Association between mental health disorders andjuveniles’ de.docx

Association between mental health disorders and
juveniles’ detention for a personal crime
Patricia Stoddard-Dare, Christopher A. Mallett & Craig Boitel
School of Social Work, Cleveland State University, 2121 Euclid
Avenue, #CB320, Cleveland, Ohio 44115-2214, USA.
E-mail: [email protected]
Background: Youth involved with juvenile courts often suffer
from mental health difficulties and disorders,
and these mental health disorders have often been a factor
leading to the youth�s delinquent behaviours and
activities. Method: The present study of a sample population (N
= 341), randomly drawn from one urban US
county�s juvenile court delinquent population, investigated
which specific mental health disorders predicted
detention for committing a personal crime. Results: Youth with
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and
conduct disorder diagnoses were significantly less likely to
commit personal crimes and experience subsequent
detention, while youth with bipolar diagnoses were significantly
more likely. Conclusion: Co-ordinated youth
policy efforts leading to early identification and treatment of
bipolar disorder symptoms may be necessary.
Key Practitioner Message:
• Individuals with ADHD and conduct disorder were
significantly less likely to commit a personal crime and
experience subsequent detention than youth with bipolar
diagnosis

• Since youth with bipolar disorder fluctuate between mania and
depression, it may be the case that their
behaviour is less overly disruptive to others on a consistent
basis (i.e. during depressive episodes). Therefore
they may attract fewer or less consistent opportunities for
professional and lay persons to pursue helpful
interventions
• Co-ordinated early identification and treatment of bipolar
disorder is required
Keywords: juvenile; offender; bipolar-disorder; mental health;
personal crime; detention
Introduction
Committing personal crimes is an international prob-
lem. A study of 11 heterogeneous European and
American countries indicates the lifetime prevalence of
violent crime to range from 15.8%-47.4% (Junger-Tas,
Marshall, & Ribeaud, 2003), with the highest rates of
violent crime occurring in the US. Violent crime, also
called personal crime, perpetrated by youth has been
increasing in most European countries since the early
1990s (Wittebrood & Junger, 1999; Junger-Tas, 1996;
Junger-Tas et al., 2003). At the same time, mental
health disorders remain a top cause of disability world-
wide (World Health Organisation, 2005). Therefore, it is
not surprising that a majority of youth in the US who
have perpetrated violent crimes and are placed in
detention have mental health related difficulties (Knoll
& Sickmund, 2010; Teplin et al., 2006). These difficul-
ties pose challenges for not only the youth and family,
but also for the juvenile court personnel involved in
balancing two primary juvenile justice principles of
youth accountability and youth rehabilitation. Finding

the right balance is important, and determining how
mental health difficulties and disorders affect juvenile
court involvement and processing could help judges,
probation officers, and other professionals in both
prevention and decision-making. This paper reports on
findings in the US from one large, urban county in the
Midwest in which the impact of certain mental health
disorders have been found to be significantly related to
the detention of juvenile offenders following a personal
crime. Investigations such as this may be valuable in
informing juvenile courts and the child and adolescent
field as to how early identification of mental health
disorders can provide improved collaborative and pre-
ventative efforts. These efforts may also lead to in-
creased diversion for youth who are first-time or low-
level offenders, and subsequently to fewer youth
becoming involved in the juvenile justice system.
Background
Juvenile delinquency and detention
Internationally, youth delinquency peaks between the
ages of 15 and 18 years, although the mean age of onset
of violent offences is 13.4 years (Junger-Tas et al.,
2003). In the US, 1.7 million youth are annually judged
delinquent and 550,000 are placed on probation
supervision (National Council on Crime and Delin-
quency, 2007; Sickmund, 2009). Of these, 350,000
youth are held in almost 600 detention centres (Holman
& Ziedenberg, 2006; Sickmund, Sladky, & Kang, 2004),
and over 100,000 are held in nearly 3000 correctional
facilities (Davis et al., 2008; Sickmund, 2006). It is
becoming increasingly apparent that these detentions
and incarcerations, although necessary for a small

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Volume 16, No. 4, 2011,
pp. 208–213 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-3588.2011.00599.x
� 2010 The Authors. Child and Adolescent Mental Health �
2010 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road,
Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148,
USA
number of juveniles, generally do more harm than good.
The confinement experience often leads to continued
offending and recidivism (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2006;
Petrosino, Guckenburg, & Turpin-Petrosino, 2010;
Torres & Ooyen, 2002), while community-based alter-
natives have been found to decrease re-offending, even
for youth who commit serious and sometimes violent
crimes (MacArthur Foundation, 2010). In addition,
public opinion regarding the US juvenile justice system
has been moving from a punitive approach towards a
rehabilitative approach, mirroring the juvenile courts�
shift over recent years. In fact, recent reviews have
identified broad consensus in support of juvenile
rehabilitation and a belief that this population of
offenders can be reformed (Cullen et al., 2007; Piquero
et al., 2010; Piquero & Steinberg, 2010). Public opinion
is quite important in the US, not only as regards the
impact on elected legislators but also on juvenile court
judges, who in a majority of states are also elected
(Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2010).
To safely and prescriptively continue this shift toward
juvenile offender rehabilitation, it is important to
intervene with at-risk youth and families early on in
their contact with the juvenile justice system, and be-

fore there is risk of detention or incarceration (Roberts,
2004). One important way is to identify mental health
difficulties and disorders, something that many juvenile
courts have been doing for quite some time (Mallett &
Julian, 2008; Teplin et al., 2006). Although identifica-
tion of problem prevalence is an important first step,
understanding how these mental health difficulties -
and which specific mental health disorders - impact
upon the youth and their juvenile court involvement is
imperative if informed interventions are to be pursued
(Grisso, 2008).
Mental health difficulties in juvenile court
populations
In the US, as many as 20% of the general youth popu-
lation are identified with a mental health difficulty or
disorder (New Freedom Commission on Mental Health,
2003). Within this population, 5%-9% of youth have a
serious emotional disturbance that causes substantial
impairment in functioning at home or in the community
(Office of the Surgeon General, 1999), and another 4%-
8% of youth have a significant functional impairment
(Center for Mental Health Services, 2004; Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
2004). These youth have challenges accessing mental
health services, have trouble in school settings, and
often end up in the juvenile justice system (Bazelon
Center for Mental Health, 2009; Simpson et al., 2005;
US Department of Education, 2001).
In previous studies of juvenile offender detention
facilities, two-thirds of males and three-quarters of fe-
males have been found to meet criteria for at least one
mental health disorder, with one-tenth also meeting
criteria for a substance abuse disorder (Huizinga et al.,
2000; Skowyra & Cocozza, 2007; Teplin et al., 2006;

Wasserman et al., 2002). The mental health disorders
found include affective disorders (major depressive
episode, dysthymia, manic episode), psychotic disor-
ders, anxiety disorders (panic, separation anxiety,
overanxious, generalised anxiety, obsessive-compul-
sive), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),
disruptive behaviour disorders (conduct, oppositional
defiant), and substance use disorders (Grisso, 2008;
Mallett, 2006; Teplin et al., 2006). Within the juvenile
court population, between 15% and 20% have been
diagnosed with either depression or dysthymia (Weiss &
Garber, 2003), 13%-30% have been diagnosed with
ADHD, and 3%-7% have been diagnosed with bipolar
disorder (Goldstein et al., 2005; Teplin et al., 2002).
Also, both conduct disorders and substance use disor-
ders are very prevalent in youth appearing in juvenile
courts (upwards of 30%) (Grisso, 2008), which is not
surprising since some of the behaviours associated with
these disorders are illegal.
There is growing evidence that mental health diffi-
culties and disorders are linked to later offending
behaviour and youth delinquency, although the link
may be direct or may lead to additional problems
(Heilbrun, Lee, & Cottle, 2005). Delinquency and
childhood depressive disorders are associated, with
physical aggression and stealing identified (Loeber &
Keenan, 1994; Takeda, 2000). Aggressive behaviours
before age 13 have been found to be predictive of
delinquency (Kashani et al., 1999; Tremblay & LeM-
arquand, 2001). Hyperactivity and attention problems
appear linked to later risk taking and violent offending
behaviour (Hawkins et al., 1998; Kashani et al., 1999).
This study continues these inquiries into juvenile

offending by identifying which mental health disorders
significantly impact upon detention for committing a
personal crime among a random sample of youth in one
large, US county�s juvenile court population. Although
personal (and violent) crime offending by juveniles has
been decreasing in the US for 15 years, this inquiry is
important because annually there are still 140,000
youth arrested nationwide for these types of offences
(Puzzanchera, 2009). There were over 4400 personal
offence arrests made in the county juvenile court
studied. Other researchers have utilised a similar
methodology in looking for the links between mental
health disorders, aggression, delinquent activities, and
juvenile court outcomes (McReynolds, Schwalbe, &
Wasserman, 2010). This study is unique in that it aims
to investigate the association between specific mental
health disorders and secure detention placement for
committing a personal crime. The specific research
question was which mental health disorder(s) (ADHD,
adjustment, anxiety, bipolar, conduct, depression,
oppositional, post-traumatic stress, substance use)
predict being sentenced to a secure detention place-
ment for a personal crime?
Method
Sampling
Adjudicated delinquent youth in one large, urban Midwestern
County served as the base population for this study (N = 2300
youthwhowereinvolvedwiththecourtsannuallyinthiscounty).
Three years (2006, 2007 and 2008) were included and therefore
the total base population was comprised of 6900 adjudicated
delinquent youth, all probation supervised. Calculations indi-
cated that a sample size of N = 360 would provide a 5% margin
of
error and a 95% CI (confidence interval), assuming a population

proportion of 50% (Royse et al., 2006).
An electronic number table was used to select a random
sample of files from each population year. The final sample
consisted of 342 unduplicated youth from the county�s juvenile
Mental health disorders and juvenile detention 209
court�s 2006-2008 population (2006, N = 100; 2007, N = 137;
2008, N = 105). One case was eliminated as an outlier; there-
fore, 341 cases were analysed.
Data collection
Existing case records associated with each youth in the study
sample were used as the data source. Specifically, the county
juvenile court provided files that contained official juvenile
court records and mental health assessments for the sample
selected. Unidentified data from the case records were coded
and entered into a statistical software package. Each case
entered was evaluated for proper coding and correct data en-
try. Inter-coder reliability was high (.96). Since existing case
records were used, informed consent procedures were not re-
quired. This research was approved by all applicable Institu-
tional Review Boards.
Measurement
Nine independent and one dependent variable were measured
for this study. All variables were measured dichotomously
(yes = 1). ADHD, adjustment, anxiety, bipolar, conduct,
depression, oppositional, post traumatic stress, and substance
use disorders were all assessed using existing mental health

