Violent Institutional Misconduct in the Transition from Juvenile to Adult Correctional Facilities

Abstract

This study examines patterns of violent institutional misconduct among a cohort of serious juvenile offenders who were incarcerated in state-level juvenile correctional facilities and then state adult prison institutions. Within the cohort, one group of offenders was immediately transferred to the adult prison system following their incarceration in a juvenile correctional facility. The other portion of the cohort was first released to the community, and then later incarcerated in adult prisons. Results of the analysis indicate that being a younger prison inmate with a history of childhood trauma and considered a high-rate violent institutional misconduct perpetrator as a juvenile ward were significant predictors of engaging in violent misconduct in adult prisons. Implications for theory, research, and practice are discussed.

Keywords

juvenile offender institutional misconduct childhood trauma juvenile correctional facility

Introduction

Juvenile offenders face a variety of hardships in the criminal justice system, particularly if placed in adult prisons.¹Compared to youth detained in the juvenile justice system, juvenile offenders processed and sanctioned in the criminal justice system are more insulated from rehabilitation programs (Bishop & Frazier, 2000; Ng et al., 2012; Redding, 2003) and suffer greater developmental disruptions than youth retained in the juvenile justice system (Mulvey & Schubert, 2012). Juveniles placed in the criminal justice system have higher rates of depression (Ng et al., 2011), suicide (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2006; Ruch et al., 2019), risk of victimization (Ahlin & Hummer, 2019; Mulvey & Schubert, 2012), and post-incarceration recidivism compared to those retained in the juvenile justice system and in juvenile correctional facilities (Bishop et al., 1996; Johnson et al., 2011; Lanza-Kaduce et al., 2005; Myers, 2003; Winner et al., 1997; Zane et al., 2016).

Despite these and other consequences, a burgeoning but still underdeveloped area of inquiry has been paid to the institutional behavior of juveniles, and youthful offenders who have just transitioned to early adulthood, during their incarceration in adult prison facilities (Kolivoski & Shook, 2016; Kuanliang et al., 2008; Leigey & Hodge, 2013; Tasca et al., 2010). Juveniles and young adult inmates are perhaps one of the least stable and most vulnerable populations in the adult prison setting due to their young age, psychosocial deficits, and general lack of criminal sophistication (Redding, 2003; Reidy et al., 2018; Salekin et al., 2001; Valentine et al., 2015; Woolard et al., 2005). Perhaps because of these issues, one of the most robust findings in the institutional behavior literature is that juveniles and young adult inmates are consistently more engaged in prison disciplinary misconduct than older inmates (Cihan & Sorensen, 2019; Cihan et al., 2017; Sorensen & Davis, 2011; Steiner et al., 2014; Valentine et al., 2015; Walters & Crawford, 2013).

At the same time that juveniles and young adult inmates tend to be the most problematic inmates with respect to involvement in institutional misconduct in adult prisons, this type of behavior can lead to a number of other collateral consequences—consequences that may be heightened for the youngest adult prison inmates. For example, involvement in institutional misconduct can serve to “knife off” important rehabilitation and programming opportunities—activities which might serve to dampen involvement in disciplinary violations (Bishop & Frazier, 2000; Trulson et al., 2010). Involvement in institutional misconduct, especially serious misconduct, may also lead to other deleterious consequences which can further reduce access to rehabilitation services, such as placement in higher custodies and more restrictive housing areas such as long-term administrative segregation or shorter-term disciplinary segregation (Kuanliang et al., 2008; Trulson et al., 2010). Still another negative consequence is the lengthening of an offender's sentence that must be served behind bars by way of loss of good time credit and other mechanisms. Such involvement may also implicate additional violations of criminal law, which can lead to in-prison prosecution and additional incarceration time (Marquart & Trulson, 2016).

A focus on the disciplinary misconduct of juveniles and young adult offenders placed in adult prison settings is relevant on a number of fronts. On a practical level, understanding the factors linked to misconduct involvement has important implications not only for the safety and security of staff, offenders, and institutions, but also has key ramifications with respect to how to handle youthful offenders as they enter and negotiate the adult prison environment. Indeed, knowledge of the factors related to the misconduct experiences of juveniles and young adult offenders in adult correctional facilities may, among other areas, bring important dividends with respect to improving the trajectories of these youthful offenders while they are incarcerated in adult prisons, possibly mitigating the negative consequences discussed previously. Such knowledge might also improve the trajectories of these offenders as they exit correctional environments and reengage in the community. As Trulson and colleagues (2010: 201–202) noted, “…involvement in institutional misconduct…may be an important early warning sign of the need for further or different or more focused intervention and programming efforts during the institutionalization period so as to promote positive institutional adjustment, post-release success, and ultimately public safety.”

