Sociation Today

Introduction

    While youth incarceration rates have dropped in recent years, the United States is still attached to idea of juvenile detention (The Annie E. Casey Foundation 2013). In fact, the United States incarcerates a greater proportion of its young population than any other developed county (The Annie E. Casey Foundation 2013). According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, around 62,000 juvenile offenders (younger than 21) were held in juvenile residential facilities in 2011 (OJJDP 2011). In recent years, the courts have sentenced roughly 25% of juvenile offenders to out-of-home placements (OJJDP 2011; Campaign for Youth Justice 2012). Clearly, juvenile incarceration is still a popular mode of punishment in the U.S.

    However, studies have shown that juveniles have a difficult time adjusting to life inside correctional institutions (Feld 1993; Snyder and Sickmund 1999). Some researchers argue that out-of-home-placements do more harm than good for youth offenders. Juveniles may be subjected to crowding (Snyder and Sickmund 1999), harm by staff or other residents (Beck and Cantor 2013; Sedlack and McPherson 2010), and lack of rehabilitative programs (Desai et al. 2006; Justice Policy Institute 2009). Some incarcerated juveniles become suicidal or develop other mental health issues (Holman and Ziedenberg 2011; Justice Policy Institute 2009). Other offenders act out in more aggressive ways, committing institutional offenses or infractions that might increase their time in juvenile detention (Austin et. al. 2005; Reidy et al. 2011).

    Little research, however, focuses on explaining why some inmates commit infractions or institutional offenses while incarcerated. Little is known about which variables are related to the commission infractions during incarceration.   This paper helps address this gap in the literature by identifying contextual factors that are associated with infractions while incarcerated. Infractions or institutional offenses could be reduced if the factors associated with it are identified. This information could be employed to help administrators modify the conditions of confinement and update rehabilitative services to address specific treatment needs of those more likely to commit infractions in prison. This paper focuses on contextual factors related to institutional offenses but it is only one part of a larger project assessing other factors related to the commission of infractions including risk-taking, impulsivity, substance abuse, and anger.

Literature Review

    There is no doubt among criminologists that contextual factors play a role in the commission of criminal and deviant behavior. Existing data indicates that incarcerated individuals have more criminal history, less cognitive ability, and increased suicidal behavior (Taylor et al., 2007; Ruchkin et al., 2003; Butler et al., 2007).   In fact, criminologists have long studied incarcerated populations and contextual variables that are associated with recidivism.   While the commission of infractions during incarceration has been studied in relation to recidivism, newer studies are aimed at decreasing maladaptation to incarceration (Sorensen and Cunningham 2010; Felson et al 2012; Shiroma et al. 2010; Kerley et al. 2011, 2009; Taylor et al., 2007; Ruchkin et al., 2003; Biggam et al., 1999; Butler et al., 2007; Gross and Munoz 1995). One aspect of this maladaptation to incarceration is the commission of infractions or institutional offenses. This form of maladaptation has been less explored in terms of the relationship between contextual variables and infractions.

    Contextual variables are both complex and plentiful. One area of inquiry involves the impact of trauma on adolescents. A number of studies have highlighted a positive association between maladjustment and abuse history (Ogata et al. 1999; Pribor et al.1993; Rieker and Carmen, 1986; Loeber and Farrington 1998). There is a growing literature documenting the link between childhood maltreatment and adolescent involvement in delinquency (DeLisi et al. 2009; Thornberry and Smith, 1995; Widom, 1989, 1995; Loeber and Farrington, 1998; Steiner and Matthews 1997). In general, poor quality of life prior to incarceration was predictive of the commission of rule infractions in prison (Dhami et al. 2007).

    Other factors that have been linked to aggressive behavior (or maladaptation) within institutions include criminal history and/or committing offense (Reidy et al. 2011; Trulson 2007; although Sorensen and Cunningham (2010) found that severity of committing offense was not predictive of rule infraction); mental health history/substance abuse (Felson et al. 2012); brain injury (Shiroma et al. 2010); antisocial risk factors (Taylor et al. 2007); low self-control or risk taking (Kertley et al. 2009); living situation and family history (Little et al. 2005); early traumatic experiences (DeLisi et al. 2009); psychopathy (Walters 2003; Eden et al. 2008; Edens et al. 1999) current conditions (Gover et al. 2000); religiosity (Kertley et al. 2011); time spent in prison (Dhami et al. 2007); and age (Trulson 2007).   Some of these variables were hypothesized in this study to be associated with higher levels of maladaptation to incarceration as measured by infractions. Other variables were not available in this dataset or are discussed in other papers. In this study, the contextual variables were of interest. It was hypothesized that the commission of infractions (see Appendix A for a list of infractions) would be related to the following contextual variables:

Family history (Parental Criminal History)
Living Situation (abuse history; abandonment)
Criminal History: (Committing Offense; Prior Offense)
Problem Onset (age at first arrest; age at commission to DJJ)

While the sample size is too small to assess a causal relationship with control variables using multiple regression, the hypotheses are directional in the sense that all of them are hypothesized to affect the commission of infractions rather than the reverse. The Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) Profile containing many of the above variables was assessed at intake into the justice system and thus is a priori in relation to the commission of an infraction.

Methods

    These data were collected through an internal grant from the author's institution and in conjunction with the director of psychological services at the facility. The research was conducted with incarcerated juveniles at a local detention center located in the central Virginia area. The detention center has since closed due to state budget cuts. This research was considered a pilot project and data collection was to last one year. However, due to institutional limitations, budget cuts and other unforeseen problems the data collection spanned three years (funded by the author's institution and in conjunction with a professor of Psychology) but never reached the goal of 100 participants.

Participants:

    Residents at the institution who were between the ages of 13 and 17 years old and had at least one felony offense were invited to participate (n=47). To be eligible for the study, residents had to have at least six months remaining in their commitment and had to be likely to remain at HJCC for at least three months (as opposed to being transferred to another facility). Exclusion criteria include active psychotic symptomatology and/or intellectual functioning within the mentally challenged range.

Procedure

    Juveniles residing at the institution who met selection criteria were asked to participate in the study and then parental consent was obtained. Once the participant agreed, a battery of tests was administered until a total of 47 participants completed the battery of tests. Participants were given a five dollar stipend for completion of the aforementioned instruments.

    Three months following administration of the initial battery of instruments (CANTAB; MAYSI-II; AARS; PAI-A), participants' behavioral adjustment was assessed through a review of three months of Incident Reports (which document major and moderate institutional offenses) and through the completion of an assessment by the juvenile's treatment team.

    In addition, the Department of Juvenile Justice released their profile information to the researchers which contained information relevant to this analysis. The DJJ profile included the variables analyzed in this paper including: age at first arrest, age at commission to DJJ, type of committing offense, type of prior offense (if any), parental criminality, parental incarceration, rejection/abandonment by a parental figure(s), and whether the resident had been the victim of either sexual abuse or physical abuse.

    Participants' assent was obtained in person by the Clinical Psychologist and parental consent was obtained in person during family visits or by mail. Researchers were aware that the procedure for obtaining participants presented a selection bias toward those whose families were involved enough to visit but we knew that consent-by-mail would be less than effective (and were proven correct on that). This project was presented as a pilot study and thus, the selection bias was of less concern than it would be in a more comprehensive study. The final sample included 46 incarcerated juveniles (as one participant's data was incomplete).

Analysis

Descriptive statistics, crosstabs, and binary logistic regression analyses were conducted on relevant variables (as the sample size constricts the ability to conduct multiple regression analyses with control variables). It was hypothesized that contextual variables would be related to the commission of infractions.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Of the 46 participants included in the final sample, 41.3% had committed at least one major infraction during the three months after CANTAB testing, 63% had committed at least one moderate infraction during that time, and only 30.4% of the sample had not committed any infraction during 3 months following the testing (measured by adding total infractions during 3 month period). Of those who committed major infractions during the 3 months after testing, 21.7% had committed only one infraction and 19.6% had committed 2-4 infractions (see Table 1).

Table 1
Frequency of Major Infractions

Number	Frequency	Percent
0	27	58.7
1	10	21.7
2	5	10.9
3	3	6.5
4	1	2.2
Totals	46	100.0

Of those who committed moderate infractions (see Table 2), some had committed only one (17.4%) but 32.5% had committed 2-7 infractions and at least one participant had committed anywhere from 9-21infractions (2.2% for each).

Table 2
Frequency of Moderate Infractions

Number	Frequency	Percent
0	17	37.0
1	8	17.4
2	3	6.5
3	3	6.5
4	3	6.5
5	1	2.2
6	3	6.5
7	2	4.3
9	1	2.2
10	1	2.2
12	1	2.2
15	1	2.2
16	1	2.2
21	1	2.2
Totals	46	100.0

     In terms of the total number of infractions during the 3 month period, many had committed none (30.4%), some had committed only 1 (17.4%) but 43.5% had committed 2-10 and one participant had committed 13, 17, 18, or 21infractions (2.2% for each).

     Contextual variables such as onset age of problem behavior, prior criminal history, being the victim of abuse, and parental criminality are often related to juvenile criminal behavior. Most offenders in this sample were 14 years old (26.1%) or 13 years old (17.4%) at the time of their first arrest. However, many were age 12 or younger when they were first arrested (28.2%).

    Family history is also often associated with juvenile criminality. A little over half (54.4%) of these incarcerated juveniles had a parent who was involved in criminal activity with most (37.0%) reporting that it was his father who was involved in criminality. About 11% indicated that multiple parental figures were involved in criminal activity. Just fewer than half (47.9%) had a parent who had been incarcerated. Again, this was most often (34.8%) the father of the incarcerated juvenile but 8.7% reported that multiple parental figures had been incarcerated.

    Another factor is parental or familial abuse and abandonment which are often related to criminality for youth. In this sample, 50.0% reported parental abandonment or rejection by a parent/parental figure or multiple parties although most participants (82.6%) did not report physical abuse. None of the sample reported sexual abuse (probably a function of the underreporting of such offenses).

    The incarcerated juveniles in this sample were committed to the DJJ mostly for violent offenses (80.4%). Many of the juveniles had committed offenses prior to the offense for which they were incarcerated (41.3% committed non-violent prior offenses and 15.2% had committed violent prior offenses; 41.3% had no prior offense).

    In order to further analyze these data, a series of cross-tabulation analyses was conducted. The infraction variables were dichotomized so that each of "infractions variables" would consist of those who committed an infraction and those who didn't (this was done for "moderate infractions", "major infractions", and "total infractions"). The total infraction variable reflects the fact that some participants may have committed both a major and a moderate infraction which would be counted as one in the total variable (because this participant had committed an infraction regardless of type).

Cross Tabulation Results

    The following results are organized by the variable of interest and the relation of the variable to the type of infraction. The percentages are presented for non-significant cross tabulations to orient the reader to the sample characteristics. However, tables are presented only for those cross tabulation models that produced significant results.

Committing Offense: Total Infractions

    Of the total 46 participants, 9 perpetrated non-violent committing offenses (19.6%). Of those 9 participants who perpetrated non-violent committing offenses, 3 did NOT commit an infraction (33.3%) and 6 committed an infraction (66.7%).

    37 participants of the total 46 perpetrated violent committing offenses (80.4%), of these, 11 did not commit an infraction (29.7%) and 26 did commit an infraction (70.3%) during the 3 months following the CANTAB testing. Of the total 46, 32 (69.6%) committed an infraction, while 14 (30.4%) did NOT commit an infraction. However, this model did not produce significant Chi-Square results.

Committing Offense: Moderate Infractions

     In terms of moderate infractions, 37 juveniles had committed a violent committing offense. Of those, 24 (64.9%) committed a moderate infraction during the 3 months following CANTAB testing. About 20% had committed a non-violent committing offense, of those, only 5 committed a moderate infraction (this model was not significant).

Committing Offense: Major Infractions

     Of those who had violent committing offenses (n=37; 80.4%), 15 (40.5%) committed a major infraction and 22 (59.5%) did not commit a major infraction. Of those who had non-violent committing offenses (n=9; 19.6%), 4 (44.4%) committed a major infraction and 5 (55.6%) did not commit a major infraction during the 3 months following testing. Interestingly, those with violent committing offenses were slightly LESS likely to commit a major infraction than those with non-violent committing offenses.

Prior Offenses: Total Infractions

    In terms of prior offenses (n=45; one case had missing data on this variable), 7 (15.6%) had committed violent prior offenses and of those, 5 (71.4%) committed an infraction. Whereas, 19 (42.2%) had committed a non-violent prior offense and of those, 14 (73.7%) committed an infraction. Several (19; 42.2%) had committed no prior offense, but 12 (63.2%) of those also committed an infraction whereas 7 (36.8%) had no infractions during the 3 months following testing. So, relatively equal numbers of residents committed infractions regardless of whether they had non-violent, violent, or no prior offenses. Not surprising, this cross tabulation model did not produce significant Chi-Square results.

Prior Offenses: Moderate Infractions

     Nineteen youths (42.2%) had no prior offenses and 19 also had non-violent prior offenses. Seven youths had violent prior offenses. Of those who had committed violent prior offenses, 5 (71.4%) committed a moderate infraction. However, of the 19 who had committed non-violent prior offenses, 13 (68.4%) committed a moderate infraction. This model was also not significant.

Prior Offenses: Major Infractions

    Of those who had no priors, 5 (26.3%) committed a major infraction and 14 (73.7%) did not. Of those 19 who had a non-violent prior, 10 (52.6%) committed a major infraction during the 3 months following the testing and 9 (47.4%) had no major infraction during that time. Of those 7 who had violent priors, 4 (57.1%) had a major infraction whereas 3 (42.9%) did not commit a major infraction. Again, this model was not significant.

Parental Criminality: Total Infractions

    Unlike the above models, the cross tab model with parental criminality did produce significant Pearson Chi-Square results (8.790; p=.003). See Table 3 below. Of those 25 (54.3%) juveniles who had criminal parents, 22 (88.0%) committed an infraction. Of those 21(45.7%) who had parents who were not criminal, 10 (47.6%) committed an infraction while 11 (52.4%) did not.

Table 3
Cross Tabulation of Total Infractions and
Parental Criminality

	No Infraction	Infraction	Total
No Parental Criminality	11	10	21
Column Percent	52.4%	47.6%	100%
Row Percent	78.6%	31.3%	45.7%
Parental Criminality	3	22	25
Column Percent	12.0%	88.0%	100%
Row Percent	21.4%	68.8%	54.3%
Total N	14	32	46
Row percent	30.4%	69.6%

Pearson Chi Square =8.790; p=.003

Parental Criminality: Moderate Infractions

The cross tabulation model for parental criminality was significant for moderate infractions (X2 = 3.946; p < .05). Of those who had criminal parents, 19 (76.0%) committed moderate infractions. Six juveniles (24.0%) did not commit a moderate infraction (see Table 4).

Table 4
Cross Tabulation of Moderate Infractions and
Parental Criminality

	No Infraction	Infraction	Total
No Parental Criminality	11	10	21
Column Percent	52.4%	47.6%	100%
Row Percent	64.7%	34.5%	45.7%
Parental Criminality	6	19	25
Column Percent	24.0%	76.0%	100%
Row Percent	35.3%	65.5%	54.3%
Total N	17	29	46
Row percent	37.0%	63.0%	54.3%

Pearson Chi Square=3.946; p=.047.

Parental Criminality: Major Infractions

As seen with in the other models, parental criminality was an important factor in major institutional offenses (see Table 5 below). Of those who reported criminal parents or parental figures (25; 54.3%), 15 (60.0%) committed a major infraction whereas 10 (40.0%) did not commit a major infraction. Of those 21 (45.7 %) participants who did not report criminal parents, 4 (19.0%) committed a major infraction and 17 (81.0%) did not.

Table 5
Cross Tabulation of Major Infractions and
Parental Criminality

	No Infraction	Infraction	Total
No Parental Criminality	17	4	21
Column Percent	81.0%	19.0%	100%
Row Percent	63.0%	21.1%	45.7%
Parental Criminality	10	15	25
Column Percent	40.0%	60.0%	100%
Row Percent	37.0%	78.9%	54.3%
Total N	17	29	46
Row percent	37.0%	63.0%

Pearson Chi Square=7.895; p=.005

Parental Incarceration: Total Infractions

Similarly, the model for parental incarceration was also significant (X2 = 5.620; p=.018). See Table 6 below. Twenty-two (47.8%) of the 46 participants had parents who had been incarcerated. Of those 22 with incarcerated parents, 19 (86.4%) committed an infraction. In fact, only 3 (13.6%) with parents who had been incarcerated had NOT committed an infraction. Conversely, of the 24 (52.2%) who did not have parents who had been incarcerated, 13 (54.2%) committed an infraction and 11 (45.8%) did not commit an infraction.

Table 6
Cross Tabulation of Total Infractions and
Parental Incarceration

	No Infraction	Infraction	Total
No Parental Incarceration	11	13	24
Column Percent	45.8%	54.2%	100%
Row Percent	78.6%	40.6%	52.2%
Parental Incarceration	3	19	22
Column Percent	13.6%	86.4%	100%
Row Percent	21.4%	59.4%	47.8%
Total N	14	32	46
Row percent	30.4%	69.6%

       Pearson Chi Square=5.620; p = .018

Parental Incarceration: Moderate Infractions

    The parental incarceration cross tabulation model was not significant for moderate infractions. Of those who reported incarcerated parents (22; 47.8%), 16 (72.7%) committed a moderate infraction while 6 (27.3%) had not committed a moderate infraction. Whereas, 13 (54.2%) who did not have incarcerated parents committed a moderate infraction. Eleven juveniles (45.8%) who did not have incarcerated parents did not commit a moderate infraction.

Parental Incarceration: Major Infractions

    Parental incarceration produced a significant cross tabulation model for major infractions (see Table 7 below). Twenty-two participants (47.8%) reported having parents or parental figures who had been incarcerated. Of those 22 participants, 13 (59.1%) had committed a major infraction and 9 (40.9%) had not. Twenty-four (52.2%) did not have incarcerated parents and of those only 6 (25.0%) committed a major infraction and 18 (75.0%) had not.

Table 7
Cross Tabulation of Major Infractions and
Parental Incarceration

	No Infraction	Infraction	Total
No Parental Incarceration	18	6	24
Column Percent	75.0%	25.0%	100%
Row Percent	66.7%	31.6%	52.2%
Parental Incarceration	9	13	22
Column Percent	40.9%	59.1%	100%
Row Percent	33.3%	68.4%	47.8%
Total N	27	19	46
Row percent	58.7%	41.3%

        Pearson Chi Square=5.502; p=.019

Abandonment/Rejection: Total Infractions

    Of those juveniles who reported abandonment or rejection by a parental figure (or multiple parties), 17 (73.9%) committed an infraction and 6 (26.1%) did not. Eight youths (34.8%) who were not abandoned committed no infraction and 15 (65.2%) who were not abandoned did commit an infraction. However, this model was not significant.

Abandonment/Rejection: Moderate Infractions

    For moderate infractions, the model for parental abandonment/rejection was significant if the p-value was relaxed to .150 due to the small sample size. Of those who reported abandonment 23 (50%), 17 (73.9%) committed a moderate infraction whereas 6 (26.1%) did not commit a moderate infraction. Of those who did not report incarcerated parents (23; 50%), 12 (52.5%) committed a moderate infraction whereas 11 (47.8%) did not commit a moderate infraction (see Table 8 below).

Table 8

Cross Tabulation of Moderate Infractions and
Abandonment/Rejection

	No Infraction	Infraction	Total
No Parental Criminality	11	12	23
Column Percent	47.8%	52.5%	100%
Row Percent	64.7%	41.4%	50.0%
Parental Criminality	6	17	23
Column Percent	26.1%	73.6%	100%
Row Percent	35.3%	58.6%	50.0%
Total N	17	29	46
Row percent	37.0%	63.3%

        Pearson Chi Square=2.333; p = .127

Abandonment/Rejection: Major Infractions

     Half of the sample reported parental abandonment/rejection and half did not (23; 50.0%). Of those who reported abandonment or rejection, 10 (43.5%) committed a major infraction and 13 (56.5%) did not. Of those 23 who did not report abandonment, 9 (39.1%) committed a major infraction whereas 14 (60.9%) did not commit a major infraction during the 3 months following CANTAB administration. However, this model was not significant.

Abuse: Total Infractions

     Also, the model with physical abuse was not significant. Eight (17.4%) participants reported being victims of physical abuse, almost all of these juveniles (7; 87.5%) committed an infraction. Only one (12.5%) who reported abuse did NOT commit an infraction. Most did not report physical abuse (38; 82.6%), but 25 (65.8%) of these committed an infraction while 13 (34.2%) did not. Interestingly, the vast majority with abusive parents committed infractions. However, almost double of those who were not abused committed an infraction as well.

Abuse: Moderate Infractions

    Again, the model for physical abuse was not significant. Of those who reported being the victim of abuse (8; 17.4%), 6 (75.0%) committed a moderate infraction and 2 (25.0%) did not. Of the 38 (82.6%) who did not experience abuse, 23 (60.5%) committed a moderate infraction whereas 15 (39.5%) did not commit a moderate infraction.

Abuse: Major Infractions

    Eight (12.4%) reported physical abuse and of those 5 (62.5%) committed a major infraction and 3 (37.5%) did not commit a major infraction. Of the 38 (82.6%) who did not report being the victim of physical abuse, 14 (36.8%) committed a major infraction whereas 24 (63.2%) did not. The cross tabulation models analyzing physical abuse did not produce a significant Pearson Chi-Square statistic.

Age at First Arrest to DJJ

    The cross tab model chi square for age at first arrest was not significant for any of the three infraction types. The range for age at first arrest was 9-16 years. Of the juveniles who committed an infraction, the majority were either 14 (28.1%) years old. For those who committed a major infraction, even numbers were 14 or 15 years old (26.3% in each age). The majority of those who committed a moderate infraction were 14 years old (27.6%).

Age at Commission to DJJ

    Similarly, the cross tab model chi square for age at commission to DJJ was not significant for any of the three infraction types. The range for age at commission to DJJ was 12-17 years. Of the juveniles who committed any infraction, the majority were either 15 (37.5%) or 16 (28.1%) years old. The same was true for those who committed a major infraction. Almost 37% were 15 years old and 31.6% were 16 years old. For moderate infractions, similar results were found. Of those who committed a moderate infraction, 37.9% were 15 years old and 27.6% were 16 years old.

    Overall, cross-tabulation models for the contextual variables produced similar results for each measure of infractions. Parental criminality produced a significant model for total and major infractions. The models for parental incarceration were significant for all three types of infraction. However, the other variables were not significant.

Correlations

    Three of the contextual variables proved to be correlated with infractions: prior offenses; parental criminality; and parental incarceration. This is not surprising because parental involvement in the system/crime is often associated with juvenile crime. However, because the sample size was small, the significance level was relaxed to p< .15. In doing so, parental abandonment/rejection becomes correlated (see Table 9). All of these correlations were in the hypothesized direction meaning that they were positive. If a participant reported parental criminality, incarceration or abandonment, he was more likely to have an infraction. If a participant had a prior violent offense, he was more likely to have committed an infraction.

    Major infractions were positively correlated with parental criminality and parental incarceration. And again, if the p-value was relaxed to p< .15 then, prior offenses and physical abuse became significant. All the significant correlations were in the expected direction in that those with violent prior offenses, with criminal parents, or incarcerated parents, being younger when committed to DJJ, or being victims of abuse were likely to commit more major infractions in the 3 months following CANTAB testing.

     Moderate infractions were not correlated at the p<.05 level but if the level was relaxed to p< .10, prior offenses, parental criminality, parental incarceration, and abandonment/rejection were correlated in the expected direction. Participants who had committed a violent prior offense, had a criminal parent, an incarcerated parent, or had been abandoned were more likely to commit a moderate infraction in the 3 months following the CANTAB administration.

    Similarly, participants reporting a criminal parental figure or incarcerated parental figure were more likely to have higher total offenses (p< .05). If the p-level was relaxed, prior offenses was correlated with total infractions offenses (p=.073) meaning that those with violent prior offenses were more likely to have higher total offenses. In the same way, abandonment becomes significantly correlated with total offenses at a relaxed p-value (p=.133) with those who reported abandonment being more likely to have higher total offenses.

Table 9
Correlation Matrix with Contextual Variables and Infractions

	Major	Moderate	Total
Prior Offenses	.158	.206	.221
	(.150)*	(.088)**	(.073)**
Parental Criminality	.340	.217	.268
	(.010)***	(.074)**	(.036)***
Parental Incarceration	.261	.236	.269
	(.040)***	(.058)**	(.035)***
Parental Abandonment	-.021	.186	.168
	(.445)	(.107)*	(.113)*
Parental Physical Abuse	.181	.109	.136
	(.115)*	(.236)	(.184)
Age at First Arrest	.043	.091	.092
	(.389)	(.274)	(.271)
Age at Commission	.093	.016	.033
	(.269)	(.458)	(.413)

        *p<.05
       **p<.100
       ***p<.150

     However, several variables that were expected to be correlated were not significantly associated with the commission of infractions: age at first arrest; victim of sexual abuse (no one in this sample claimed to be a victim of sexual abuse); victim of physical abuse; and committing offense (violent/non-violent). Criminal history (prior offenses) and family history (parental criminality and parental incarceration were correlated with each type of infractions (p<.10). If the p values was relaxed abandonment was correlated with moderate and total infractions and abuse was correlated with major infractions. (*Note: independent sample t-test analyses were conducted to test for significant differences between those who committed an infraction and those who did not and the continuous variables: age at first arrest and age at commission to DJJ. None of these t-tests were significant suggesting that there are no differences between those who committed infractions and those who did not on age at first arrest or age at commission to DJJ). Further analyses were conducted in order to test whether these contextual variables predict major and moderate infractions.

Logistic Regression Analyses for Major and Moderate Infractions

Due to the small sample size, binary logistic regression was used to analyze these relationships in a series of two-variable tests rather than the preferred method of multiple regression. Logistic regression analyses indicated that the predictors of infractions included parental criminality and incarceration.

Major Infractions

Several of the contextual variables were not significant predictors of major infractions: age at first arrest, age at commission to DJJ, parental abandonment/rejection, physical abuse, and committing offense. However, parental criminality and parental incarceration were significant predictors of major infractions at the .05 level (see Table 10 below).

Table 10
Logistic Regression Predicting Major Infractions with
Parental Criminality

Predictor	B	Wald	p	EXP(B) odds ratio
Parental Criminality	1.852	7.216	.007	6.376

          Chi Square=8.270; p=.004

     As seen in the table above, logistic regression was used to see if parental criminality predicted whether or not the participant committed a major infraction during the 3 months following the CANTAB administration. The model was used to predict the odds of whether those with a criminal parent were more likely commit an infraction. The results revealed that those with no criminal parent were only .24 times as likely to commit a major infraction than not, whereas, those with a criminal parent were 1.499 times more likely to commit a major infraction than not. As seen in the cross tabulation and confirmed by the probabilities calculated from the crosstabs, 19% of those without criminal parents committed a major infraction and 60% of those with a criminal parent committed a major infraction.   The model predicts that the odds of committing a major infraction were 6.376 times higher for those who have criminal parents compared to those who do not. The model chi square indicated that adding the parental criminality variable to the equation reduced the -2 log likelihood ratio by 8.270 (p= .004).

     Similarly, the model below (see Table 11) illustrates that those with a parent who had been incarcerated were more likely to have committed a major infraction. Juveniles with no incarcerated parent were only .33 times as likely to commit a major infraction than not, whereas, those who had an incarcerated parent were 1.444 times more likely to commit a major infraction than not. Twenty-five percent of those without incarcerated parents committed a major infraction and 59% of those with an incarcerated parent committed a major infraction.   The odds of committing a major infraction were 4.333 times higher for those who have incarcerated parents. Adding the incarcerated parent variable to the equation reduced the -2 log likelihood ratio by 5.612 (p= .018).

Table 11
Logistic Regression Predicting Major Infractions with
Parental Incarceration

Predictor	B	Wald	p	EXP(B)odds ratio
Parental Incarceration	1.466	1.5241	.022	4.333

Chi Square=5.612; p=.018

If the p-value was relaxed to p< .15 then prior offenses becomes a significant predictor (*note=prior offenses was recoded here to a binary variable 0=no prior; 1= prior). In terms of prior offenses, youths who had committed no prior offenses were only .36 times as likely to commit a major infraction than not compared to those who had committed prior offenses who were 1 time more likely to commit a major infraction than not. Twenty-six percent of those without prior offenses committed a major infraction and 50% of those with a prior offense committed a major infraction. The odds of committing a major infraction were 2.80 times higher for those who had prior offenses (either violent or non-violent). As seen in Table 12, adding the prior offenses variable to the equation reduced the -2 log likelihood ratio by 2.627 (p= .105).

Table 12
Logistic Regression Predicting Major Infractions with
Prior Offenses

Predictor	B	Wald	p	EXP(B)odds ratio
Prior Offenses	1.030	2.493	.114	2.800

Chi Square=2.627; p=.105

Moderate Infractions

In relation to moderate infractions, most of the contextual variables were not significant predictors at the .05 level Parental criminality is the only significant predictor at the .05 level (see Table 13).

Table 13
Logistic Regression Predicting Moderate Infractions with
Parental Criminality

Predictor	B	Wald	p	EXP(B)odds ratio
Parental Criminality	1.248	3.797	.051	3.483

Chi Square=3.984; p=.046

The model above illustrates that those without a parent who had been involved in criminal activity were only .91 times as likely to commit a moderate infraction than not. This compares to those who had a parent involved in criminality who were 3.17 times more likely to commit a moderate infraction than not. About 48% of those without criminal parents committed a moderate infraction compared to about 76% of those with criminal parents who committed a moderate infraction. The odds of committing a moderate infraction were 3.483 times higher for those who had a parent involved in criminal offending. Adding the parental criminality variable to the equation reduced the -2 log likelihood ratio by 3.984 (p= .046).

However if the p-value was relaxed to .15, then parental abandonment become a significant predictor of moderate infraction (see Table 14 below). Juveniles who did not report parental abandonment or rejection were 1.09 times as likely to commit a moderate infraction than not compared to those who reported abandonment who were 2.83 times more likely to commit a moderate infraction than not. Of those who did not report abandonment, about 52% committed a moderate infraction whereas 74% of those who were abandoned committed a moderate infraction. The odds of committing a moderate infraction were 2.597 times higher for those who reported parental abandonment or rejection. Adding the parental abandonment variable to the equation reduced the -2 log likelihood ratio by 2.359 (p= .125).

Table 14
Logistic Regression Predicting Moderate Infractions
with Parental Abandonment/Rejection

Predictor	B	Wald	p	EXP(B)odds ratio
Parental Abandonment	.954	2.279	.131	2.597

Chi Square=2.359; p=.125

Logistic regression analyses for age at commission to the Department of Juvenile Justice did not produce significant results for major infractions or moderate infractions. Thus, it seems in these data, age at time of commission to DOC is not an important factor for predicting infractions. The same was true for age at first arrest. This was surprising given that age is typically associated with juvenile delinquency in that the younger onset of delinquency is predictive of future criminality and seemingly would be of institutional offenses as well (others have found this to be true. See Trulson 2007).

Discussion and Conclusion

     Aggressive behavior among incarcerated juveniles and maladaptation to institutionalization is a growing area of research among criminologists. Researchers have found associations between institutional offenses and age (Trulson 2007), abuse/trauma (Ogata et al. 1999; Pribor et al.1993; Rieker and Carmen, 1986; Loeber and Farrington 1998; DeLisi et al. 2009), family history (Little et al. 2005), committing offense (Reidy et al. 2011; Trulson 2007) and many other factors.

      The research presented here indicated that the strongest relationship existed between infractions and the family history variables including parental criminality, parental incarceration and being abandoned or rejected by a parental figure(s).

    Major infractions were predicated by parental criminality and parental incarceration (at the p<.05 level) and prior offenses if the p-value was relaxed (p=.114) due to the small sample size. Moderate infractions were predicted by parental criminality. If the p-value was relaxed, parental abandonment or rejection became a significant predictor (p=.131).

     Cross tabulation models showed significant results for total infractions. Those juveniles who had criminal parents and those who had incarcerated parents were more likely to have committed an infraction. Similarly, those who had a criminal parent or a parent who was incarcerated were more likely to have committed a major infraction. Those who had parental criminality in their family history were also more likely to have committed a moderate infraction. Juveniles who reported parental abandonment or rejection were more likely to have a moderate institutional offense in the three months following testing but only if the p-value was relaxed (p=.127).

    These findings are consistent with the literature that found family history variables to be associated with maladaptation to incarceration. However, none of the other contextual variables were associated or predictive of institutional offenses whereas they have been associated in other studies. For instance, age at first arrest, age at committing offense, type of committing offense and physical abuse were not associated with infractions in this study.   The lack of significant predictive ability of the variables in this study could be due, in part, to the small sample size. However, that was partially handled by relaxing the p-value, so other problems may be at play. For instance, the infractions variable was constructed by the DJJ and is not separated by "aggressive and non-aggressive" but rather by moderate and major. Both the moderate and major infractions categories include some behaviors that could be considered aggressive (e.g. assault and fighting). A better measure of infractions might delineate between violent behaviors and non-violent (which was unable to be done with these data). Also, age at first arrest might not be a good proxy for early onset of problem behavior because arrest may not happen for years after the onset of delinquency.

    Importantly, the family history variables were associated and predictive of infractions. This would seemingly support Social Learning Theory although variables testing the underlying mechanisms of the theory were not tested in this analysis (e.g. "definitions favorable to crime" was not a variable in the dataset but one could argue that having criminal parents is exposure to such values).

Limitations

The limitations of these data were the small sample size and the perimeter of the infraction data (3 months following testing). Being that this was posed as a pilot study, a small sample size was expected. However, we were hoping to get 100 participants. Data collection was more complex than anticipated and severe budget cuts during the period of collection affected our ability to get more testing completed and to follow each participant for a longer period.

However, all was not lost. Overall, the project has provided rich data with many possibilities for scholarly inquiry. These data include information on anger, substance abuse, anxiety, depression, traumatic experiences, decision-making ability and risk-taking.

Implications

While this study was posed as a pilot study and is limited in sample size, the inquiry into why some juveniles exhibit problem behavior or commit infractions is of great import to the administrators of juvenile prisons. Data can be used to shape policy and implement rehabilitation programs and/or intake procedures. For instance, those juveniles who have multiple factors associated with infractions could be identified upon intake and special attention could be paid to their specific needs. Rehabilitation programs might be re-designed to focus on understanding core issues (e.g. family history) rather than on individual factors (e.g. self-control). While the data in this project are too limited to makes policy recommendations, the field of study itself provides promise for the future of juvenile correctional policy.

Future Research

     These data are incredibly rich in terms of the amount of variables yet to be explored. These measures include a wealth of information on substance abuse, risk taking, impulsivity, anger, suicidal ideation, thought disturbance, and aggression. Future research will include analyzing these data that were assessed using various test batteries (e.g. PAI-A, MAYSI-II, AARS, CANTAB).

     On a larger scale, the field of criminology/corrections would benefit from studies that include larger samples on both adults and juveniles that incorporate both sociological and psychological factors. While the studies that have been done have produced provocative findings deserving of further exploration, a literature review yielded only a few relevant articles on this topic since 2008.

     This pilot project might help to spark interest in this topic given that despite the small sample size, some significant and interesting findings were produced. This current project, suggests that we need to learn more about the effects of parental criminality, parental incarceration and perhaps about abandonment and prior offense history. Further study is needed to discern what it is about incarcerated or criminal parents that might be connected to the child's maladaptation to prison (it could be role modeling; lack of supervision; lack of financial support; etc.). Once we know more about why these factors are associated with rule infractions in prison, then prison administrators may be able to create programs to help adjustment to prison and/or change the conditions of confinement to help the prison operate more effectively and efficiently and produce better outcomes for incarcerated juveniles.

References

Austin, James, Kelly Dedel Johnson and Ronald Weitzer. 2005. "Alternatives to the Secure Detention and Confinement of Juvenile Offenders." Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved June 4th, 2014 (www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/208804.pdf).

Beck, Allen and David Cantor. 2013. "Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012." Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved June 5th, 2014. (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry12.pdf).

Biggam, Fiona H. and Kevin G. Power. 1999. "A Comparison of the Problem-Solving Abilities and Psychological Distress of Suicidal, Bullied, and Protected Prisoners." Criminal Justice and Behavior 26: 196-216.

Butler, Melanie A., Bryan R. Loney and Janet Kistnert. 2007. "The Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument as a Predictor of Institutional Maladjustment in Severe Male Juvenile Offenders." Criminal Justice and Behavior 34: 476-492.

Campaign for Youth Justice. 2012. "Key Facts: Youth in the Justice System". Retrieved June 4th, 2014 (http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/KeyYouthCrimeFacts.pdf).

DeLisi, Matt, Alan J. Drury, Anna E. Kosloski, Jonathan W. Caudill, Peter J. Cnis, Craig A. Anderson, Michael G. Vaughn and Kevin M. Beaver. 2009. "The Cycle of Violence Behind Bars: Traumatization and Institutional Misconduct among Juvenile Delinquents in Confinement." Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 8 (2): 107-121.

Desai, Rani A., Joseph L. Goulet, Judith Robbins, John F. Chapman, Scott J. Migdole and Michael A. Hoge. 2006. "Mental Health Care in Juvenile Detention Facilities: A Review". Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online 34(2): 204-214.

Dhami, Mandeep K., Peter Ayton and George Loewenstein. 2007. "Adaptation to Prison. Indigenous or Importation?" Criminal Justice and Behavior 34 (8): 1085-1100.

Edens, John. F, Norman G. Poythress, Scott O. Lilienfeld, Christopher J. Patrick, and Amy Test. 2008. "Further Evidence of the Divergent Correlates of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory Factors: Prediction of Institutional Misconduct among Male Prisoners." Psychological Assessment 20 (1): 86-91.

Edens, John. F., Norman G. Poythress and Scott O. Lilienfeld. 1999. "Identifying Inmates at Risk for Disciplinary Infractions: A Comparison of Two Measures of Psychopathy." Behavior Sciences and the Law 17: 435-443.

Felson, Richard, Eric Silver and Remster Brianna. 2012. "Mental Disorder and Offending in Prison." Criminal Justice and Behavior 39 (2): 125-143.

Gover, Angela R. and Doris L. MacKenzie. 2000. "Importation and Deprivation Explanations of Juveniles' Adjustment to Correction Facilities." International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 44 (4): 450-468.

Gross, James J., & Ricardo F. Munoz. 1995. "Emotion Regulation and Mental Health." Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 2: 151-164.

