysis.

 Results: Cases that met all the inclusion criteria for the study totaled 1360.  Significant variables were entered into a logistic regression analysis using a simultaneous method of entering variables. The model was statistically significant.  All variables in the model retained statistical significance.  Specifically status offense type significantly predicted re-arrest.  Youth who were arrested for runaway and beyond parental control were two times more likely to be re-arrested compared to curfew violations (referent group).  Results of ethnicity indicated that Filipino and other Asian youths were less likely to be re-arrested compared to White youths for status offenses.  Disposition showed cases that were referred to formal community diversion services were less likely to be re-arrested as compared to cases that continued on to the next phase within the JJS. 

Conclusion: In consideration of the grand challenges, this study hopes to contribute to the discourse on healthy youth development of at risk youth. As indicated in the findings, the type of services (disposition) that youth received when arrested is critical as these impact the likelihood of re-arrest.  Additionally, the type of status offense such as runaway and beyond parental control are areas that warrant further examination as psychosocial consequences for youth who engage in these behaviors are detrimental to their healthy development. Results are consistent with previous studies showing Whites to be at higher risk for re-arrests compared to other ethnic/ racial groups.  Further studies are necessary to better understand why this is the case.  Other implications for SW practice and policy will be discussed.