Beyond practical implications, we believe a focus on institutional violations among serious offenders in the transition from adolescence to adulthood and from juvenile facilities to adult prisons also has important implications from a theoretical level. We believe this importance is particularly relevant in the context of developmental and life course criminology, especially considering the serious nature of the sample, and the divergent pathways which these offenders transitioned to adult prisons. Next, we explicate the theoretical foundation of this study to help situate our focus. We also explore the relevant literature concerning disciplinary misconduct among juvenile and young adult inmates in adult prison settings to help inform and guide this study.

Theoretical Foundation

Scholars have long recognized that adaptation to correctional settings does not occur in a vacuum, but instead reflects a suite of individual-level factors and, more importantly, behaviors that occur in the community. Rather than portraying prison as a black box, penologists theorized that a variety of behavioral indicators of maladjustment were relevant to functioning in prison institutions. The most important and venerable of these perspectives is the importation model of inmate behavior (Irwin & Cressey, 1962), which advances that inmates “import” behaviors into correctional facilities, and it is those imported features that are most responsible for understanding inmate adjustment. Their perspective was a departure from extant penological theories of that era that were structural in their explanatory approach.

In the decades since the development of importation theory, numerous studies provided empirical support for the notion that pre-prison behavioral risk factors including criminal history, prison history, gang involvement, and externalizing psychopathology were associated with greater institutional maladjustment and misconduct (e.g., Cao et al., 1997; Choi & Dulisse, 2020; Cihan & Sorensen, 2019; DeLisi & Butler, 2020; Hochstetler & DeLisi, 2005; Lai, 2019; Walters & Crawford, 2013). In recent years, the importation model has undergone modification to more explicitly recognize life-course developmental periods that occur both prior to confinement and after release from custody. These newer theoretical developments, variously known as the life-course-important model of inmate behavior (e.g., DeLisi et al., 2011; Walters, 2016) and behavioral continuity hypothesis (e.g., Reidy et al., 2012; Sorensen & Davis, 2011) similarly conceptualize prison confinement as an important stage of an antisocial career that is both informed by the individual's pre-prison behavior and affects, both positively and negatively, their behavior upon reentry.

Over the last several years, there has been increased focus in the criminological literature with respect to the institutional misconduct of incarcerated individuals. This literature can be broadly categorized into three separate camps based upon the populations examined. These camps include research on the misconduct of juvenile offenders institutionalized in juvenile correctional facilities (Blackburn & Trulson, 2010; Craig & Trulson, 2019; DeLisi et al., 2010; DeLisi et al., 2011; Reidy et al., 2018; Trulson, 2007; Trulson et al., 2010), the misconduct of adult offenders institutionalized in adult prisons (DeLisi, 2003; Hochstetler & DeLisi, 2005; Morris et al., 2010; Morris et al., 2012; Steiner et al., 2014), and more recently, research on the misconduct patterns of once incarcerated juveniles and youthful offenders who have transitioned to adulthood while institutionalized in adult prisons (Kolivoski & Shook, 2016; Kuanliang et al., 2008; Leigey & Hodge, 2013; Tasca et al., 2010). Most relevant to the current study is the latter body of evidence which examines juvenile and young adult offenders’ behavioral outcomes when placed in adult prisons.

Kuanliang et al. (2008) explored rates of violent disciplinary misconduct among a relatively large sample of juveniles placed in an adult prison system (i.e., age 17 or younger at admission), compared to the misconduct patterns of young adult offenders (i.e., 18 to 20) and older adult offenders (i.e., 21 and older). With respect to the incidence and prevalence of misconduct, juvenile offenders were involved in a higher rate of total and diverse forms of misconduct compared to young adult and adult inmates. Juveniles’ greater involvement in disciplinary misconduct held net the effects of a number of controls relevant to an explanation of prison violence, such as gang membership and offense of conviction.

Tasca and colleagues (2010) also explored violent misconduct among juvenile inmates in an adult prison settingin New York and Arizona. Tasca and colleagues revealed that just over one-half of juvenile inmates had assaulted another inmate, and that belonging to a gang and being threatened with a weapon were found to be significant predictors of inmate assaults. Additionally, Leigey and Hodge (2013), using data from the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Facilities 2004, examined the institutional misconduct of 173 adult inmates who were initially incarcerated as juveniles. Results of their analysis did not find that being incarcerated in an adult prison as a juvenile, per se, was related to participation in various forms of misconduct. The authors did, however, find that being a younger inmate was significantly related to participation in various forms of misconduct, controlling for other variables.

