**4. Results**

#### **4.1 Differences in psychosocial development by criminal justice involvement**

Results in **Figure 2** show differences in levels of psychosocial development across groups in adolescence (Wave 1). Subscripts indicate significant differences between groups at p < .05 level. Non-delinquent adolescents report significantly higher levels of temperance self-control than delinquent youth (non-confined or confined) (2.65 vs. 2.25 and 2.12, respectively) and future-orientation perspective (4.43 vs. 4.27 and 4.26, respectively). Non-delinquent youth have significantly higher baseline levels of responsibility and social-temporal perspective than delinquent confined youth (4.11 vs. 3.99 and 1.99 vs. 1.86, respectively). Delinquent nonconfined 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.

**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 (4.56 and 4.32 vs. 4.66, respectively). 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 (3.38 vs. 3.96 for both other groups), temperance (3.18 vs. 3.57 for non-delinquent youth), and perspective – future orientation (3.40 vs. 3.94 for non-delinquent youth). It appears juvenile correctional confinement depresses delinquent youths' levels of responsibility and outlook for their future.

We assess the robustness of these descriptive results in a multivariate model regressing psychosocial development in young adulthood on our sociodemographic

**Figure 2.** *Wave 1 psychosocial maturity.*

#### **Figure 3.**

```
Wave 3 psychosocial development. Superscripts indicate significant differences between reference groups, 
p < .05.
```
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 nondelinquent 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.

#### **4.2 Confinement and adult transitions**

**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,

#### **Figure 4.**

*Odds ratios of effects of juvenile arrest and detention on young adult outcomes. Significant differences between reference group and non-delinquent group.\*\*\*p < 0.001, \*\*p < 0.01, \*p < 0.05, † p < 0.1.*

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. Criminal justice involvement in adolescence increases the risk of high school non-completion and reduces the odds of college completion; for those who were confined as adolescents, odds of on-time college completion (by the late 20s) are reduced almost to zero (OR = 0.04). 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 nondelinquent youth. We discuss the implications of these findings below.

### **5. Discussion, implications, and future direction**

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 [60–62]. However, it is wrong to assume that juveniles recidivate simply as a product of what [60] terms "poor choices." Fader's work uncovered the complexity between incarceration and psychosocial maturity that ultimately made it difficult for young offenders to meet the demands and expectations of adulthood upon release. 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 35). 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. The decrease in the likelihood of high school completion also leads to a shocking reduction (96% reduction) in the likelihood of college completion for confined youth, net of all controls including parents' educational attainment and psychosocial development. This finding is particularly interesting considering that 92.8% of confined youth in the SYRP data report that they attend school in the facility [26]. 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.

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, 65.1% of youth confined during 1997 (two years post Wave 1 collection and around the time many Add Health respondents would have been confined) resided in one of these two types of facilities [58]. We have attempted to mitigate some of this limitation by using the SYRP to provide a picture of adolescent confinement in general terms. Second, Add Health survey items and questions change slightly across waves and thus the measures of psychosocial development in Waves 1 and 3 are not consistent, though we have attempted to replicate measures across waves. Third, because the Add Health data does not allow researchers to directly match each offense reported to a specific outcome, the study does not include measures of offense severity for youth arrested and confined. However, prior research by [64, 65] suggests that this might not matter.

Findings in this chapter point to a few interventions for practitioners and juvenile correction administrators. First, formal criminal justice interventions, particularly confinement of youth, should be used as a last resort. It is important to point out here that our study uncovered that not only confined youth, but also arrestees (our delinquent non-confined sample) have poorer outcomes in the transition to adulthood. This suggests that it is not just delinquency (as we controlled for general

**Figure 5.** *The far-reaching effects of criminal justice interventions in adolescence.*

self-reported delinquency) but rather formal juvenile justice intervention that leads to negative outcomes, an outcome surprising given this is the very system intervening on the "best interests of the child" ([66]; p. 971). Therefore, even short-term stays in confinement can affect psychosocial development and success in adulthood. Although the United States national Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) has decreased the use of detention and increased the used of communitybased alternatives, there continues to be just over 107,000 youth admitted to detention annually in the United States [67]. We must continue to divert youth not only from confinement but from any formal justice involvement.

Second, our findings suggest that practitioners and juvenile correction administrators change the conditions of confinement to promote greater psychosocial development, particularly related to the development of perspective. Research shows that delinquent youths' fears about their future exceed their hopes and long-term expectations for success [37]. Thus, even though a correctional facility may offer programs related to "events" that promote positive change, the context and ability for young adults to exercise developmental skills necessary to mature and subsequently translate these skills into successful outcomes in young adulthood is imperative for capitalizing on positive turning points [7, 18]. At the facility level, this could mean implementing a step-down process in the level of control over juveniles, particularly through transitional housing for confined youth. In the transitional housing structure, youth could investigate educational or vocational career paths in the community, while also allowing room for youth to fail and use this failure as an opportunity for development rather than a technical violation that sends them deeper into the justice system. For the "typical" adolescent, the transition to adulthood is marked with trial and error (e.g., loss of a job, romantic

breakups, oversleeping for school) yet youth in highly regulated confinement environments experience few opportunities for developmental failure. This begs the question: how can one expect that confined youth understand failure as a developmental process rather than a projection of future outcomes? Programming in juvenile correctional facilities should allow room for autonomy and failure and subsequent teach youth to build on failure as a natural part of development.

We are not suggesting there is not a place for juvenile correctional facilities in society, but if and when the juvenile court deems confinement is required, it is necessary to revise the physical and programmatic structure of juvenile correctional facilities. For example, the Missouri Model replaces secure confinement facilities with smaller facilities with a group-home-like structure. This emphasizes the ability to integrate community-based interventions, closer proximity to family, independent decision-making, and wrap-around services for youth. Although preliminary findings examining the Missouri Model's outcomes do not explicitly test the development of psychosocial maturity over time, the reduced recidivism and increased attainment of education and employment for youth in Missouri suggests that the restructured conditions of confinement may allow more room for development, and in turn have positive outcomes as youth transition to the community and adulthood [68].

Future work in this area should explicitly consider the developmental process for confined youth. First, research should explore of the effects of psychosocial development and criminal justice involvement on attainment in young adulthood across demographic groups. While we have controlled for many demographic factors, this research does not break down outcomes by race, gender, or socioeconomic status; as with other developmental processes, the mechanisms at work here may very well differ across demographic lines. Second, qualitative research should seek to understand how the correctional context leads to lower levels of responsibility and perspective for confined youth. Third, given the important role of future orientation in attainment in adulthood, future research might explore the relationship between expectations for the future and actual outcomes in a longitudinal context. Finally, understanding the relationship between confinement, psychosocial development, and desistance from crime is an important next step for research in this area.
