Prevelance of Mental Illness and Juvenile Deliquency

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 millio\ ns 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 an\ d 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 Justice11(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 the\ y 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 delinqu\ ency and detention.

Next, what little is known about these variables and detention length wi\ ll be presented.

The literature review will conclude with discussion of some important ga\ ps 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 relationshi\ p 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 (co\ urt 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’N\ eill, 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 additi\ on to offense type and its relation to delinquency and detention, there are many extra\ legal 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, a\ nd 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 disad\ vantage – they have family difficulties, maltreatment histories, and/or mental health problems, and ar\ e 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 Del\ inquency, 2007; Sickmund, 2009). To date, no single risk factor has been identified as a causal link to ju\ venile delinquency and subsequent detention or confinement (Howing, Wodarski, Kurtz, Gaudin, and Herbst, 1990; Maas, Herrenkohl, and Sousa, 2008; Preski and Shelton, 2001; Stout\ hamer-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, 200\ 1; 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 thr\ ee 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 cas\ e 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 of\ fense 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 a\ re 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 aggressi\ ve behaviors have been found predictive of later delinquent activities (Kashani, Jon\ es, 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 supe\ rvised, 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 r\ isk factors for detention or incarceration that included being African-American or Hispanic, in middle school, having a diagnosis of alcohol problems or conduct disorde\ r, reported use and abuse of substances, and receiving prior mental health services (Sc\ ott, 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 cou\ rt involved were more at risk, when compared to non-juvenile court involved peers, for dr\ ug 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 you\ th needs (Melton and Pagliocca, 1992; Teplin et al., 2002).

Childhood maltreatment A history of maltreatment is consistently found within delinquent youth p\ opulations (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 138 Youth Justice 11(2) 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 s\ everity and mod - erate to violent delinquency (Maxfield and Widom, 1996; Smith and Thornberry, 1995).

Also, increased and repeated exposure to childhood maltreatment led to h\ igher 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 con\ cern 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/tre\ atment 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 pro\ gram 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 fo\ r 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 li\ mited regarding length of detainment placement. As discussed, incarceration length impact studies are inconclusive to date, while detention length impact studies are nonexist\ ent (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 b\ e 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 pe\ rsonnel’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). Understandin\ g 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 fam\ ilies) tracked over a three-year time frame. Confidential court and probation supervision re\ cords 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 de\ tention 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 prob\ ationer 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 fa\ cility incarceration.

This county juvenile court provided three years of data (2006, 2007, an\ d 2008). The county juvenile probation and offender population averaged 2300 youth for each of these years. 140 Youth Justice 11(2) An a priori analysis was conducted to determine the appropriate sample s\ ize 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 populatio\ n year of the county’s juvenile probation population – youth who had been adjudicated deli\ nquent 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%); p\ ersonal 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 abus\ e 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 thi\ rd (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 an\ d families involved in this study. These files included probation supervision case files, juvenile court hi\ sto - ries, mental health assessments, and child welfare histories. Data enter\ ed 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 oth\ erwise 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 juvenil\ e’s case file and/ or through prior mental health case records. Information regarding histo\ ry of sexual abuse, physical abuse, or neglect, and history of child welfare system involvem\ ent, were derived from existing child welfare case records. Only cases of children who exp\ erienced 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/d\ ependence 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 Internation\ al 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, h\ istory 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 142 Youth Justice 11(2) 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, co\ urt 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 histor\ y, neglect history, court disposition to mental health services, youth substance use and abuse, an\ d emotional and behavioral issues) were regressed on the one dependent variable juvenil\ e detention length.

Results There were eight independent variables that had a statistically signific\ ant 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 adj\ udication. 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 hea\ lth 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 detentio\ n 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 j\ uvenile 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 st\ udy (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 dispos\ ition for mental health problems (Beta =.20), child welfare involvement (Beta =.19) and phys\ ical 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 whi\ ch 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 <.05 144 Youth Justice 11(2) understand the consequences of their behavior and learn skills to preven\ t 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 (Krisbe\ rg, 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. Ca\ sey Foundation, 2010). JDAI works to collaborate across youth caring systems (child we\ lfare, mental health, schools, for example), utilizes standardized assessment instruments and\ data collection within juvenile courts, and builds community-based rehabilitative altern\ atives. Results, depending on length of implementation, have been very positive in the ov\ er 100 communi - ties in which the Initiative has been involved, lowering detention popul\ ations and reoffend - ing, and decreasing racial disparities (Anne E. Casey Foundation, 2009;\ Mendel, R.2009). Similarly, the International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO) is in concorda\ nce 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 th\ e 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 utiliz\ ation 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 salien\ t, 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 l\ ength, 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 arres\ t, referral, or case petitioning decision points. Future research should continue this line o\ f 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 issue\ s, 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 accoun\ tability and reha - bilitation, implementing some thoughtfully designed diversion and interv\ ention strate - gies is important, or better yet involvement with the Juvenile Detention\ Alternatives Initiative (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2010). For these initiatives mi\ rror internationally supported reform efforts, drawing upon non-custodial measures as possible alternatives, including, but not limited to, restitution, suspended sentences, non-ins\ titutional 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/JuvenileDetentionAlternativesInitiative/JDAIResults.a\ spx 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 childr\ en 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 146 Youth Justice 11(2) 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 delinquen\ cy 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 assault\ ive 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 f\ iscal 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, 200\ 7. 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 deli\ nquency. 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 Department of Justice. 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 se\ rious 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 hospitalizatio\ n: 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 Syst\ em, 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 (C\ hapter 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 illn\ ess and substance abuse dis - orders among incarcerated juvenile offenders in Mississippi. Child Psychiatry and Human Development 35(1): 55-73. 148 Youth Justice 11(2) Rosenblatt JA, Rosenblatt A, and Biggs EE (2000) Criminal behavior and emotional disorder: Compa\ ring 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 Department of Justice. 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 3 rd-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 Department of Justice. 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=1677675&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 cumulati\ ve 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 o\ f 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.