Pathways to Desistance A Longitudinal Study of Serious

  • Slides: 38
Download presentation
Pathways to Desistance: A Longitudinal Study of Serious Adolescent Offenders Edward P. Mulvey, Ph.

Pathways to Desistance: A Longitudinal Study of Serious Adolescent Offenders Edward P. Mulvey, Ph. D. Law and Psychiatry Program Department of Psychiatry University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine National Juvenile Justice Network Teleconference January 28, 2010

Pathways to Desistance Study Supported by § Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention

Pathways to Desistance Study Supported by § Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention § National Institute of Justice § National Institute on Drug Abuse § John D. & Catherine T. Mac. Arthur Foundation § Pennsylvania Commission on Crime & Delinquency § Arizona Governor’s Justice Commission § Robert Wood Johnson Foundation § William Penn Foundation § William T. Grant Foundation

Pathways to Desistance Study Working Group Members n Edward Mulvey n Laurence Steinberg n

Pathways to Desistance Study Working Group Members n Edward Mulvey n Laurence Steinberg n Elizabeth Cauffman n Laurie Chassin n George Knight n Carol Schubert n Sandra Losoya n Robert Brame n Jeffrey Fagan n Alex Piquero

Clarion soldier to get Medal of Honor 19 -year-old threw himself on grenade to

Clarion soldier to get Medal of Honor 19 -year-old threw himself on grenade to save comrades Saturday, May 24, 2008 By Milan Simonich, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette "My intent was to portray Ross as an average boy who made mistakes early in his life and then surprised everybody by doing an extraordinary thing after undergoing a transformation that started with his probation and continued with his Army discipline. It's important to me to tell people that they can't count a child out because of his mistakes, " Tom Mc. Ginnis said.

Pathways to Desistance Study Reasons for the study § Richer information about serious adolescent

Pathways to Desistance Study Reasons for the study § Richer information about serious adolescent § § offenders Picture of the desistance process § Individual maturation § Life changes § Systems involvement Improved practice and policy in juvenile justice § Risk assessment § Targeted interventions and sanctions

Study Design § § Two sites: Philadelphia and Phoenix Enroll serious adolescent offenders §

Study Design § § Two sites: Philadelphia and Phoenix Enroll serious adolescent offenders § 1, 354 felony offenders, aged 14 -18 § Females and adult transfer cases § Regular interviews over eight years § Initial interviews § Time point interviews § Release interviews § Other sources of information § Collateral interviews § Official records

Who are these adolescents? n § § 16 years old on average 86% male

Who are these adolescents? n § § 16 years old on average 86% male Average of two prior court appearances About half appearing for a felony against a person Ethnically diverse

What we look at Background Characteristics • • • Personal characteristics (e. g. family,

What we look at Background Characteristics • • • Personal characteristics (e. g. family, marital relationships) Academic achievement and commitment Routine activities Offense history Alcohol and drug use/abuse Exposure to violence Psychopathy Emotional reactivity Acculturation Personality Psychological Mediators • • • Psychological development Mental health symptoms and threat-control override Head injury Use of social services Perceptions of opportunity Perceptions of procedural justice Perceived thrill of doing crime Moral disengagement Religious orientation Costs and rewards of offending Family Context • • • Parental Monitoring Parental Relationships Parent orientation Personal Relationships • • • Relationships with romantic partner & friends Peer delinquency and gang involvement Contact with caring adult Community Context • • • Neighborhood conditions Community involvement Personal capital and social ties Life Changes Monthly data available regarding: Living arrangements School involvement Legal involvement Work Romantic relationships Social service involvement/sanctions

Living Situation Calendar Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month

Living Situation Calendar Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Subject 1 926 West St Gabe’s Hall 926 West Huntington St St Gabe’s Hall Vision Quest Youth Forestry Camp Subject 2 2829 W. Madison Street Jail 1008 S. Wilmot PO Box 3400 5003 Master 2 nd and Norris Subject 3 St 2 nd and Norris House of Corrections PO Box 1059 Huntington St Augusta

Progress so far n Entire sample past the 72 month follow-up point n About

Progress so far n Entire sample past the 72 month follow-up point n About 90% of interviews completed at each time point n Over 24, 000 interviews completed

Examples of topics being investigated n n n n n Procedural justice Perceptions of

Examples of topics being investigated n n n n n Procedural justice Perceptions of risk/benefit of crime Psychosocial maturity and criminal offending Effects of substance use treatment Acculturation/enculturation Family functioning Perceptions of opportunities Neighborhood effects Service Provision/Institutional Care

Self-Reported Offending over Time

Self-Reported Offending over Time

Self Reported Offending over Three Years Males only Group 5 (8. 5%) Group 4

Self Reported Offending over Three Years Males only Group 5 (8. 5%) Group 4 (15. 1%) Group 2 (33. 8%) Group 1 (24. 2%) Group 3 (18. 3%)

Mean Number of Re-arrests Through 36 Months for Each Group Mean number of re-arrests

Mean Number of Re-arrests Through 36 Months for Each Group Mean number of re-arrests Self-reported offending group

Percent of time in institution over three years for each group Percent time in

Percent of time in institution over three years for each group Percent time in instituti on

Average Percent in Each Setting at Each Time Point

Average Percent in Each Setting at Each Time Point

Conclusions n In serious offenders, small group (8 -9%) with high and continued offending,

