Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is a Minimum Age Necessary? An Examination of the Association Between Justice System Contact in Childhood and Negative Outcomes in Adolescence

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Though policy makers in several states have recently proposed establishing a minimum age of juvenile court jurisdiction to reduce justice system involvement for younger children, research examining the effects of justice system contact in childhood on subsequent outcomes is limited. The current study aimed to examine the association between justice system contact in childhood and negative outcomes in adolescence, including self-reported arrest, self-reported delinquency, and self-reported high school dropout.

Methods

This study used data from the LONGSCAN consortium and genetic matching to match a sample of 47 youth reporting justice system contact by age 12 with 47 control youth matched on 17 theoretically informed covariates.

Results

Matching results indicated justice system contact by age 12 was associated with a proportional increase in arrest between the ages of 15 and 16 of .43, a proportional increase in arrest between the ages of 17 and 18 of .47, and a proportional increase in experiencing three or more arrests by age 18 of .28. Further, justice system contact in childhood was associated with a proportional increase in dropout of .30. Significant differences in self-reported delinquency were not found. Sensitivity analyses indicated these findings were robust to omitted covariate bias.

Conclusions

According to results, justice system contact in childhood contributes to negative outcomes for child delinquents. Findings suggest policies establishing a minimum age for juvenile court jurisdiction and restricting justice system contact for children may reduce negative outcomes for youth with an early-onset of delinquent behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. To determine if the omission of covariates was introducing significant bias into produced estimates, two logistic regression analyses were conducted regressing each outcome variable on selected covariates. The first model for each outcome included covariates included in the propensity score model, the second included covariates identified as relevant according to theory and prior research. A likelihood ratio test was then performed to determine if the additional covariates significantly improved model fit; results of LR tests indicated the excluded covariates did not significantly improve models.

References

  1. Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. W. (2006). Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica, 74(1), 235–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Abrams, L. S., Barnert, E. S., Mizel, M. L., Bryan, I., Lim, L., Bedros, A., ... & Harris, M. (2018). Is a minimum age of juvenile court jurisdiction a necessary protection? A case study in the state of California. Crime & Delinquency, DOI: 0011128718770817.

  3. Augimeri, L. K., Farrington, D. P., Koegl, C. J., & Day, D. M. (2007). The SNAP™ Under 12 Outreach Project: effects of a community based program for children with conduct problems. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16(6), 799–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Austin, P. C. (2011). An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(3), 399–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barnert, E. S., Abrams, L. S., Maxson, C., Gase, L., Soung, P., Carroll, P., & Bath, E. (2017). Setting a minimum age for juvenile justice jurisdiction in California. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 13(1), 49–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bernburg, J. G., & Krohn, M. D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: the direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41(4), 1287–1318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Capaldi, D. M., & Patterson, G. R. (1996). Can violent offenders be distinguished from frequent offenders: prediction from childhood to adolescence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33(2), 206–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cuong, N. V. (2013). Which covariates should be controlled in propensity score matching? Evidence from a simulation study. Statistica Neerlandica, 67(2), 169–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Diamond, A., & Sekhon, J. S. (2013). Genetic matching for estimating causal effects: a general multivariate matching method for achieving balance in observational studies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(3), 932–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Elliott, D. Z., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug-use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Emmert, A. D., Carlock, A. L., Lizotte, A. J., & Krohn, M. D. (2017). Predicting adult under- and over-reporting of self-reported arrests from discrepancies in adolescent self-reports of arrests: a research note. Crime & Delinquency, 63(4), 412–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Espiritu, R. C., Huizinga, D., Crawford, A. M., & Loeber, R. (2001). Epidemiology of self-reported delinquency. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Child delinquents: development, intervention, and service needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  13. EZAJCS. (2018). Easy access to juvenile court statistics: 1985–2016. Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/asp/selection.asp

  14. Farrington, D. P. (1977). The effects of public labelling. British Journal of Criminology, 17, 112–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Farrington, D. P. (2003). Developmental and life-course criminology: key theoretical and empirical issues- the 2002 Sutherland award address. Criminology, 41(2), 221–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Forsyth, C. J., Asmus, G., Forsyth, Y. A., Stokes, B. R., & Mayne, M. (2011). Child delinquents: examining the market for criminal futures. Deviant Behavior, 32(5), 441–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C., & Bumbarger, B. (1999). Preventing mental disorders in school-age children: a review of the effectiveness of prevention programs. Prevention Research Center for the Promotion of Human Development, College of Health and Human Development, Pennsylvania State University.