Kolivoski and Shook (2016) examined the total number of misconduct infractions among a group of 763 juveniles (i.e., under age 17 at the time of offense) waived to adult court and sentenced to adult prison in the Michigan Department of Corrections. The youngest juveniles had increased participation in misconduct incidents net the effect of a number of controls such as mental health issues andhaving a prior history with the juvenile justice system.Their research suggests that juvenile offenders placed in adult prisons that already have a history in the juvenile justice system (measured as arrests before age 15), fared worse relative to institutional violations than offenders placed in adult prisons without a juvenile arrest history.

The broad consensus of research indicates that juveniles and those in the transition to adulthood tend to engage in higher levels of institutional violations in adult prisons than other offenders. Despite these important studies, however, many did not have access to a number of potential controls related to adult prison misconduct, and, in particular, few had access to additional delinquent and juvenile justice system measures to determine whether these factors could help to understand the misconduct patterns of juvenile and young adult offenders as they navigated the adult prison setting. For example, previous research has not had access to misconduct perpetrated during periods of juvenile confinement and how information on these behaviors might relate to future misconduct in the adult prison setting. Importantly, previous research on adult inmates indicates that those offenders who have incurred previous adult institutional violations are more likely to be involved in misconduct during subsequent incarcerations (Drury & Delisi, 2010). Whether this same relationship might be found among juvenile wards who then transition onto subsequent adult prison incarceration is unknown. Still further, several measures related to previous assaultive behavior included in the current study (e.g., prior assault history, prior violence towards family members) may provide important links to future assaultive behavior, including that which occurs in the adult prison setting. Next, we discuss the aim of the current study and then move to a discussion of methods and analyses.

The Current Study

There remains a gap in the literature with respect to the misconduct of juvenile and young adult offenders once they transition to adult prisons. The current study draws on a rich database comprised of a cohort of serious and violent youthful offenders to explore their behavioral records while incarcerated in both juvenile and adult correctional facilities. A main focus of this research is whether information about offenders before and during their state juvenile incarceration (e.g., delinquent, familial, and social histories, assessments by institutional authorities), along with knowledge about their institutional misconduct perpetration during their state juvenile incarceration, can provide insight to the institutional misconduct of these offenders during their period of incarceration in an adult prison setting.

Method

Sample and Data

The sample for this research includes all serious and violent juvenile offenders adjudicated under a blended sentencing law and then incarcerated in Texas's state juvenile correctional facilities between 2005 and 2013. In Texas, juvenile offenders who are between the ages of 10–16, and who commit one or more serious and violent offenses, may be adjudicated under the blended sentencing law and can receive a maximum sentence of up to 40 years, depending on the offense. Upon adjudication under Texas's blended sentencing law, all offenders are sent to a state juvenile correctional facility under the auspices of the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD).² Once at TJJD, offenders are incarcerated until a decision is made as to whether they should be released from TJJD to the community(with or without supervision requirements), or rather, whether they should face continued incarceration time, and be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) to continue serving the adult portion of their blended sentence in an adult prison(for a more complete discussion on blended sentencing in Texas, see, Mears, 1998; Trulson et al., 2016).

Between 2005 and 2013, there were 1,068 blended sentenced offenders received and eventually released/discharged by TJJD. Of those 1,068, 416or roughly 39% were released directly from TJJD to the community following a period of state juvenile incarceration. These offenders were not transferred to the adult prison system, and once released from TJJD, did not show up in a TDCJ institution during the time parameters of this study. Because these offenders did not end up in the adult prison system, they are not a part of the analyses in this study.

Of the remaining 652offenders, 208were discharged from TJJD and directly transferred to TDCJ to continue their incarceration for the adult portion of their blended sentence. These offenders are referred to as “Immediate Transfers.” The remaining444juvenile wardswere released from TJJD but were later incarcerated in the state adult prison system following their release from juvenile authorities. These offenders are referred to as “Delayed Arrivals.” Of this group of delayed arrivals, roughly 80% of the offenders were released to the community on some form of correctional supervision (e.g., juvenile parole, adult probation) instead of release without supervision requirements. These offenders then came to the adult prison system through a combination of new offending (not on supervision), new offending while on supervision, and technical violations of their supervision. The focus of the current study is on the 208 immediate transfers and the 444 delayed TDCJ arrivals.³

Data on sample processing and information concerning the backgrounds of the youth, including their institutional misconduct participation during the state juvenile incarceration portion of their sentence, was provided by TJJD. These data included a wealth of information on the study cohort across a variety of domains including demographics, delinquent history, familial and social measures, and institutional assessments. TJJD also provided information concerning the institutional behavior of members of the study cohort during their entire state juvenile incarceration period, with specific information on a variety of forms of institutional misconduct that cohort members engaged in while they were confined. Data on the adult prison misconduct for the offenders were also provided by TJJD, and this information was collected through a coordinated effort between those state correctional systems.