case records. All diagnoses were made prior to the youths� first
formal involvement with the juvenile court by a licensed mental
health professional using the DSM–IV criteria (American Psy-
chiatric Association, 2000). Mental health professionals in-
cluded psychologists, social workers, psychiatrists, or
professional counsellors with experience in official diagnostic
assessment. Youth were either self-referred for evaluation or
were referred by medical providers, schools, community
agencies, or family members who deemed a mental health
assessment was necessary. A similar psychiatric nosology
system is used worldwide, the ICD-10, and it too includes
Bipolar Affective Disorder with a mild or moderate depression
diagnosis (World Health Organisation, 1990). Official juvenile
court records were used to measure the dependent variable.
Youth were coded affirmatively (yes = 1) if they were locked in
a
secure detention facility as a result of being convicted of a
personal crime. Personal crimes, as defined by the state�s re-
vised code, included offences committed upon another person
(assault, domestic violence, harassment, homicide, sex of-
fenses, kidnapping, menacing, and robbery).
Data analysis
In order to evaluate the research question and develop a par-
simonious model, a two-step analysis was conducted. In the
first step, bivariate binary logistic regression was used to
determine which variables should be entered into the multi-
variate model. Each independent variable was regressed sep-
arately on the dependent variable. All variables significant at
less than .1 in the bivariate mode were then entered into a
multivariate model. Bivariate binary logistic regression iden-
tified three variables out of the nine to be retained for further
analysis - ADHD, bipolar, and conduct disorders. In the second
step of data analysis, these three variables were entered into a
multivariate binary logistic regression with the dependent
variable (Method = Enter, Reference = Last).

Results
In this sample of 341 youth, 13.3% (N = 45) were locked
in a secure detention facility as a result of committing a
personal crime. ADHD (N = 80, 23.5%), substance use
disorder (N = 60, 17.6%), depression (N = 44, 12.9%)
and conduct disorder (N = 39, 11.4%) were the most
common mental health diagnoses among this sample
(see Table 1).
Results of the multivariate binary logistic regression
analysis indicated an overall model fit of three predic-
tors -ADHD, bipolar, and conduct disorders. These
three variables were statistically reliable in predicting
whether a youth was locked in secure detention
for committing a personal crime (-2LL = 250; X2 (3) =
16.27, p = .00). The model correctly classified 86.8% of
cases (detailed results are presented in Table 2). Statis-
tics indicated that ADHD and conduct disorder decrease
a youth�s likelihood of being locked in detention for a
personal crime, whereas bipolar disorder was found to
increase a youth�s likelihood of being so placed.
Discussion
Mental health disorders
These results are somewhat surprising, and warrant
further investigation. The broad array of offences clas-
sified under personal crimes can be caused or motivated
through very different means, for a youth who commits a
sex offence will undoubtedly differ in motivation from the
youth who commits a robbery, or even domestic violence.
However, this study found that there was a significant
connection between a youth�s mental health difficulty

(ADHD, conduct disorder and bipolar disorder) and their
committing of one of these crimes, with subsequent
sentencing to detention. While this connection between
mental health problems and juvenile court involvement
is well documented, outcomes are not consistent (Huiz-
inga et al., 2000; Loeber et al., 2008; Skowyra & Cocozza,
2007; Teplin et al., 2006; Wasserman et al., 2002); in this
study, finding individual diagnostic differences in the
crimes committed is fairly unique.
Three independent variables were significantly re-
lated to detention placement for a personal crime. Both
ADHD and conduct disorder marginally decrease the
likelihood of committing a personal crime and subse-
quently being placed in detention, while bipolar disor-
der was found to substantially increase this behaviour
and outcome. Indeed, the odds of a youth with bipolar
disorder being detained for committing a personal crime
is more than eight times higher than those of a youth
who does not have this disorder. A full explanation can
not be given as to the juvenile court�s rationale for se-
cure detention of the youth because other important
variables that influence the decision are not included
in this analysis. These other influences may include
the youth�s previous number of offences, history of
court supervision, age, number of adjudications, victim
impact, specific type of personal crime, and others
factors that warrant further investigation.
Regardless of the multifaceted reasons for sentencing
a youth to detention, these mental health disorders
were related to the committing of a personal crime. Both
Table 1. Frequency of mental health diagnosis in a sample pop-
ulation (N = 341) randomly drawn from an urban US county�s
juvenile court delinquent population

Variable (Disorder) n (yes) Valid % (yes)
ADHD 80 23.5
Adjustment 9 2.6
Anxiety 9 2.6
Bipolar 21 6.2
Conduct 39 11.4
Depression 44 12.9
Oppositional defiant 24 7.0
Post-traumatic stress 9 2.6
Substance use 60 17.6
210 Patricia Stoddard-Dare et al.
ADHD and conduct disorders include primarily exter-
nalising actions and behaviours. This means that the
diagnostic criteria used to determine diagnosis and
severity are observable behaviour (hyperactive behav-
iour, fidgety, nervous – ADHD; aggression, violations of
norms – conduct disorder). For juvenile court personnel
and other professionals working with these youth, these
behaviours are often readily apparent. In fact, the
behaviours themselves may be directly related to com-
mitting the personal crime; for example, the inability to
control oneself leading to assault or theft. But these two
mental health diagnostic difficulties actually made
committing a personal offence less likely. One possible
explanation for this contradiction is that since both
ADHD and conduct disorder are often readily ob-
servable and may impact upon or distract others, it may

be that interventions to assist these youth are pursued
earlier, and on a more consistent basis. This may ex-
plain the slight protective benefit that these two disor-
ders provide.
Conversely, bipolar disorder is considered an inter-
nalising and externalising disorder, one where there is
the presence or history of one or more major depressive
episodes as well as hypomanic episodes. In other
words, the youth alternately experiences depressive
symptoms (low concentration, feelings of worthless-
ness, diminished interest), followed by hypomanic
symptoms (persistently elevated, expansive, or irritable
mood, clearly differentiated from a non-depressed
mood) (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). It
should be noted that in the United States the diagnosis
of bipolar disorder in youth has greatly increased over
the past decade, whereas psychosis and other related
disorders (primarily externalising) have decreased (Na-
tional Institute of Mental Health, 2010). One study re-
vealed a forty fold increase in bipolar diagnosis among
youth in the last 10 years (National Institute of Mental
Health, 2007). It seems that this shift and expansion of
bipolar diagnoses may be subsuming psychosis, and
other related diagnoses. No diagnosis of psychosis or
schizophrenia was found in this sample. This is not
surprising given the fact that symptoms of schizophre-
nia typically begin to emerge between the ages of 15 and
25 years, and many children are misdiagnosed in the
early stages of the disorder, or experience a delay in
diagnosis that may be attributable in part to the fact
that the diagnosis of schizophrenia using DSM-IV cri-
teria requires that symptoms have been persistent for
at least 6 months (Nicholson et al., 2001). Although
research regarding schizophrenia in the juvenile delin-
quent population is sparse, one US study suggests that

schizophrenia is present in only 1% of severe delin-
quents (McManus et al., 1984).
Nonetheless, it was this bipolar diagnosis and com-
bination of depressive and hypomanic symptoms that
was significantly related to committing a personal
crime. This is interesting because it may be that the
youth is unable to handle these symptoms and is acting
out because of these challenging �high highs and low
lows�. This is not an uncommon adolescent reaction to
these types of symptoms (Schetky & Benedek, 2002).
Since youth with bipolar disorder fluctuate between
mania and depression, it may be that their behaviour is
less overtly disruptive on a consistent basis (i.e. during
depressive episodes). Therefore there may be fewer
opportunities for professional and lay persons to pur-
sue helpful interventions.
Furthermore, it is important to note, the impact of
bipolar disorder symptoms upon youth may be signifi-
cantly greater than for adults. Youth�s personalities are
less fixed, they are susceptible to peer pressure, and
they are more impulsive and less responsible in deci-
sion-making (Grisso, 2006; Morse, 1997). In addition,
there are fundamental differences between juvenile and
adult brain development (Damasio & Anderson, 2003;
Fagan, 2008). These developmental differences could
make dealing with such symptoms highly problematic
and may partially explain their committing of personal
crimes. If true, early identification and preventative
measures would be paramount to decreasing this
offending behaviour.
The value of intervention may be evidenced in the
findingthatyouthwithADHDdiagnoseswerelesslikelyto

commit a personal crime. As this diagnosis is most pre-
valent for primary school aged children (less than 12)
(National Institute of Mental Health, 2010), then earlier
identification and treatment is possible, and so profes-
sional care can be involved before offending behaviours
become offending crimes. However, because of this
study�smethodologicallimitations,itwouldbepremature
to recommend community-based interventions prior to
improved study design and confirmed findings.
Youth policy systems coordination
If further research confirms, through the use of com-
munity-based youth population samples and multiple
controls for other possible covariates, the finding that
bipolar disorder is predictive of detention for a personal
crime, then significant steps are called for to assist
these youth. It is well known that early identification of
mental health difficulties in children and youth is a vital
step in reducing the later harmful impact of these
troubles (New Freedom Commission on Mental Health,
2003; Report of the Surgeon General, 1999). This
identification can take place in schools, by family
referral, in child welfare settings, and in the juvenile
justice system. Professionals working with at-risk chil-
dren are specifically trained to carry out these identifi-
cations, and then to make appropriate treatment plans
and recommendations. Police officers, the first contact
Table 2. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis of
those variables significant at less than .1 in bivariate binary
logistic regression
of results reported in Table 1
Variable B SE Wald df p Exp (B)
ADHD )1.02 .36 8.00 1 .01* .36

Bipolar 2.18 1.08 4.09 1 .04* 8.87
Conduct ).91 .45 4.15 1 .04* .40
Constant )2.48 1.04 5.64 1 .02 .08
*significant at less than .05
in the juvenile justice system, and juvenile court per-
sonnel are becoming more cognizant of the need to
identify disorders and disabilities (Grisso, 2008); how-
ever, not all juvenile courts are well enough financed or
equipped to handle this level of work. In fact, most
juvenile courts in the US have quite limited evaluation
and testing resources (Rapp-Palicchi & Roberts, 2004).
This poses a significant disconnect between the number
of youth who come into juvenile court contact who have
significant mental health difficulties and the ability of
courts to effectively handle these situations. In particu-
lar, bipolar disorder symptoms are often difficult to
identify because of the vacillation between depression
and hypomania, which requires assessment expertise.
This presents a clear opportunity, and arguably need, for
the juvenile courts and other professional fields to in-
crease and improve cooperation. Coordinated efforts
could include the significant expansion of diversion
programs with long-term treatment, as well as the real-
location of juvenile court resources from the later more
costly detention stages toward preventative efforts.
Study limitations/future research