  18. Hansen, B. B. (2004). Full matching in an observational study of coaching for the SAT. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 99(467), 609–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hanson, S. G., & Sunderam, A. (2012). The variance of non-parametric treatment effect estimators in the presence of clustering. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(4), 1197–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Harder, V. S., Stuart, E. A., & Anthony, J. C. (2010). Propensity score techniques and the assessment of measured covariate balance to test causal associations in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 234–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. (1998). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. The Review of Economic Studies, 65(2), 261–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Henggeler, S. W., Melton, G. B., Brondino, M. J., Scherer, D. G., & Hanley, J. H. (1997). Multisystemic therapy with violent and chronic juvenile offenders and their families: the role of treatment fidelity in successful dissemination. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(5), 821–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hirschfield, P. (2009). Another way out: the impact of juvenile arrests on high school dropout. Sociology of Education, 82(4), 368–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kirk, D. S. (2006). Examining the divergence across self-report and official data sources on inferences about the adolescent life-course of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22(2), 107–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kirk, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (2013). Juvenile arrest and collateral educational damage in the transition to adulthood. Sociology of Education, 86(1), 36–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Klein, M. W. (1986). Labeling theory and delinquency policy: an experimental test. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 13(1), 47–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kleinke, K. (2017). Multiple imputation under violated distributional assumptions: a systematic evaluation of the assumed robustness of predictive mean matching. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 42(4), 371–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Knight, E. D., Smith, J. B., Martin, L. M., & Lewis, T. (2010). Measures for assessment of functioning and outcomes in longitudinal research on child abuse volume 3: early adolescence. Chapel Hill, NC: LONGSCAN Coordinating Center.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Koegl, C. J., Farrington, D. P., Augimeri, L. K., & Day, D. M. (2008). Evaluation of a targeted cognitive-behavioral program for children with conduct problems—the SNAP® under 12 outreach project: service intensity, age and gender effects on short-and long-term outcomes. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 13(3), 419–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Krohn, M. D., Thornberry, T. P., Rivera, C., & Le Blanc, M. (2001). Later delinquency careers. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Child delinquents: development, intervention, and service needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lane, J. (2018). Addressing juvenile crime: what have we learned, and how should we proceed? Criminology & Public Policy, 17(2), 283–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Larrabee, H. M., & Lewis, T. (2015). Longitudinal studies on child abuse and neglect (LONGSCAN) assessments 0–18: NDACAN dataset number 170 user’s guide. Retrieved from https://ndacan.cornell.edu/datasets/pdfs_user_guides/Dataset170UsersGuideCodebook.pdf

  33. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1993). Turning points in the life course: why change matters to the study of crime. Criminology, 31(3), 301–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Leite, W. (2017). Practical propensity score methods using R. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Leite, W. L., & Aydin, B. (2016, April). A comparison of methods for imputation of missing covariate data prior to propensity score analysis. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Conference, Washington, D.C.

  36. Liberman, A. M., Kirk, D. S., & Kim, K. (2014). Labeling effects of first juvenile arrests: secondary deviance and secondary sanctioning. Criminology, 52(3), 345–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Loeber, R. (1988). Natural histories of conduct problems, delinquency, and associated substance use, In Advances in clinical child psychology (pp. 73–124). Boston, MA: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Young children who commit crime: epidemiology, developmental origins, risk factors, early interventions, and policy implications. Development and Psychopathology, 12(4), 737–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). The significance of child delinquency. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Child delinquents: development, intervention, and service needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc..

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., & Petechuk, D. (2003). Child delinquency: early intervention and prevention.Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/186162.pdf

  41. Matza, D. (1969). Becoming deviant. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  42. McGloin, J. M., Sullivan, C. J., Piquero, A. R., & Pratt, T. C. (2007). Local life circumstances and offending specialization/versatility: comparing opportunity and propensity models. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(3), 321–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mears, D. P., Kuch, J. J., Lindsey, A. M., Siennick, S. E., Pesta, G. B., Greenwald, M. A., & Blomberg, T. G. (2016). Juvenile court and contemporary diversion: helpful, harmful, or both? Criminology & Public Policy, 15(3), 953–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Monahan, K., Steinberg, L., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). Juvenile justice policy and practice: a developmental perspective. Crime and Justice, 44(1), 577–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Morris, R. G., & Piquero, A. R. (2013). For whom do sanctions deter and label? Justice Quarterly, 30(5), 837–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 199–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. National Juvenile Justice Network (NJJN). (2016, May). Lower age of juvenile court jurisdiction and youth confinement. Retrieved from http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/NJJN_lower-age-of-jurisdiction_toolkit_5-18-16_FIN%20(5).pdf