Conclusions n In serious offenders, small group (8 -9%) with high and continued offending, and larger group with high and declining offending (15%) n Largest group (about 58%) reports low levels of offending, but still spends about 30% of follow up period in institutional care n Can’t predict the high end persisters from desisters very well from baseline characteristics n Placement history is very similar for these groups

Placement in a Juvenile Institution

Placement in a Juvenile Institution

Data n n n Juvenile Court cases in both sites N = 921 n

Data n n n Juvenile Court cases in both sites N = 921 n probation = 502 n institutional placement = 419 Outcomes are: n n n rate of re-arrest (by year) level of reported antisocial activity 66 variables measured at baseline, including demographic, familial, peer, legal, psychological, mental health related, substance abuse, psychosocial maturity and prior adjustment

Research Question #1 Is there a treatment effect of placement vs. probation on subsequent

Research Question #1 Is there a treatment effect of placement vs. probation on subsequent rate of rearrest or self-reported antisocial activity?

Placement vs. Probation Naïve Comparison

Placement vs. Probation Naïve Comparison

Propensity Score Matching n Two step process: n A propensity score is calculated for

Propensity Score Matching n Two step process: n A propensity score is calculated for each case. It is the predicted probability that you get placed given all of the background characteristics considered n Take each placed case and match it to one or more probation case with similar propensity score n We then can look to see if the placed group looks similar to the matched probation group on a variety of characteristics that might affect the outcome n If the groups look alike, we can attribute any difference in the outcomes to the fact that they were placed

Getting Balanced Groups using Propensity Scores n Overall, 42 of 66 baseline variables were

Getting Balanced Groups using Propensity Scores n Overall, 42 of 66 baseline variables were significantly different between the placed and probation groups n After matching, 64 out of 66 variables were NOT significantly different between the placed and probation groups n In other words, we have ruled out these 64 variables as potential causes of group differences in the outcomes

Treatment Effect of Placement Matched Groups No significant differences between groups in rate of

Treatment Effect of Placement Matched Groups No significant differences between groups in rate of re-arrest

Research Question #2 Is there a community safety benefit for a longer length of

Research Question #2 Is there a community safety benefit for a longer length of stay in a juvenile institution?

Methodology for Length of Stay n Length of stay is broken up into discrete

Methodology for Length of Stay n Length of stay is broken up into discrete “doses” n Methods to get similar cases across different levels of the “dose” n 65 of 66 variables show no difference among the groups, meaning we can rule them out as causes of differences in outcomes n Response Curve is estimated

Dosage Categories Histogram of LOS in months Doses roughly correspond to quartiles: 1) 0

Dosage Categories Histogram of LOS in months Doses roughly correspond to quartiles: 1) 0 -6 mo. , 2) 6 -10 mo. , 3) 10 -13 mo. , 4) > 13 mo.

Dose-Response Curve Quartiles as Doses

Dose-Response Curve Quartiles as Doses

Dose-Response Curve 3 Month Intervals as Doses

Dose-Response Curve 3 Month Intervals as Doses

Conclusions n n n For intermediate lengths of stay (i. e. , 3 -13

Conclusions n n n For intermediate lengths of stay (i. e. , 3 -13 months), there appears to be little or no marginal benefit for longer lengths of stay in a juvenile institution Inferences about the impact of shorter and longer stays are less certain n < 3 mo. – too little power n > 13 mo. – too much variability Caution about need to account for treatment in these settings

Substance Use Treatment

Substance Use Treatment

High Rates of Substance Use Disorders (Past Year Diagnoses) Some substance use diagnosis: Males

High Rates of Substance Use Disorders (Past Year Diagnoses) Some substance use diagnosis: Males 37% Females 35% A-A = African-American C= Caucasian, non-Hispanic H = Hispanic

There is Variability in Substance Use Over Time (Males) High Stable (11. 0%) High

There is Variability in Substance Use Over Time (Males) High Stable (11. 0%) High Declining (7. 6%) Moderate (33. 4%) Low (34. 6%) Abstainers (13. 4%)

Treatment Effects n n n With family involvement, significant short term (6 month) effects

Treatment Effects n n n With family involvement, significant short term (6 month) effects of treatment on n Alcohol use n Marijuana use n Offending Strengths of the analyses n Test of treatment as actually provided n Controlling for “street time” n Above and beyond drug testing Not a one-shot “Inoculation” n Chronic, relapsing, remitting disorder n 68% of males with an initial disorder got treatment in the first year

Summary and Implications n Substance use is a prevalent, strong predictor of offending n

Summary and Implications n Substance use is a prevalent, strong predictor of offending n There is variability in substance use over time (not very predictable from initial factors) n Treatment had short term (but not longterm) effects on substance use and offending n Justice system involvement can be an opportunity for treatment

Themes so far n These adolescents are not uniformly “bad” kids on the road

Themes so far n These adolescents are not uniformly “bad” kids on the road to adult criminal careers. Instead, a large proportion report low levels of offending after court involvement. n Longer institutional stays do not appear to reduce offending. n Substance use is a major factor related to continued criminal activity in serious adolescent offenders. Fortunately, treatment for substance use seems to work to reduce offending.

“Be of use”

“Be of use”

Contact Information Principal Investigator Edward P. Mulvey, Ph. D. mulveyep@upmc. edu Study Coordinator Carol

Contact Information Principal Investigator Edward P. Mulvey, Ph. D. mulveyep@upmc. edu Study Coordinator Carol A. Schubert, M. P. H. schubertca@upmc. edu