There are limitations to this research that are important
to note. First, although this research utilised a random
sampling method to select the cases analysed, the
sampling frame is only one large Midwestern County in
the US. As a result, the generalisability of these results
is limited. Second, the dependent variable of interest
had a relatively small (although statistically sufficient)
number of cases. Third, measurement of the indepen-
dent variables relied upon existing case records to
determine mental health diagnosis. Presumably there
were a certain number of youth with undiagnosed
mental health issues. Fourth, the -2LL was somewhat
inflated, which can be an indication of model fit or
simply a reflection of the heterogeneity among delin-
quent youth. Fifth, the database utilised for this re-
search was created using existing court and mental
health records; inaccuracies in these files are unknown.
And last, and possibly more important, is the need to
expand the research data collection points to commu-
nity-based youth populations. Using at-risk youth
populations in the research, prior to their juvenile court
involvement, would allow tracking of these youth out-
comes and the ability to fully predict which additional
independent variables may influence detention centre
placement for committing a personal crime. Similarly,
future research should investigate other covariates that
may mediate the relationship between mental illness,
youth behaviour, and detention placement. As the au-
thors acknowledge, there are a host of other influences
on whether courts will detain a juvenile or not. Thus an
association purporting to show an influence of mental
illness on youth behaviour might be driven principally
by other covariates. These should be measured and
taken into account in future research.
Conclusion

A majority of youth who become involved with the
juvenile courts in the US, and in particular those sen-
tenced to detention and incarceration facilities, have
mental health problems, often severe. Considering that
significant numbers of juvenile offenders with these
problems are found in the more costly supervision and
detention stages of the system, it is important to
understand how individual mental health disorders
may affect this involvement so that early intervention
and prevention measures can be implemented. Future
research should aim to collect prospective data from the
juveniles themselves.
References
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and sta-
tistical manual of mental disorders – IV, text revisions.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association Press.
Annenberg Public Policy Center (2010). Judicial campaigns:
Money, mudslinging and an erosion of public trust. Philadel-
phia, PA: The University of Pennsylvania.
Bazelon Center for Mental Health (2009). Fact sheet on
children�s mental health, available at http://www.bazelon.
org/issues/children/factsheets/index.htm.
Center for Mental Health Services (2004). Mental health, United
States. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service.
Cullen, F.T., Vose, B.A., Jonson, C.L., & Unnever, J.D. (2007).
Public support for early intervention: Is child saving a �habit
of the heart�? Victims and Offenders, 2, 109–124.

Damasio, A.R., & Anderson, S.W. (2003). The frontal lobes. In
K.M.Heilman&E.Valenstein(Eds.),Clinicalneuropsychology
(4th ed.) (pp. 404–434). New York: Oxford University Press.
Davis, A., Tsukida, C., Marchionna, S., & Krisberg, B. (2008).
The declining number of youth in custody in the juvenile
justice system. National Council on Crime and Delinquency,
available at http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/n_initmhjj_ pubs.
html.
Fagan, J. (2008). Juvenile crime and criminal justice: Resolv-
ing border disputes. The Future of Children, 18, 81–118.
Goldstein, N., Olubadewo, O., Redding, R., & Lexcen, F.
(2005).
Mental health disorders. In K. Heilbrun, N.E.S. Goldstein &
R.E. Redding (Eds.), Juvenile delinquency: Prevention, assess-
ment and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grisso, T. (2006). Adolescent�s decision-making: A develop-
mental perspective on constitutional provisions in delin-
quency cases. New England Journal on Criminal and Civil
Confinement, 32, 3–15.
Grisso, T. (2008). Adolescent offenders with mental disorders.
The Future of Children, 18, 143–162.
Hawkins, J.D., Herrenkohl, T.L., Farrington, D.P., Brewer, D.,
Catalano, R.F., & Harachi, T.W. (1998). A review of predic-
tors of youth violence. In R. Loeber & D.P. Farrington (Eds.),
Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and
successful interventions (pp. 106–146). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Heilbrun, K., Lee, R., & Cottle, C. (2005). Risk factors and

intervention outcomes: Meta-analyses of juvenile offending.
In K. Keilbrun, N. Goldstein & R. Redding (Eds.), Juvenile
delinquency: Prevention, assessment, and treatment. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Holman, B., & Ziedenberg, J. (2006). The dangers of detention:
The impact of incarcerating youth in detention and other
secure congregate facilities. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey
Foundation.
Huizinga, D., Loeber, R., Thornberry, T.P., & Cothern, L.
(2000). Co-occurrence of delinquency and other problem
behaviors. Washington, DC: Juvenile Justice Bulletin,
Department of Justice.
Junger-Tas, J. (1996). Youth and violence in Europe. Studies
on Crime and Crime Prevention, 5 31–58.
Junger-Tas, J., Marhsal, I., & Ribeud, D. (2003). Delinquency
in an international perspective: The international self-re-
ported delinquency study (ISRD). Monroe, New York: Kugler
Publications.
Kashani, J., Jones, M., Bumby, K., & Thomas, L. (1999). Youth
violence: Psychosocial risk factors, treatment, prevention,
and recommendations. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 7, 200–212.
212 Patricia Stoddard-Dare et al.
Knoll, C., & Sickmund, M. (2010). Delinquency cases in

juvenile court, 2007. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Pro-
grams, US Department of Justice.
Loeber, R., Farrington, D.P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., &
White, H.R. (2008). Violence and serious theft: Development
and prediction from childhood to adulthood. New York:
Routledge.
Loeber, R., & Keenan, K. (1994). Interaction between conduct
disorder and its comorbid conditions: Effects of age and
gender. Clinical Psychology Review, 14, 497–523.
MacArthur Foundation (2010). Pathways to desistance, avail-
able at http://www.modelsforchange.net/reform-progress/
57?src=homeimg.
McManus,M.,Alessi,N.,Grapentine,W.,&Brickman,A.(1984).
Psychiatric disturbance in serious delinquents. Journal of the
American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 23, 602–615.
McReynolds, L.S., Schwalbe, C.S., & Wasserman, G.A. (2010).
The contribution of psychiatric disorder to juvenile recidi-
vism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 204–216.
Mallet, C. (2006). Juvenile court probation-supervised youth:
At-risk in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Corrections Compendium,
31, 1–33.
Mallett, C., & Julian, L. (2008). Alternatives for Youth�s
Advocacy Program: Effectively reducing minority youth�s
detention and incarceration placements in Cleveland, Ohio.
Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 59, 1–17.
Morse, S.J. (1997). Immaturity and irresponsibility. Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 61–82.

National Council on Crime and Delinquency (2007). And
justice for some: Differential treatment of youth of color in
the justice system. Available at http://www.nccd-crc.org/
nccd/pubs/2007jan_justice_for_some.pdf.
National Institute of Mental Health (2007). Rates of bipolar
diagnosis in youth rapidly climbing, treatment patterns
similar to adult. Available at http://www.nimh.nih.gov/
science-news/2007/rates-of-bipolar-diagnosis-in-youth-rapidly-
climbing-treatment-patterns-similar-to-adults.shtml.
National Institute of Mental Health (2010). The numbers count:
Mental disorders in America. Available at http://www. nimh.
nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-
disorders-in-america/index.shtml.
New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (2003). Achieving
the promise: Transforming mental health care in America,
Final Report (p.2). Rockville, MD: DHHS #SMA-03-3832.
Available at http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/
reports/reports/htm.
Nicolson, R., Lenane, M., Brookner, F., Gochman, P., Kumra,
S., Spechler, L., et al. (2001). Children and adolescents
with psychotic disorder not otherwise specified: A 2- to
8-year follow-up study. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 42, 319–
325.
Office of the Surgeon General (1999). Mental health: A report
of
the Surgeon General (Chapter 3). Available at http://www.
surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/toc.html#chapter3.
Petrosino, A.R., Guckenburg, S., & Turpin-Petrosino, C.
(2010). Formal system processing of juveniles: Effects on

delinquency. Campbell Collaboration. Available at http://
www.campbellcollaboration.org/library.php.
Piquero, A.R., Cullen, F.T., Unnever, J.D., Piquero, N.L., &
Gordon, J.A. (2010). Never too late: Public optimism about
juvenile rehabilitation. Punishment & Society, 12, 187–207.
Piquero, A.R., & Steinberg, L. (2010). Public preferences for
rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1–6.
Puzzanchera, C. (2009). Juvenile arrests 2008. Washing-
ton, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Rapp-Palicchi, L., & Roberts, A.R. (2004). Mental illness and
juvenile offending. In A.R. Roberts (Ed.), Juvenile justice
sourcebook: Past, present, and future (pp. 289–308). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, A.R. (2004). Juvenile justice sourcebook: Past,
present,
and future. New York: Oxford University Press.
Royse, D., Thyer, B., Padgett, D., & Logan, T. (2006). Program
evaluation: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Thompson
Brooks/Cole.
Schetky, D.H., & Benedek, E.P. (2002). Principles and practice
of child and adolescent forensic psychiatry. Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Press.
Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile residential facility census,
2002: Selected findings. Washington, DC: Juvenile Offend-
ers and Victims National Report Series. U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
Sickmund, M. (2009). Delinquency cases in juvenile court,
2005.
USDepartmentofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,Officeof
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available at
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/224538.pdf.
Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., & Kang, W. (2004). Census of
juveniles in residential placement databook. Available at
http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/cjrp/.
Simpson, G.A., Bloom, B., Cohen, R.A., & Blumberg, S.
(2005).
US children with emotional and behavioral difficulties: Data
from the 2001, 2002, and 2003 National Health Interview
Surveys. Advance Data from Vital and Health Services, 360.
Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Studies, DHHS
#2005-1250. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/
ad/ad360.pdf .
Skowyra, K., & Cocozza, J.J. (2007). A blueprint for change:
Improving the system response to youth with mental
healthneedsinvolvedwiththejuvenilejusticesystem.Delmar,
NY: National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Office of Applied Statistics (2005). Results from the 2004
national survey on drug use and health. Available at http://
www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k4nsduh/2krResults/2k4
Results.htm.
Takeda, Y. (2000). Aggression in relation to childhood depres-
sion: A study of Japanese 3rd-6th graders. Japanese Journal
of Developmental Psychology, 11, 1–11.