  49. National Research Council. (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: a developmental approach. Committee on Assessing Juvenile Justice Reform, Richard J. Bonnie, Robert L. Johnson, Betty M. Chemers, and Julie A. Schuck (Eds.). Committee on Law and Justice, Division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

  50. Paternoster, R., & Iovanni, L. (1989). The labeling perspective and delinquency: an elaboration of the theory and an assessment of the evidence. Justice Quarterly, 6(3), 359–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Patterson, G. R., Forgatch, M. S., Yoerger, K. L., & Stoolmiller, M. (1998). Variables that initiate and maintain an early-onset trajectory for juvenile offending. Development and Psychopathology, 10(3), 531–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Pepler, D. J., King, G., Craig, W., Byrd, B., & Bream, L. (1995). The development and evaluation of a multisystem social skills group training program for aggressive children. In Child and Youth Care Forum (Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 297-313). Kluwer Academic Publishers-Human Sciences Press.

  53. Piquero, A. R., Schubert, C. A., & Brame, R. (2014). Comparing official and self-report records of offending across gender and race/ethnicity in a longitudinal study of serious youthful offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51(4), 526–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Powers, D., & Rock, D. (1999). Effects of coaching on SAT I: reasoning test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 93–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Riley, D. (1987). Time and crime: the link between teenager lifestyle and delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3(4), 339–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Rios, V. (2011). Punished: policing the lives of Black and Latino boys. New York, NY: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002). Observational studies. In Observational studies (pp. 1–17). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  58. Runyan, D. K., Curtis, P. A., Hunter, W. M., Black, M. M., Kotch, J. B., Bangdiwala, S., et al. (1998). LONGSCAN: a consortium for longitudinal studies of maltreatment and the life course of children. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3(3), 275–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

  60. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency, 7, 133–161.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2005). A life-course view of the development of crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602(1), 12–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy (SCAA). (2018). Raising the jurisdictional age for juvenile justice: momentum for change grows. Retrieved from http://www.scaany.org/resources/documents/scs_issues8_raisingtheage.pdf

  63. Schwalbe, C. S., Gearing, R. E., MacKenzie, M. J., Brewer, K. B., & Ibrahim, R. (2012). A meta-analysis of experimental studies of diversion programs for juvenile offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(1), 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Sekhon, J. S. (2011). Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated balance optimization: the matching package for R. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(7), 1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Smith, D. A., & Paternoster, R. (1990). Formal processing and future delinquency: deviance amplification as selection artifact. Law and Society Review, 24(5), 1109–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sweeten, G. (2006). Who will graduate? Disruption of high school education by arrest and court involvement. Justice Quarterly, 23(4), 462–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Tolan, P. H., & Thomas, P. (1995). The implications of age of onset for delinquency risk II: longitudinal data. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 23(2), 157–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Vitulano, M. L., Fite, P. J., & Rathert, J. L. (2010). Delinquent peer influence on childhood delinquency: the moderating effect of impulsivity. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32, 315–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Ward, J. T., Krohn, M. D., & Gibson, C. L. (2014). The effects of police contact on trajectories of violence: a group-based, propensity score matching analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(3), 440–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Wasserman, G. A., Kennan, K., Tremblay, R. E., Coie, J. D., Herrenkohl, T. I., Loeber, R., & Petechuck, D. (2003). Risk and protective factors of child delinquency.Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/193409.pdf

  71. Wiley, S. A., & Esbensen, F. A. (2016). The effect of police contact: does official intervention result in deviance amplification? Crime & Delinquency, 62(3), 283–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Wiley, S. A., Slocum, L. A., & Esbensen, F. A. (2013). The unintended consequences of being stopped or arrested: an exploration of the labeling mechanisms through which police contact leads to subsequent delinquency. Criminology, 51(4), 927–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Wong, J. S., Bouchard, J., Gravel, J., Bouchard, M., & Morselli, C. (2016). Can at-risk youth be diverted from crime? A meta-analysis of restorative diversion programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(10), 1310–1329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, University of Florida, 3219 Turlington Hall, Gainesville, FL, 32611-7330, USA

    Abigail Novak

Authors
  1. Abigail Novak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abigail Novak.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 3 Covariates used in matching
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Novak, A. Is a Minimum Age Necessary? An Examination of the Association Between Justice System Contact in Childhood and Negative Outcomes in Adolescence. J Dev Life Course Criminology 5, 536–553 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-019-00131-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-019-00131-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation