Longitudinal Patterns and Predictors of Secure Placement Among Serious Adolescent Offenders

Background and Purpose:  In 2010, there were about 1.6 million arrests of youth under the age of 18, and 68% of cases were referred to juvenile court while 8% were referred to criminal court (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014). However, incarceration as an adolescent has been found to be related to an increased likelihood of dropping out of high school, a lower likelihood of high school graduation, a lower likelihood of being employed and if employed, stably employed (Apel & Sweeten, 2010; Hjalmarsson, 2007; Kirk & Sampson, 2013; Sampson & Laub, 1997). In this study, we identify patterns of secure placement through adolescence and the early transition to adulthood, and identify predictors of these patterns of secure placement.

Methods: This project uses Pathways to Desistance data, which focuses on understanding how serious adolescent offenders desist from antisocial activity. Baseline data was collected in 2000-2003 for 1354 youth (654 in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona, and 700 in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania) who were between 14 and 18 years of age who had committed an offense and was found guilty. Youth were followed for 7 years, when participants were 21-25 years old. We used group-based trajectory modeling to identify patterns of secure detention and gainful activities for study participants with monthly calendar data. We identified patterns based on study-time, as well as based on age. We also identified risk factors for membership in the patterns of secure detention, in comparison to the group that consistently stayed in the community.

Results: The 6 group solution provided the best fit for both the study-time and age-based group-based trajectories of secure detention. Five groups were similar for both approaches: one group remained out of secure detention, one group had a steady declining involvement in secure detention, one group had low but increasing involvement in secure detention, and one group started with moderate involvement that steadily increased, and one group that started with high involvement but slowly decreased through the study period. The sixth group differed in that for the age-based approach, one group quickly declined and stayed out of secure detention while the study-time approach included one group with a moderate but steadily increasing involvement in secure detention.  Youth from neighborhoods with more social disorganization, but not physical disorganization, were more likely to belong to groups with consistently high levels or moderate-and-increasing rates of involvement in secure placement.

Conclusions and Implications: Six patterns of secure detention emerged, and patterns were similar whether we used a study-time or age-based approach. Among the risk-factors that emerged as being related to group membership in patterns of higher rates of secure placement was neighborhood social disorganization, but not physical disorganization. While youth are in placement, their attachments to family and community may be weakening. They will also return to these socially disorganized neighborhoods. This suggests that investing in the neighborhood social context may contribute to helping to keep youth in their communities while also facilitating their reintegration.