Holman, Barry and Jason Ziedenberg. 2011. "The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities." A Justice Policy Initiative Report. Retrieved June 5th, 2014. (http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/06-11_rep_dangersofdetention_jj.pdf).

Justice Policy Institute. 2009. "The Costs of Confinement: Why Good Juvenile
Justice Policies Make Good Fiscal Sense." Retrieved June 4th, 2014 (http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/09_05_rep_costsofconfinement_jj_ps.pdf).

Kerley, Kent R., Heath Copes, and Andy Hochsteltler. 2009. "Self-Control, Prison Victimization, and Prison Infractions." Criminal Justice Review 34 (4): 553-568.

Kerley, Kent R., Heath Copes, Richard Tewksbury and Dean A. Dabney. 2011. "Examining the Relationship between Religiosity and Self-Control as Predictors of Prison Deviance." International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 55 (8): 1251-1271.

Little, Michael, Amelia Kohm, and Ronald Thompson. 2005. "The Impact of Residential Placement on Child Development: Research and Policy Implications". International Journal of Social Welfare 14: 200-209.

Loeber, Rolf and David P. Farrington. 1998. "Never Too Early, Never Too Late: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions for Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders." Studies on Crime and Prevention 7: 7-30.

Ogata, Susan N., Kenneth R. Silk, Sonya Goodrich, Naomi E. Lohr., Drew Westen and Elizabeth M. Hill. 1990. "Childhood Sexual and Physical Abuse in Adult Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder." American Journal of Psychiatry 147: 1008-1013.

Pribor, Elizabeth F., Sean Ytuzy, J. Todd Dean and Richard Wetzel. 1993. "Briquet's Syndrome, Dissociation and Abuse." American Journal of Psychiatry 150: 1507-1511.

Reidy, Thomas J., Jon R. Sorensen, Jon R. and Mark D. Cunningham. 2011. "Community violence to Prison Assault: A Test of the Behavioral Continuity Hypothesis." Law and Human Behavior 14: 132-146.

Rieker, Patricia P. and Elaine H. Carmen 1986. "The victim-to-patient process: The Disconfirmation and Transformation of Abuse." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 56: 360-370.

Ruchkin, Vladislav, V., Mary Schwab-Stone and Roman A. Kiposov. 2003. "Suicidal ideations and Attempts in Juvenile Delinquents". Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 44: 1058-66.

Sedlack, Andrea J. and Karla S. McPherson. 2010. "Conditions of Confinement: Findings from the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement. Juvenile Justice Programs." Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Office of Justice Programs.

Shiroma, Eric, Elisabeth Pickelsimer, Pamela Ferguson, Mulugeta Gebregziabher, Pamela Lattimore, Joyce Nicholas, Tony Dukes and Kelly Hunt. 2010. "Association of Medically Attended Traumatic Brain Injury and In-Prison Behavioral Infractions: A Statewide Longitudinal Study." Journal of Correction Health Care 16 (4): 273-286.

Sorensen Jon and Mark D. Cunningham. 2010. "Conviction Offense and Prison ViolenceA Comparative Study of Murderers and Other Offenders." Crime and Delinquency 56 (1): 103-125.

Steiner, Hans, Ivan G. Garcia and Zakee Matthews. 1997. "Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Incarcerated Juvenile Delinquents." Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 36 (3): 357-365.

Taylor, Jeanette, Therese S. Kemper, and Janet Kistner. 2007. "Predicting Institutional Maladjustment in Severe Male Juvenile Delinquents from Criminal History and Personality/ Clinical Subtype." Criminal Justice and Behavior 34 (6): 769-780.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2013. "Data Snapshot: Kids Count. Reducing Youth Incarceration in the United States". Retrieved June 4th, 2014 (http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-DataSnapshotYouthIncarceration-2013.pdf).

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2011. "Juveniles in Corrections Custody Data 1997-present." Retrieved June 4th, 2014 (http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/corrections/qa08201.asp?qaDate=2011).

Thornberry, Terence P., & Carolyn Smith. 1995. "The Relationship between Childhood Maltreatment and Adolescent Involvement in Delinquency." Criminology 33: 451-477.

Trulson, Chad R. 2007. "Determinants of Disruption: Institutional Misconduct among State-Committed Delinquents." Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 5: 7-34.

Walters, Glenn D. 2003. "Predicting Institutional Adjustment and Recidivism with the Psychopathy Checklist Factor Scores: A Meta-Analysis." Law and Human Behavior 27 (5): 541-557.

Widom, Cathy S. 1989. "The Cycle of Violence." Science 244: 160-166.

Widom, Cathy S. 1995. Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse: Later Criminal Consequences. National Institute of Justice: Research in Brief.

Appendix

Type of Infraction as Classified by the Institution

Major institutional Offenses

Escape/AWOL
Forced Sexual Contact without Consent
Security contraband
Attempted Escape
Attempted assault on staff or resident
Assault on Staff or resident
Threat to Institutional Security
Attempt to Circumvent Institutional Security
Lying and/or Falsely Accusing Another in an Official Investigation
Vandalism (over $100 value)
Sexual Misconduct
Aiding and Abetting
Perjury
Resisting Removal
Attack on Staff

Moderate Offenses

Fighting
Verbal Threats/ Physical gesturing
Leaving Supervision without Permission
Simple Assault
Abusive Language/ Obscene Gestures
Throwing Objects
Stealing/Possession of Stolen Property
Vandalism
Non-security Contraband
Self-mutilation
Failure to Comply with Program Procedure
Knowingly Making an Oral or Written False Statement
Aiding and Abetting (accomplice to a moderate offense)
Aggressive Person contact
Giving False Information
Sexual Misconduct

Return to the Fall/Winter 2014 Sociation Today