Teplin, L., Abram, K., McClelland, G., Dulcan, M., & Mericle,
A.
(2002). Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 1133–1143.
Teplin, L., Abram, K., McClelland, G., Mericle, A., Dulcan, M.,
& Washburn, D. (2006). Psychiatric disorders of youth in
detention. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Office of
Justice Programs. Available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdf-
files1/ojjdp/210331.pdf.
Torres, C., & Ooyen, M.V. (2002). Briefing paper. New York:
Committee on Youth Services. Available at http://webdocs.
nyccouncil.info/attachments/56612.htm?CFID=1677675&
CFTOKEN=84562487.
Tremblay, R.E., & LeMarquand, D. (2001). Individual risk and
protective factors. In R. Loeber & D.P. Farrington (Eds.), Child
delinquents:Development,intervention,andserviceneeds(pp.
137–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
US Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs (2001). Twenty-third annual report to Congress on
the implementation of the IDEA: Results.
Wasserman, G.A., McReynolds, L.S., Lucas, C.P., Fisher, P., &
Santos, L. (2002). The voice DISC-IV with incarcerated male
youths: Prevalence of disorder. Journal of the American Acad-
emy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 314–321.
Weiss, B., & Garber, J. (2003). Developmental differences in
the phenomenology of depression. Development and Psycho-
pathology, 15, 403–430.

Whittebrood, K., & Junger, M. (1999). Trends in gew-
eldscriminaliteit. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 41, 250–268.
World Health Organisation (1990). International Classification
of Diseases, 10th Revision. Available at http://www.who.
int/classifications/icd/en/.
World Health Organisation (2005). Mental health of children
and adolescents. WHO European Ministerial Conference on
Mental Health, Helsinki, Finland, 12-15 February.
Accepted for publication: 7 December 2010
Published online: 14 March 2011
Copyright of Child & Adolescent Mental Health is the property
of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
Article
Corresponding author:

Dr Christopher A. Mallett, Associate Professor, School of
Social Work, Cleveland State University, 2121 Euclid Avenue,
CB324, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Explicating Correlates of Juvenile
Offender Detention Length: The
Impact of Race, Mental Health
Difficulties, Maltreatment, Offense
Type, and Court Dispositions
Christopher A. Mallett, Patricia Stoddard-Dare
and Mamadou M. Seck
Abstract
Detention and confinement are widely acknowledged juvenile
justice system problems which require further
research to understand the explanations for these outcomes.
Existing juvenile court, mental health, and child
welfare histories were used to explicate factors which predict
detention length in this random sample of 342
youth from one large, urban Midwestern county in the United
States. Data from this sample revealed eight
variables which predict detention length. Legitimate predictors
of longer detention length such as committing
a personal crime or violating a court order were nearly as likely
in this sample to predict detention length
as other extra-legal predictors such as race, court disposition for
mental health problems, child welfare
involvement, and child physical abuse victimization. Many of
the factors that increase duration of detention are
actually disadvantages that these youth endure; therefore
preventative and intervention measures are in order.
Keywords
child maltreatment, detention, juvenile, mental health, minority
race

Introduction
Delinquency is a problem among youth in the United States. Of
the millions of youth
arrests annually, 1.7 million of these offenders are eventually
adjudicated delinquent (with
legal oversight by the juvenile court), and an additional 550,000
of these offenders are
placed under direct probation supervision (National Council on
Crime and Delinquency,
2007; Sickmund, 2009). Although there are many sanctions used
by the juvenile courts to
punish, deter, or reform youth, secure detention placement
continues to be a commonly
used intervention. Indeed, 350,000 juvenile offenders were
placed into detention in 2006
Youth Justice
11(2) 134–149
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1473225411406383
yjj.sagepub.com
Mallett et al. 135
for either pre-trial holding or post-trial sentencing (Sickmund,
2006). These detention
stays have increasingly been found to decrease public safety

because they look to be
causal influences on later youth re-offending and recidivism
(Justice Policy Institute,
2009; Soler, Shoenberg, and Schindler, 2009).
Although juvenile court policies and procedures heavily impact
detention placement
decisions, other variables that impact detention arguably should
pertain to legal rather
than extra-legal factors. In the following sections, literature will
be reviewed which iden-
tifies first the court offense types (legal variable) and then
extra-legal variables (race,
mental health, substance abuse, maltreatment) as they relate to
delinquency and detention.
Next, what little is known about these variables and detention
length will be presented.
The literature review will conclude with discussion of some
important gaps in previous
research and justification for the current study.
Court Offense Types Related to Delinquency and Detention
One important legal factor that has been investigated is the
relationship between juvenile
offender offense type and detention placement. Although
research is somewhat limited
concerning this link between juvenile offense types (categorized
commonly as personal,
property, drug, status/public order offenses, and court order
violations) and detention or
incarceration placement, some important information has been
published. In one large
urban county studied, among numerous variables predicted,
probation (court order) viola-
tions were identified as predictive of offender pre-trial

detention placement, though other
offense categories were only measured as misdemeanors or
felonies (O’Neill, 2002).
Status offense convictions have also been found to be predictive
of recidivism in other
juvenile offender populations (Myner, Santman, Cappelletty,
and Perlmutter, 1998), as
well as drug offenses and personal offenses (Robertson, Dill,
Husain, and Undesser,
2004). Investigations of the impact offense type have on
juvenile offender outcomes is
important, considering recent trends. From 1998 to 2007, while
juvenile offender delin-
quency rates have trended down slightly (7%), person offenses
(up 1%) and drug offenses
(down 2%) have generally followed this trend; however, public
order offenses (up 13%)
and property offenses (down 24%) have changed significantly
(Knoll and Sickmund,
2010). Knowing more about the association between different
offense type and detention
may be important for juvenile court personnel decision-making.
In addition to offense
type and its relation to delinquency and detention, there are
many extralegal variables.
Extra Legal Variables Related to Delinquency and Detention
Troubled youth involved with the juvenile justice system many
times have significant
individual and family struggles that are pathways toward
delinquent behaviors and activ-
ities. These difficulties include, but are not limited to, family
violence, child abuse and
neglect, poverty, academic difficulties, and youth and parent
mental health and substance

abuse problems. These traumas and problems are very
commonly found within juvenile
court populations, for a majority of these youth have
experienced one, and often more
136 Youth Justice 11(2)
than one, difficulty. While many youth with these experiences
will not come under juve-
nile court supervision, those that do are already at a significant
disadvantage – they have
family difficulties, maltreatment histories, and/or mental health
problems, and are then
adjudicated delinquent and come under juvenile court
supervision. This means that of the
1.7 million youth adjudicated delinquent annually in the United
States, a disproportionate
number have these histories and difficulties; and – a related
problem – a disproportionate
number of these youth are minorities (National Council on
Crime and Delinquency, 2007;
Sickmund, 2009).
To date, no single risk factor has been identified as a causal
link to juvenile delinquency
and subsequent detention or confinement (Howing, Wodarski,
Kurtz, Gaudin, and Herbst,
1990; Maas, Herrenkohl, and Sousa, 2008; Preski and Shelton,
2001; Stouthamer-Loeber,
Wei, Homish, and Loeber, 2002; Turner, Hartman, Exum, and
Cullen, 2007; Widom and
Maxfield, 2001). There exist multiple risk factors in children
and their backgrounds
including deficits in family, school, peers, and neighborhoods

(Hay, Fortson, Hollist,
Altheimer, and Schaible, 2006; Hawkins et al., 1998; Heilbrum,
Goldstein, and Redding,
2005; Howell, 2003; Loeber and Dishion, 1983; Loeber and
Farrington, 2001; Mears and
Aron, 2003; Strouthamer-Loeber et al., 2002). These risk
factors tend to be cumulative
and to have interactive effects, making prediction difficult
(Ford, Chapman, Hawke, and
Albert, 2007; Green, Gesten, Greenwald, and Salcedo, 2008;
Lemmon, 2006). In the fol-
lowing sections important information about the relationship
between three extra-legal
variables (race, mental health and substance abuse problems,
and child maltreatment) and
delinquency and detention will be described.
Minority Race
Minority youth, especially African-Americans, are found
disproportionately at the point
of arrest, detainment pending investigation, juvenile court
referral case petitioning, and
secure confinement (Puzzanchera, Adams, and Snyder, 2008).
Minority youth are also
less likely to be diverted from the juvenile courts when
compared to non-minority youth,
and consequently more likely to come under court probation
supervision (National
Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2007; Puzzanchera et al.,
2008).
In particular, an African-American youth is six times more
likely to be incarcerated
(jails and detention facilities) compared to white youth, and
held on average 61 days longer

(Mauer and King, 2007; National Council on Crime and
Delinquency, 2007). These deten-
tion disparities, both pre- and post-adjudication, are found
across all offense categories –
person, property, drug, and public order – though they are more
pronounced in drug offense
cases (National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2007). In
addition, it was found that
Hispanic youth were more likely than Caucasian youth to be
detained for a new offense,
while Caucasian youth were more likely to be detained for non-
criminal (status) offenses
(Hodge and Greenleaf, 2005). Most challenging is that minority
youth are more likely to
be incarcerated than non-minority youth for the same types of
offenses (Green, Hoyt,
Schiraldi, Smith, and Ziedenberg 2001; National Council on
Crime and Delinquency,
2007; Poe-Yamagata and Jones, 2000; Shelton, Neelum, and
Augarten, 2008).
Mallett et al. 137
Mental health and substance abuse problems
Mental health difficulties are linked to later youth offending
behavior and delinquency
adjudication, though it is not clear if this link is direct or if
these difficulties lead to other
risk factors or poor decision-making (Grisso, 2008; Heilbrum,
Goldstein, and Redding,
2005; Mallett, Stoddard-Dare, and Seck, 2009). Early childhood
aggressive behaviors
have been found predictive of later delinquent activities

(Kashani, Jones, Bumby, and
Thomas, 1999; Tremblay and LeMarquand, 2001). Attention and
hyperactivity problems
look to be linked to later high-risk taking and more violent
offending behavior (Hawkins
et al., 1998; Kashani et al., 1999). The direct link is more
clearly established and recog-
nized when looking at those youth who are eventually juvenile
court supervised, for a
majority of these juvenile offenders have at least one diagnosed
mental health disorder,
many of these severe (Grisso, 2008; Shufelt and Cocozza,
2006). Specifically, childhood
depression and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder have
been found to be linked to
later delinquency, evidenced through physical aggression and
stealing behaviors (Loeber
and Keenan, 1994; Moffitt and Scott, 2008; Takeda, 2000). In
addition, a large number of
these juvenile offenders have a mental health disorder and a
substance abuse disorder, a
co-morbidity problem (Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan, and
Mericle, 2002; Teplin,
Abram, McClelland, Mericle, Dulcan, and Washburn, 2006).
Adolescent mental health and delinquent populations were
found to have risk factors
for detention or incarceration that included being African-
American or Hispanic, in
middle school, having a diagnosis of alcohol problems or
conduct disorder, reported use
and abuse of substances, and receiving prior mental health
services (Scott, Snowden, and
Libby, 2002; Watts and Wright, 1990). Earlier studies found an
increased risk of juvenile
justice system detainment for minorities, drug use, and public

mental health insurance
(Mason and Gibbs, 1992; Westendorp, Brink, Roberson, and
Ortiz, 1986). Youth who
received prior mental health system services who were later
juvenile court involved were
more at risk, when compared to non-juvenile court involved
peers, for drug and/or alcohol
abuse, conduct disorder, and to have been physical abused
(Evans and Vander Stoep,
1997; Rosenblatt, Rosenblatt, and Biggs, 2000). These two
populations – youth with emo-
tional disturbances and youth involved in the juvenile justice
system – vary little across
service delivery; in other words, are often the same or have
similar youth needs (Melton
and Pagliocca, 1992; Teplin et al., 2002).
Childhood maltreatment
A history of maltreatment is consistently found within
delinquent youth populations
(Lemmon, 1999; Smith and Thornberry, 1995; Wiebush,
McNulty, and Le, 2000). However,
maltreatment’s specific impact, type, or duration is unclear. One
study identified that mal-
treatment led to an almost two times greater chance of juvenile
arrest, although the pattern
of risk varied by gender, race, and maltreatment type (Maxfield
and Widom, 1996). Some
studies have identified victims of physical abuse and neglect to
have elevated risk, but not
victims of sexual abuse (Egeland, Yates, Appleyard, and van
Dulmen, 2002; Fagan, 2005;
Herrenkohl, Egolf, and Herrenkohl, 1997; Maxfield and Widom,
1996; Mersky and

Reynolds, 2007; Spilsbury et al., 2007; Widom and Maxfield,
2001). Narrower definitions
of delinquency have been used in finding that maltreatment type
did not have a significant
impact on delinquency (Maxfield and Widom, 1996; Zingraff,
Leiter, Johnson, and Myers,
1993). Significant relationships have been found between
maltreatment severity and mod-
erate to violent delinquency (Maxfield and Widom, 1996; Smith
and Thornberry, 1995).
Also, increased and repeated exposure to childhood
maltreatment led to higher delin-
quency risks, continuation, and severity (Currie and Tekin,
2006; Lemmon, 1999; 2006;
Smith and Thornberry, 1995; Thornberry, Ireland, and Smith,
2001).
Detention length
What is known is that delinquency among youth is a pressing
issue of concern for multiple
stakeholders, and legal and extra legal factors have been
identified as impacting delin-
quency and detention placement. Few studies have looked at
incarceration length and
subsequent juvenile offender outcomes, and the ones to date
have all reviewed either
long-term incarceration facilities (juvenile jails) or
residential/treatment facilities. Overall,
the findings on incarceration length are inconclusive, with
results from these studies
showing a range of outcomes. Some reviews have found limited

benefit to public safety
and youth rehabilitation for residential placement, dependent on
the program type and
duration (Lipsey and Wilson, 1998; Lipsey, Wilson, and
Cothern, 2000). Other reviews
have found that placement has no impact on youth re-arrest or
recidivism rates (Loughran
et al., 2009; Winokur, Smith, Bontrager, and Blankenship,
2008). Additional reviews have
found placement to be an increased risk for youth offender
recidivism (Budeiri, 1999;
Myner, Santman, Cappalletty, and Perlmutter, 1998). To restate,
few prior studies have
looked at only juvenile offender detention length and
subsequent outcomes, though the
consensus is that future research should identify who is most at
risk for longer incarcera-
tions and what these incarceration effects have on the youth
(Winokur et al., 2008).
However, the impact of detention placement on youth has been
more extensively
reviewed, finding more harm than good. Being placed into
detention makes it more likely
that the youth will continue to engage in delinquent behavior,
and may actually increase
the odds that they commit additional crimes (Gatti, Tremblay,
and Vitaro, 2009; Holman
and Ziedenberg, 2006; Torres and Ooyen, 2002). Considering
that of the 450,000 juvenile
offenders held in secure facilities annually in the United States,
350,000 of these are held
in detention centers (and not incarceration/jail facilities), a
focus on detention placement
and detention length is in order (Davis, Tsukida, Marchionna,
and Krisberg, 2008; Holman

and Ziedenberg, 2006; Sickmund, 2006; Sickmund, Sladky, and
Wang, 2004).
Gaps in previous research and justification for the current study
Although previous literature has identified a link between
certain legal and extra-legal
variables and delinquency and detention placement, literature is
very limited regarding
length of detainment placement. As discussed, incarceration
length impact studies are
inconclusive to date, while detention length impact studies are
nonexistent (Loughran
Mallett et al. 139
et al., 2009; Winokur et al., 2008). In this study, the link
between detention placement
length and theoretically relevant legal and extra legal variables
will be explored. Literature
to date links these (and other) factors to initial detention
placement, but there are two
epistemological benefits to examining the link to detention
length. One, increasing deten-
tion length prediction knowledge can better inform the juvenile
court personnel’s decision
making; and two, there is very limited knowledge of these risk
factors’ impact on length
of juvenile offender detention. For if detention is known to have
outcomes that do not
support community safety and juvenile offender rehabilitative
public policy goals, then
minimizing this would be of significant importance (Benda and
Tollet, 1999; Grisso,

2008; Justice Policy Institute, 2009; Loughran et al., 2009). In
fact, the reformation of
juvenile detention continues to occur in many U.S. counties and
states, with a focus on
minimizing both the juvenile offenders’ placement and, if
placed, minimizing length of
time held in detention (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2010).
Understanding factors which
predict detention length can assist stakeholders to tailor
prevention and intervention
efforts aimed to reduce detention length when appropriate.
Methods
Design/research question
This retrospective study utilized adjudicated delinquent youth
(and families) tracked over
a three-year time frame. Confidential court and probation
supervision records were pro-
vided by one Midwest state’s juvenile court in the United States
to investigate what fac-
tors impact length of time offenders spend in detention. The
choice of variables utilized in
this study is supported because of the known relationship
between these variables and
placement in detention, and the potential negative and harmful
impact detention has been
found to have on these youths (Currie and Tekin, 2006; Hodge
and Greenleaf, 2005;
Loughran et al., 2009; O’Neill, 2002; Scott et al., 2002).
Specifically, this study evaluated
to what extent race, gender, age at first delinquency
adjudication, number of siblings,
prior mental health history, child abuse and neglect history,
substance abuse history, type

of offense, and juvenile court dispositions explain the length of
time a probationer spends
in detention.
Sampling
This study’s sampling frame included the juvenile justice
populations from one large,
urban county in the United States (Stahl et al., 2007). This
county juvenile court super-
vises the largest number of juvenile offenders compared to other
county juvenile courts
in the state, and detained 2586 of these offenders in 2008. This
county juvenile court
has a demonstrated disproportionate minority contact concern at
four processing stages
– arrests, referral to juvenile court, secure detention, and state
facility incarceration.
This county juvenile court provided three years of data (2006,
2007, and 2008). The
county juvenile probation and offender population averaged
2300 youth for each of
these years.
An a priori analysis was conducted to determine the appropriate
sample size to achieve
a five per cent margin of error and 95 per cent confidence
interval, assuming a population
proportion of 50 per cent (Royse, Thyer, Padgett, and Logan,
2006). Given a combined
population size of 6900 over the study period, the appropriate
sample size was calculated

to be N = 360 (Royse, Thyer, Padgett, and Logan, 2006: 224). A
simple random sample
(using an electronic random number table) was drawn for each
population year of the
county’s juvenile probation population – youth who had been
adjudicated delinquent
during that calendar year and chosen for the study did not
include youth transferred to
criminal (adult) court. A total of 342 unique (not duplicated)
youth were included in this
study sample: 2006 = 100; 2007 = 137; 2008 = 105.
Of those 342 youth, they were primarily African-American
(72%) and male (74%). They
were, on average, 15.4 years of age, and they were 14.8 years of
age, on average, when they
had their first delinquency adjudication. They came from
households where, on average,
they had 2.5 siblings. These youth spent an average of 21 days
in detention (standard devia-
tion of 52 days); 19 per cent recidivated to detention placement.
These youth had various
offenses leading to delinquency adjudication: property crimes
(55.1%); personal crimes
(61.6%); drug crimes (22.1%); status offenses (32.8%); and
court order violation (33.7%).
Eight per cent of the youths had been a previous victim of
physical abuse and four per cent
had suffered sexual abuse. Over half of these youth (50.6%) had
some sort of neglect or
suffered parental substance abuse. However, three-quarters of
the youth (74.6%) had not
had any issues or problems with substance use themselves,
although a third (30.5%) did
have problems with emotional or behavioral issues. In the past,
one in four of these youth

had contact with the mental health system. Almost sixty per
cent (59.8%) of the youth had
a court disposition to a mental health treatment/service area,
while few (5.6%) had a dispo-
sition from the court for shelter care or to a public children
services agency (2.3%).
Data collection
The county juvenile court provided copies of case files for the
youth and families involved
in this study. These files included probation supervision case
files, juvenile court histo-
ries, mental health assessments, and child welfare histories.
Data entered was evaluated
for proper coding. Inter-coder reliability was high (.96) – with
evaluations occurring at the
end of each file input.
Measurement
A total of 31 variables, all measured dichotomously (yes/no)
unless otherwise noted, were
measured and evaluated for possible inclusion in this study.
Demographic variables such
as current age (on January 1 of data year, measured in years),
gender (male/female),
number of siblings (continuous), and race (0 = Not African-
American, 1 = African-
American) were derived from existing case records. Prior
mental health counseling, prior
hospitalization in a psychiatric institution, and prior history of
psychiatric medication
were all measured using official mental health case records
dated prior to the juvenile’s

Mallett et al. 141
first delinquency adjudication, and prepared by a licensed
mental health provider. Prior
suicide attempt was measured through self report notation in the
juvenile’s case file and/
or through prior mental health case records. Information
regarding history of sexual abuse,
physical abuse, or neglect, and history of child welfare system
involvement, were derived
from existing child welfare case records. Only cases of children
who experienced substan-
tiated sexual abuse, physical abuse, and/or neglect as defined by
state law were counted
as ‘yes’. Lifetime/current maternal and paternal substance
abuse/dependence status was
assessed by a professional psychologist or psychiatrist utilizing
the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (APA, 2000) (the
DSM-IV is the required psy-
chiatry nosology system used in the United States, while the
International Classification
of Diseases is used in most other countries) and was derived
from child welfare records,
or by notion made by probation officer documentation in the
juvenile’s case file.
Information regarding court dispositions for counseling, mental
health evaluation, and
drug screening, as well as referrals to shelter care and public
children’s service agencies
were all derived from probation and supervision case files. In
the cases of youth with
multiple offenses over time, any court disposition for these
services was counted. Youth

history of current or lifetime substance abuse or dependence
(substance use disorder),
oppositional defiant personality disorder, attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder, bipolar
disorder, conduct disorder, and habitual or concerning use of
cannabis or any illicit drug
was derived from prior mental health case records or current
assessment by a licensed
provider. All assessments and diagnoses were made using the
DSM-IV and were assigned
by licensed clinicians, which provided reliability and validity to
these measures. The con-
tinuous variable age of first juvenile court involvement was the
youth’s age at first charged
offense. Additionally, five different offense types were
measured separately to account for
youth with multiple offense types. The offense types included
property crime, personal
crime, drug crime, status offense, and court order violation.
These took into account sepa-
rate multiple offenses over time. This information was derived
from official court records.
One dependent variable, detention length, was measured for
each youth in the study.
Detention length was measured in days and included, for those
juveniles placed into
detention more than one time, an aggregate total over time.
Data analysis
Factor analysis was used to identify and condense variables
which measure similar con-
cepts. From the above list of variables, five factors were
identified. ‘Prior mental health
history’ (Chronbach’s alpha =.68) includes the variables prior
counseling, prior suicide

attempt, prior hospitalization in a psychiatric hospital, and prior
history of psychiatric
medication. ‘Abuse and neglect history’ (Chronbach’s alpha
=.72) includes the variables
history of neglect victimization, history of maternal substance
abuse, history of paternal
substance abuse, and history of child welfare involvement.
‘Court Disposition (CD)
mental health services’ (Chronbach’s alpha =.61) consists of the
variables court disposi-
tion for counseling, court disposition for mental health
evaluation, and court disposition
for drug screening. ‘Substance use and abuse’ (Chronbach’s
alpha =.65) consists of the
variables substance use, substance use disorder, and use of
cannabis. ‘Emotional and
behavioral issues’ (Chronbach’s alpha =.59) consists of the
variables oppositional defiant
personality disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,
bipolar disorder, and conduct
disorder.
In order to evaluate the research question of interest, multiple
linear regression was used.
The 19 independent variables (youth’s current age, age at first
delinquency, race, gender,
number of siblings, victim of physical abuse, victim of sexual
abuse, court disposition to
shelter care, court disposition to public children’s service
agency – PCSA, five separate
offense types (property crime, personal crime, drug crime,

status offense, and court order
violation), and five extralegal factors – prior mental health
history, neglect history, court
disposition to mental health services, youth substance use and
abuse, and emotional and
behavioral issues) were regressed on the one dependent variable
juvenile detention length.
Results
There were eight independent variables that had a statistically
significant relationship to
the number of days in detention, when controlling for all the
other independent variables
(see Table 1). By comparing the standardized regression
coefficients (or Betas) an order
of importance for these independent variables can be
determined. The most important
variable to explaining the number of days in detention was a
court order violation offense
(Beta = 0.30). Closely behind was the age at the first
delinquency adjudication. This is a
negative relationship, meaning the younger the youth at the first
delinquency, the longer
the number of days of detention. The other independent
variables that were significant had
relatively equal Beta values: court disposition relating to a
mental health area; suffering
from neglect or parental substance abuse; a prior mental health
history; race (African-
American); having a personal crime offense; and being the
victim of physical abuse. This
model was statistically significant (p < 0.001), with an adjusted
R2 of 0.24. This means
that 24 percent of the variation in the number of days spent in
detention can be explained

by these independent variables.
Discussion
This study found eight independent variables were significant
predictors of detention
length. These variables have been previously linked with
juvenile justice system involve-
ment or placement in detention. Indeed, others have found early
age of juvenile court
involvement, minority race (Johnson, 2009; Puzzanchera, et al.,
2008), neglect and/or
physical abuse (Currie and Tekin, 2006; Egeland et al., 2002),
parental substance abuse
(Thornberry, Smith, Rivera, Huizinga, and Stouthamer-Loeber,
1999) mental health dis-
orders (Mallett et al., 2009; Moffitt and Scott, 2008), and
personal crime offenses (Mersky
and Reynolds, 2007) to be predictive of later offending and
delinquency, and some authors
linked these predictors to incarceration or residential placement.
These particular multi-
variate findings which predict length of detention are unique to
this study (Loughran
et al., 2009; Winokur et al., 2008).
Mallett et al. 143
Here, some youth for a variety of reasons experience extended
detention. Legitimate pre-
dictors of longer detention length such as committing a personal
crime (Beta =.16) or violat-
ing a court order (Beta =.30) were nearly as likely in this
sample to predict detention length

as other extra-legal predictors such as race (Beta =.16), court
disposition for mental health
problems (Beta =.20), child welfare involvement (Beta =.19)
and physical abuse victimiza-
tion (Beta =.13). Numerous factors that increase duration of
detention are demographic or
extra-legal experience related variables that these youth have
prior to their first juvenile jus-
tice system contact: minority race, mental health issues,
physical abuse, and neglect. It should
also be noted that found here, and in most United States
juvenile courts, there is an over-
representation of serious offending among minority youth
(Puzzanchera and Adams, 2008).
The relationships found in this study are consistent with
previous research on detention
placement, yet extend our knowledge. This study sample
includes an over-representation
of detained minority youth (72%). Looking more closely at
other issues, such as prior
mental health history, physical abuse/neglect history, and age of
first delinquency adjudi-
cation, that co-occur with racial disparities at the detention
point in the system may be
helpful to juvenile justice decision makers as they explain and
resolve this problem.
Ongoing investigations continue to try to explain these racial
disparities, a complicated
inquiry because of the multiple decision points in the juvenile
justice process and the
multiple possible factors and stakeholders involved.
Knowing that detention is expensive, increases recidivism, and
decreases positive out-
comes for youth (Benda and Tollet, 1999; Holman and

Ziedenberg, 2006; Justice Policy
Institute, 2009), it makes sense to focus on prevention
initiatives which are cost effective
and successful (American Bar Association, n.d.) and
interventions designed to help youth
Table 1. Regression of independent variables on days in
detention
Independent Variables B Std. Error Beta T Sig
(Constant) 55.45 34.41 – 1.61 .11
Race (African American) 15.17 5.48 .16 2.77 .01*
Prior mental health history -5.99 2.54 -.16 -2.36 .02*
Neglect history 6.77 2.33 .19 2.91 .00*
Court disposition mental health 8.73 3.13 .20 2.79 .01*
Youth substance use and abuse -.97 1.57 -.05 -.62 .54
Emotional/behavioral issues -2.10 3.69 -.04 -.57 .57
Age on January 1 of data year 1.28 2.16 .04 .59 .56
Number of siblings -1.57 1.57 -.06 -1.00 .32
Age first delinquency adjudication -6.28 2.23 -.22 -2.82 .01*
Victim of physical abuse 21.41 9.34 .13 2.29 .02*
Victim of sexual abuse 7.76 12.75 .04 .61 .54
Court disposition to shelter care -9.90 13.07 -.05 -.76 .45
Court disposition to PCSA -11.59 18.06 -.04 -.64 .52
Offense: property crime 1.53 5.43 .02 .28 .78
Offense: personal crime 14.71 5.45 .16 2.70 .01*
Offense: drug crime 6.98 6.82 .07 1.03 .31
Offense: status offense -1.42 5.61 -.02 -.25 .80
Offense: court order violation 27.76 5.51 .30 5.04 .00*
*Significant at p <.05

understand the consequences of their behavior and learn skills
to prevent future delin-
quency (Krisberg, Barry, and Sharrock, 2007; Roberts, 2004).
Indeed, the impact of early
intervention is seen in this study. Mental health counseling that
occurred prior to juvenile
court involvement was shown to decrease detention length.
These findings are also in line with more recent juvenile justice
system reform efforts
focused on juvenile offender rehabilitation and less reliance on
institutionalization (Krisberg,
and Sharrock, 2007; Youth Transitions Funders Group, 2005).
These changes in the United
States have been led by the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s
Juvenile Detention Alternatives
Initiative (JDAI), a 15-year effort to assist juvenile courts in
decreasing their use of deten-
tion, reduce racial disparities, and improve public safety (Annie
E. Casey Foundation,
2010). JDAI works to collaborate across youth caring systems
(child welfare, mental health,
schools, for example), utilizes standardized assessment
instruments and data collection
within juvenile courts, and builds community-based
rehabilitative alternatives. Results,
depending on length of implementation, have been very positive
in the over 100 communi-
ties in which the Initiative has been involved, lowering
detention populations and reoffend-
ing, and decreasing racial disparities (Anne E. Casey
Foundation, 2009; Mendel, R.2009).
Similarly, the International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
is in concordance in

upholding the United Nation’s rights of all children, but
specifically endorses the preven-
tion of juvenile delinquency through the coordination and
cooperation of the youth’s
home, school, and community environments, in addition to
working with the legislature,
media, and juvenile courts. Also, the IJJO endorses the United
Nation’s minimum rules
concerning non-custodial care for these youth through the
greater utilization of commu-
nity involvement as well as juvenile offender treatment and
rehabilitation (International
Juvenile Justice Observatory, 2010).
Limitations/future research
This study has some limitation of note. First, the sample
utilized only represents youth
from one county in the United States which limits external
validity. Also, the variables
measured relied on existing case records. The extent to which
these files contain errors and
omissions is unknown. For some variables this may be
particularly salient, for example,
substance use and prior suicide attempts may be under-reported.
An additional limitation
is the relatively small amount of variance explained by the
model. This research has iden-
tified some statistically significant variables that predict
detention length, but other impor-
tant variables which predict detention length were not included
in this study. Potentially
explicative information or data was not available at earlier
youth arrest, referral, or case
petitioning decision points. Future research should continue this
line of inquiry and should

include the variables number of delinquency adjudications and
number of prior offenses.
Conclusion
In this study of youth from one large, urban Midwestern county
in the United States, the
following variables were shown to predict longer detention
length: African-American
Mallett et al. 145
race; prior mental health service; court disposition in a mental
health area; neglect; phys-
ical abuse; early age at first delinquency adjudication; personal
crime offense; and court
order violation. Given the distinct disadvantages these youth
with longer detention
lengths experience (abuse and neglect histories and mental
health issues, among others)
continued system change and ongoing detention reform is
supported by these findings.
Indeed, if the juvenile court studied here is to meet its goal of
accountability and reha-
bilitation, implementing some thoughtfully designed diversion
and intervention strate-
gies is important, or better yet involvement with the Juvenile
Detention Alternatives
Initiative (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2010). For these
initiatives mirror internationally
supported reform efforts, drawing upon non-custodial measures
as possible alternatives,
including, but not limited to, restitution, suspended sentences,
non-institutional treat-

ment, conditional discharge, or deferred sentences in
coordination with treatment (United
Nations, 1990).
This exploratory research is unique in that it demonstrated an
association between cer-
tain legal and extra-legal variables and detention length.
Although it was beyond the scope
of this study, future research should include additional variables
and investigate how
youth attributes interact with the policies and detention making
decisions within the juve-
nile courts.
References
American Bar Association (n.d.) Juvenile Justice: Facts and
figures. Available at: http://www.abanet.org/
media/jjqa.html
American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. IV: Text
revisions. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association
Press.
Annie E Casey Foundation (2009) Detention Reform: An
effective approach to reduce racial and ethnic dis-
parities in juvenile justice. Baltimore MD: The Annie E. Casey
Foundation.
Annie E Casey Foundation (2010) Juvenile Detention
Alternatives Initiative, Core Strategies. Available at:
http://www.aecf.org/MajorInitiatives/JuvenileDetentionAlternati
vesInitiative/JDAIResults.aspx
Benda BB and Tollet CL (1999) A study of recidivism of

serious and persistent offenders among adolescents.
Journal of Criminal Justice 27(2): 111-126.
Budeiri P (1999) Secrecy Shrouds Decisions about Release of
Juvenile Major Offenders: Far-reaching
negative ramifications likely. Richmond, VA: Mental Health
Association of Virginia Public Policy and
Advocacy.
Currie J and Tekin E (2006) Does Child Abuse Cause Crime?
Available at: http://aysps.gsu.edu/publica-
tions/2006/downloads/CurrieTekin_ChildAbuse.pdf
Davis A, Tsukida C, Marchionna S, and Krisberg B (2008) The
Declining Number of Youth in Custody in the
Juvenile Justice System. Oakland, CA: National Council on
Crime and Delinquency. Available at: http://
www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/n_initmhjj_pubs.html
Egeland B, Yates T, Appleyard K, and van Dulmen M (2002)
The long-term consequences of maltreatment
in the early years: A developmental pathway model to antisocial
behavior. Children’s Services: Social
Policy, Research, and Practice 5(4): 249-260.
Evans CC and Vander Stoep A (1997) Risk factors for juvenile
justice system referral among children in a
public mental health system. The Journal of Mental Health
Administration 24: 443-455.
Fagan AA (2005) The relationship between adolescent physical
abuse and criminal offending: Support for an
enduring and generalized cycle of violence. Journal of Family
Violence 20(5): 279-290.
Ford JD, Chapman JF, Hawke J, and Albert D (2007) Trauma

among Youth in the Juvenile Justice System:
Critical issues and new directions. Delmar, NY: National Center
for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice.
Available at www.ncmhjj.com
Gatti U, Tremblay RE, and Vitaro F (2009) Iatrogenic effect of
juvenile justice. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry 50(8): 991-998.
Green AE, Gesten EL, Greenwald MA, and Salcedo O (2008)
Predicting delinquency in adolescence and
young adulthood. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 6(4):
323-342.
Green AE, Hoyt EH, Schiraldi V, Smith BB, and Ziedenberg J
(2001) Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform:
Reducing racial disparities in juvenile detention. Baltimore,
MA: The Annie E Casey Foundation.
Grisso T (2008) Adolescent offenders with mental disorders.
The Future of Children 18(2): 143-162.
Hawkins JD, Herrenkohl TL, Farrington DP, Brewer D,
Catalano RF, and Harachi TW (1998) A review of pre-
dictors of youth violence. In Loeber R and Farrington DP (eds)
Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders:
Risk factors and successful interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, 106–146.
Hay C, Fortson E, Hollist D, Altheimer I, and Schaible L (2006)
The impact of community disadvantage on
the relationship between the family and juvenile crime. Journal

of Research in Crime and Delinquency
43(4): 326-356.
Heilbrum K, Goldstein N, and Redding R (2005) Juvenile
Delinquency: Prevention, assessment, and inter-
vention. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Herrenkohl RC, Egolf BP, and Herrenkohl EC (1997) Preschool
antecedents of adolescent assaultive behav-
ior: A longitudinal study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry
67: 422-432.
Hodge JP and Greenleaf RG (2005) An exploratory analysis of
the detention decision-making process in one
county juvenile department. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal
Justice 3(3): 23-47.
Holman B and Ziedenberg J (2006) The Dangers of Detention:
The impact of incarcerating youth in detention
and other secure congregate facilities. Baltimore, MD: Annie E
Casey Foundation.
Howell JC (2003) Preventing and Reducing Juvenile
Delinquency: A comprehensive framework. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Howing PT, Wodarski JS, Kurtz PD, Gaudin JM, and Herbst EM
(1990) Child abuse and delinquency: The
empirical and theoretical links. Social Work 35: 244-249.
Hoyt EH, Schiraldi V, Smith BB, and Ziedenberg J (2001)
Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform: Reducing
racial disparities in juvenile detention. Baltimore, MD: The
Annie E Casey Foundation.
International Juvenile Justice Observatory (2010) Definition

and Mission. Available at: http://www.ijjo.org/
plantilla.php?pag=010200
Johnson L (2009) Federal Commitment Offers Welcomed
Support to Local Initiatives to Promote Racial and
Ethnic Fairness. Available at:
http://www.modelsforchange.net/index.html
Justice Policy Institute (2009) The Costs of Confinement: Why
good juvenile justice policies make good fiscal
sense. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.
Kashani J, Jones M, Bumby K, and Thomas L (1999) Youth
violence: Psychosocial risk factors, treatment,
prevention, and recommendations. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders 7: 200-212.
Knoll C and Sickmund M (2010) Delinquency cases in juvenile
court, 2007. Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice
Programs, US Department of Justice.
Krisberg B, Barry G, and Sharrock E (2007) Reforming juvenile
justice through comprehensive community
planning. Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and
Delinquency.
Lemmon JH (1999) How child maltreatment affects dimensions
of juvenile delinquency in a cohort of low-
income urban males. Justice Quarterly 16: 357-376.
Lemmon JH (2006) The effects of maltreatment recurrence and
child welfare on dimensions of delinquency.
Criminal Justice Review 31(1): 5-32.
Lipsey M and Wilson DB (1998) Effective interventions for

serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of
research. In Loeber R and Farrington D (eds) Serious and
Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk factors and
successful interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
Lipsey M, Wilson DB, and Cothern L (2000) Effective
Intervention for Serious Juvenile Offenders.
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, US
Loeber R and Dishion T (1983) Early predictors of male
delinquency: A review. Psychological Bulletin 94(1):
68-99.
Mallett et al. 147
Loeber R and Farrington DP (2001) The significance of child
delinquency. In: Loeber R and Farrington
DP (eds) Child Delinquents: Development, intervention, and
service needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 1-22.
Loeber R and Keenan K (1994) Interaction between conduct
disorder and its comorbid conditions: Effects of
age and gender. Clinical Psychology Review 14(6): 497-523.
Loughran T, Mulvey EP, Schubert CA, Fagan J, Pizuero AR,
and Losoya SH (2009) Estimating a dose-
response relationship between length of stay and future
recidivism in serious juvenile offenders.
Criminology 47(3): 699-740.
Maas C, Herrenkohl TI, and Sousa C (2008) Review of research

on child maltreatment and violence in youth.
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 9(1): 56-67.
Mallett C, Stoddard-Dare P, and Seck M (2009) Predicting
juvenile delinquency: The nexus of child maltreat-
ment, depression, and bipolar disorder. Criminal Behaviour and
Mental Health 19(4): 235-246.
Mason MA and Gibbs JR (1992) Patterns of adolescent
psychiatric hospitalization: Implications for social
policy. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 62: 447-457.
Mauer M and King RS (2007) Uneven Justice: State rates of
incarceration by race and ethnicity. Washington,
DC: The Sentencing Project.
Maxfield JG and Widom CS (1996) The cycle of violence:
Revisited six years later. Archives of Pediatric and
Adolescent Medicine 150: 390-395.
Mears D and Aron L (2003) Addressing the Needs of Youth
with Disabilities in the Juvenile Justice System:
The current state of knowledge. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute, Justice Policy Center.
Melton GB and Pagliocca PM (1992) Treatment in the juvenile
justice system: Directions for policy and prac-
tice. In: JJ Cocozza (ed.) Responding to the Mental Health
Needs of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System.
Seattle, WA: The National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in the
Criminal Justice System, 107-139.
Mendel R (2009) Two Decades of JDAI: From demonstration
project to national standard. Baltimore, MD:
The Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Mersky JP and Reynolds AJ (2007) Child maltreatment and
violent delinquency: Disentangling main effects
and subgroup effects. Child Maltreatment 12(3): 246-258.
Moffitt T and Scott S (2008) Conduct disorders of childhood
and adolescence (Chapter 35). In: Rutter M (ed.)
Child Psychiatry. London: Wiley-Blackwell Publishers.
Myner J, Santman J, Cappelletty G, and Perlmutter B (1998)
Variables related to recidivism among juvenile
offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology 42: 65-80.
National Council on Crime and Delinquency (2007) And Justice
for Some: Differential treatment of youth of
color in the justice system. Available at: http://www.nccd-
crc.org/nccd/pubs/2007jan_justice_for_some.pdf
O’Neill B (2002) Influences on detention decisions in the
juvenile justice system. Juvenile and Family Court
Journal 53: 47-58.
Poe-Yamagata E and Jones M (2000) And Justice for Some.
Washington, DC: Building Blocks for Youth.
Available at:
http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/justiceforsome/
Preski S and Shelton D (2001) The role of contextual, child, and
parent factors in predicting criminal out-
comes in adolescence. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 22: 197-
205.
Puzzanchera C and Adams B (2008) National Disproportionate
Minority Contact Databook. Developed by
the National Center for Juvenile Justice for the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Available at: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/dmcdb/
Puzzanchera C, Adams B, and Snyder H (2008) An
interpretation of the national DMC relative rate indices
for juvenile justice system processing in 2005. National
Disproportionate Minority Contact Databook.
Prepared by the National Center for Juvenile Justice for the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. Available at: www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/dmcd/
Roberts AR (2004) Juvenile Justice Sourcebook: Past, present,
and future. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Robertson AA, Dill PL, Husain J, and Undesser C (2004)
Prevalence of mental illness and substance abuse dis-
orders among incarcerated juvenile offenders in Mississippi.
Child Psychiatry and Human Development
35(1): 55-73.
Rosenblatt JA, Rosenblatt A, and Biggs EE (2000) Criminal
behavior and emotional disorder: Comparing
youth served by the mental health and juvenile justice systems.
Journal of Behavioral Health Services
and Research 27: 227-237.
Royse D, Thyer B, Padgett D, and Logan T (2006) Program
Evaluation: An introduction. Belmont, CA:
Thompson Brooks/Cole.
Scott M, Snowden L, and Libby AM (2002) From mental health
to juvenile justice: What factors predict this

transition? Journal of Child and Family Studies 11(3): 299-311.
Shelton HO, Neelum A, and Augarten I (2008) Critical
Condition: African-American youth in the justice
system. Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth Justice.
Available at: http://www.njjn.org/media/resources/
public/resource_852.pdf
Shufelt JL and Cocozza JJ (2006) Youth with Mental Health
Disorders in the Juvenile Justice System: Results
from a multi-state prevalence study. Delmar, NY: National
Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice.
Sickmund M (2006) Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2002:
Selected findings. Juvenile Offenders and
Victims National Report Series. Washington, DC: US
Department of Justice, Office of Programs, Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Sickmund M (2009) Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Court, 2005.
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, US
Sickmund M, Sladky TJ, and Wang W (2004) Census of
Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook.
Available at: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/cjrp/
Smith C and Thornberry TP (1995) The relationship between
childhood maltreatment and adolescent involve-
ment in delinquency. Criminology 33: 451-481.
Soler M, Shoenberg D, and Schindler M (2009) Juvenile justice:
Lessons for a new era. Georgetown Journal
on Poverty Law & Policy, Volume XVI, Symposium Issue.

Spilsbury JC, Belliston L, Drotar D, Drinkard A, Kretschmar J,
Creeden R, Flannery DJ, and Friedman S
(2007) Clinically significant trauma symptoms and behavioral
problems in a community-based sample of
children exposed to domestic violence. Journal of Family
Violence 22(6): 487-499.
Stahl AL, Puzzanchera C, Livsey S, Sladky A, Finnegan T,
Tierney N, and Snyder H (2007) Juvenile Court
Statistics, 2003-2004. Washington, DC: National Center for
Juvenile Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, US Department of Justice.
Available at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/
ojjdp/218587/
Stouthamer-Loeber M, Wei E, Homish D, and Loeber R (2002)
Which family and demographic factors are
related to both maltreatment and persistent serious juvenile
delinquency? Children’s Services: Social
Policy, Research, and Practice 5(4): 261-272.
Takeda Y (2000) Aggression in relation to childhood
depression: A study of Japanese 3rd-6th graders. Japanese
Journal of Developmental Psychology 11(1): 1-11.
Teplin L, Abram K, McClelland G, Dulcan M, and Mericle A
(2002) Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile
detention. Archives of General Psychiatry 59: 1133-1143.
Teplin L, Abram K, McClelland G, Mericle A, Dulcan M, and
Washburn D (2006) Psychiatric disorders of
youth in detention. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile
Justice Bulletin, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of
Justice. Available at: http://www.ncjrs.
gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/210331.pdf

Thornberry TP, Ireland TO, and Smith CA (2001) The
importance of timing: The varying impact of childhood
and adolescent maltreatment on multiple problem outcomes.
Development and Psychopathology 13(4):
957-979.
Thornberry TP, Smith C, Rivera C, Huizinga D, and
Stouthamer-Loeber M (1999) Family Disruption and
Delinquency. Juvenile Justice Bulletin (September).
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, US
Torres C and Ooyen MV (2002) Briefing Paper. New York, NY:
Committee on Youth Services. Available at:
http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/attachments/56612.htm?CFID=1
677675&CFTOKEN=84562487
Mallett et al. 149
Tremblay RE and LeMarquand D (2001) Individual risk and
protective factors. In: Loeber R and Farrington
DP (eds) Child Delinquents: Development, intervention, and
service needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 137–164.
Turner M, Hartman J, Exum M, and Cullen F (2007) Examining
the cumulative effects of protective factors:
Resiliency among a national sample of high-risk youths. Journal
of Offender Rehabilitation 46(1/2):
81-111.
United Nations (1990) United Nations standard minimum rules

for non-custodial measures (The Tokyo rules).
Available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/tokyorules.htm
Watts D and Wright L (1990) The relationships of alcohol,
tobacco, marijuana, and other illegal drug use to
delinquency among Mexican-American, black, and white
adolescent males. Adolescence 25(97): 171-181.
Westendorp F, Brink KL, Roberson MK, and Ortiz LE (1986)
Variables which differentiate placement of
adolescents into juvenile justice or mental health systems.
Adolescence 21: 23-37.
Widom DC and Maxfield MG (2001) Research in Brief: An
update on the ‘cycle of violence’. Washington,
DC: Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice,
US Department of Justice.
Wiebush R, McNulty B, and Le T (2000) Implementation of the
intensive community-based aftercare pro-
gram, Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Justice
Bulletin, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice.
Winokur KP, Smith A, Bontrager SR, and Blankenship JL
(2008) Juvenile recidivism and length of stay.
Journal of Criminal Justice 36: 126-137.
Youth Transitions Funders Group, Blueprint for Juvenile Justice
Reform, 2005. Chicago, IL: Youth Transitions
Funders Group. Available at:
http://www.ytfg.org/documents/Platform_Juvenile_Justice.pdf
Zingraff MT, Leiter J, Johnson MC, and Myers KA (1993) The
mediating effect of good school performance
on the maltreatment-delinquency relationship. Journal of

Research on Crime and Delinquency 31: 62-91.
Dr Christopher A Mallett is Associate Professor at the School of
Social Work, Cleveland State
University, USA.
Dr Patricia Stoddard-Dare is Assistant Professor at the School
of Social Work, Cleveland State
University, USA.
Dr Mamadou M Seck is Assistant Professor at the School of
Social Work, Cleveland State
University, USA.
Mental Health Treatment for Youth
In the Juvenile Justice System
A Compendium of Promising Practices
This publication is made possible through an unrestricted
educational grant from the
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Copyright 2004, National Mental Health Association
Mental Health Treatment for Youth in
the Juvenile Justice System

Table of Contents
Introduction and
Overview................................................................................
..................................................1
Promising Practices
...............................................................................................
................................................5
Multisystemic Therapy
Functional Family Therapy
Wraparound
Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy
Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care
Special Populations in the Juvenile Justice
System....................................................................................
.9
Youth With Co-occurring Disorders
Promising Practices in the Treatment of Co-occurring Disorders
Adolescent Girls
Promising Practices for Treating Girls in the Juvenile Justice
System
Youth of Color
Promising Practices in Treating Youth of Color
In the Juvenile Justice System
Promising Practices
...............................................................................................
................................................13
Denver Juvenile Justice Integrated Treatment Network
The DAWN Project
Orange County Mandatory PINS Diversion Program
Mental Health/Juvenile Justice Initiative

The Bridge
Family Crisis Intervention Unit
First Time Offender Program
Family Matters
The PACE Center for Girls, Inc.
Project CRAFT
Treatment Recommendations for the Use of
Antipsychotics for Aggressive Youth (TRAAY)
What Doesn't Work
...............................................................................................
..................................................17
Punishing Juveniles in Adult Prisons
Youth Curfew Laws
Juvenile Boot Camps
Mental Health Treatment for Youth in the Juvenile Justice
System:
National Mental Health Association
-1-
Introduction and Overview
Youth who are involved with the juvenile justice system have
substantially higher rates of mental health disorders than
children in the general population, and they may have rates of
disorder comparable to those among youth being treated in the
mental health system. The prevalence of mental disorders
among youth in the general population is estimated to be about
22 percent; the prevalence rate for youth in the juvenile justice

system is as high as 60 percent.I
Research indicates that from one-quarter to one-third of
incarcerated youth have anxiety or mood disorder diagnoses,
nearly half of incarcerated girls meet criteria for post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD), and up to 19 percent of incarcerated
youth may be suicidal. In addition, up to two-thirds of children
who have mental illnesses and are involved with the juvenile
justice system have co-occurring substance abuse disorders,
making their diagnosis and treatment needs more complex.
While more research needs to be conducted, we already know
that many programs are effective in treating youth who have
mental health care needs in the juvenile justice system,
reducing recidivism and deterring young people from future
juvenile justice involvement. Generally, regardless of the type
of
program used or the youths' background, recidivism rates
among those who received treatment are as much as 25 percent
lower than the rates of those children and teens in untreated
control groups.II The best, research-based treatment programs,
however, can reduce recidivism rates even more-from 25 to 80
percent.III
Because juvenile offenders do not constitute a single,
homogenous group, no uniform treatment approach works for
all young people. In the last fifteen years, significant advances
have been made in understanding the characteristics of
effective treatment and intervention approaches designed to
address the unique needs of each youth. This document lays
out what is currently known to be effective practices through
evidence-based research, and what promises to be effective
practices. It starts with a review of the basic values and
principles that are the foundation of effective practices, as well
as the essential components of the mental health services array.
Then, evidence-based treatment programs are highlighted, as

Association between mental health disorders andjuveniles’ de.docx

Association between mental health disorders andjuveniles’ de.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Association between mental health disorders andjuveniles’ de.docx

Similar to Association between mental health disorders andjuveniles’ de.docx (13)

More from rock73

More from rock73 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Association between mental health disorders andjuveniles’ de.docx