With over two million youth arrested annually, it is critical to understand how contact with the juvenile justice system impacts development. Though prior studies have found that contact with the system - typically measured as an arrest or a court appearance - might be related to undesirable outcomes (e.g., high school dropout, adult unemployment, adult crime), methodological limitations (e.g., biased sampling, the use of existing retrospective panel and cross-sectional datasets) in prior studies render the interpretations of these findings tentative. Furthermore, prior studies have yet to demonstrate how or why this contact precedes undesirable outcomes and whether the impact of contact varies developmentally.
Although youth who violate the law are typically processed by the juvenile justice system, many youth who engage in the same illegal behaviors go undetected by law enforcement. As such, this study builds on the limitations in prior studies by recruiting and comparing two groups of similarly delinquent youth: (1) youth who are processed by the juvenile justice system; and (2) youth who evade law enforcement. In particular, this study follows these youth for 6 months and investigates: (1) whether contact is, in fact, related to subsequent delinquency and academic achievement; (2) whether contact is more detrimental for younger youth compared with older youth; and (3) how this contact is related to subsequent delinquency and academic outcomes.
Data from this study can be used to target two potential loci for change: the juvenile offenders and the justice systems that serve them. In so doing, these data have the potential to inform public policies that might deflect at-risk youth from the revolving door of the juvenile justice system.
Although many studies have found that arrested youth are more likely than non-arrested youth to experience later maladjustment (adult crime, diminished academic achievement, unemployment), methodological limitations restrict the generalizations of prior work. Perhaps the most noteworthy limitation in prior work is the possibility of selection effects, with arrested youth likely to have very different psychological and behavioral profiles prior to justice system contact than non-arrested youth. This leaves us wondering whether the observed maladjustment is due to the type of adolescent who comes to the attention of law enforcement or due the type of justice system interventions that arrested youth experience. The present study overcomes these limitations by statistically matching adolescents who have committed the same crimes but who differ with regard to whether they were "caught." One group of adolescents was arrested and processed by the juvenile justice system and the second group committed the same crimes as the arrested sample but had no prior involvement with the justice system. With this matched sample of arrested and non-arrested youth, we investigated whether contact with the justice system does, in fact, contribute to sustained delinquency and whether these relations vary based on whether arrested youth are formally processed (required to make a court appearance and stand before a judge) or informally processed (diverted from the justice system and given the opportunity to have charges dismissed if conditions are satisfied). To address these research aims, this dissertation added a "no-contact" sample to one site of an existing study (Crossroads study) that was examining the effects of formal versus informal processing among first-time male juvenile offenders. Youth were eligible for the Crossroads study if they had no prior offenses, were between 13 and 17 years of age, and were currently being charged with one of 10 eligible offenses (e.g., vandalism, burglary). The no-contact sample recruited for this dissertation included 100 same-aged male peers who had engaged in one of the 10 eligible behaviors but had never been arrested (eligibility determined by an initial screener and a review of official records). All youth were approximately 15 years old and the sample was ethnically diverse (18.48% White, 1.26% Black, 77.41% Hispanic, 2.84% bi/multi-racial). Data were obtained from two face-to-face interviews with participants. One interview was conducted immediately after parent consent was obtained and a follow up interview was conducted 6 months after the baseline. In addition to interview data, we also collected official arrest records. No-contact youth were statistically matched, using propensity score matching, with formally processed youth as well as informally processed youth. Matching variables included demographic (e.g., race and ethnicity, age, parents’ educational status), behavioral (e.g., self-report of illegal behavior, substance use), psychological (e.g., psychosocial maturity, interpersonal callousness), and school-related variables (e.g., school expectations, school misconduct). When selection effects are statistically accounted for with propensity score matching, results indicate that the effect of contact with the justice system varies based on the type of justice system experience. Although the three groups (no-contact, informally processed, and formally processed youth) did not differ in self-report of offending at the baseline interview, significant group differences emerged at the follow up. Six months after the initial interview, informally processed youth engaged in less offending than no-contact youth, whereas formally processed youth engaged in more offending than no-contact youth. Indeed the rate of offending was the same at baseline and the follow up for no-contact youth; however, the rate for informally processed youth was lower at the follow up (compared to baseline) and the rate for formally processed youth was higher at the follow up (compared to baseline). However, both informally processed and formally processed youth, regardless of concurrent self-report of illegal behavior, were more likely than no-contact youth to be arrested during the study period, according to official court records. The risk of re-arrest was highest for formally processed youth. Taken together, results suggest that some types of justice system surveillance might deter offending, however, any justice system monitoring increases the risk of arrest. Although an adolescent's first encounter with the justice system might lead to positive behavioral outcomes in the immediate future, the long-term consequences of this arrest and the effects of subsequent arrests are largely unknown. Nevertheless, the data suggest that the default policy should be to divert low-level first-time offenders and thereby keep the justice system's involvement to a minimum.