Measures

Dependent Variable

Our outcome measure of interest focuses on violent assaultive misconduct within the youth's first year of adult incarceration. Specifically, it measures the rate of any assaultive misconduct against other inmates or correctional staff in TDCJ that occurred during the offenders’ first year of adult incarceration.⁴ Because of the relationship of age on prison misconduct and the timing of misconduct found in previous research—that the youngest inmates are more likely to engage in misconduct and that this relationship is most pronounced in the initial months of incarceration (see, for example, Valentine et al., 2015)—focusing on the rate of misconduct during the initial 12 months of incarceration for each group helps to account for differences in time served and also the timing of misconduct. Table 1 provides all descriptive statistics for the full sample and is then separated among immediate transfers and delayed arrivals.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics by Group.

	Full Sample (n = 575)	Immediate Transfer (n = 202)	Delayed Arrival (n = 373)	t-value
Dependent Variable
Rate of Violent Misconduct in the first 12 months of TDCJ Incarceration	.13 (.42)	.19 (.36)	.10 (.45)	2.48**
Controls
Demographics
Male	97%	96%	97%	−.46
Black	42%	48%	40%	1.82*
Hispanic	37%	37%	37%	−.15
White	21%	16%	23%	−2.05*
Delinquency Background
Top 10% TJJD Misconduct	10%	21%	4%	6.81***
Age at TJJD Start	16.44 (1.01)	16.40 (1.01)	16.47 (1.01)	−.79
Age at TDCJ Start	20.19 (1.76)	18.74 (.86)	20.97 (1.86)	−18.21***
Prior Adjudications	2.38 (1.77)	2.35 (1.59)	2.40 (1.86)	−.31
Gang Affiliation	41%	42%	41%	.31
Assault History	59%	61%	59%	.51
Danger to Others	71%	74%	69%	1.28
Violent Towards Family	20%	19%	21%	−.67
Individual Risk Factors
Trauma	39%	37%	40%	−.60
Poverty	15%	15%	14%	.12
Mental Health Issues	15.22 (8.63)	15.84 (8.23)	14.88 (8.84)	1.26

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Covariates

We first accounted for the transfer status of the youthful offender by creating a dummy variable indicating transfer status. If the youth was immediately transferred to Texas adult prisons from TJJD, they were coded as “1” (Immediate Transfer). If the youth was released from TJJD (on either probation or outright) and later showed up in Texas adult prisons (due to either a new offense or a parole violation), they were coded as “0”(Delayed Arrival).

Because of the different dynamics associated with being an immediate transfer versus a delayed arrival, we believed accounting for transfer status was important. For example, because Texas places emphasis on institutional adjustment in making transfer decisions to the adult prison setting, being an immediate transfer may generally be indicative of a more problematic juvenile ward. As one indicator, statistics shown in Table 1 specify that immediate transfers were significantly more likely to be high-rate juvenile facility misconduct perpetrators compared to delayed arrivals. Further, immediate transfers were younger in their entrance to adult prisons than delayed arrivals, which previous research has found important with respect to involvement in institutional misconduct in adult prisons. Immediate transfers also enjoyed less time in juvenile facilities to potentially benefit from more rehabilitative modalities than those found in the adult prison setting. There is also the additional difference with delayed arrival offenders, in that they experienced time in the community before their adult prison arrival, and for many, this was an opportunity to accumulate new offending. Indeed, roughly 25% of delayed arrivals came to the adult prison on a new offense and were not under supervision during the commission of that offense. Another 28% came to TDCJ with a new offense which occurred while they were under community supervision. Finally, roughly 43% came to TDCJ through a technical violation of supervision conditions. In sum, a little over one-half of delayed arrivals to Texas's adult prisons came there for a new offense.

Additionally, in order to assess the effects of particularly high levels of TJJD misconduct on later TDCJ misconduct, a variable was created that indicated if a youth was in the top 10% of violent misconduct perpetrators while in Texas's juvenile facilities. Previous research has indicated that levels of institutional misconduct, especially assaultive misconduct, tend to center around small groups of wards (see, for example, Delisi, 2003; Trulson et al., 2010), and offenders who have incurred misconduct violations during prior incarcerations are more likely to incur misconduct during subsequent incarceration terms (Drury & Delisi, 2010).

We also controlled for several demographic factors that have been found to be correlated with misconduct, namely sex (Gover, Perez, & Jennings, 2008), race/ethnicity (Berg & DeLisi, 2006; Rembert et al., 2018), and age (MacKenzie, 1987; Valentine et al., 2015).For the cohort as a whole, male was coded as “1” and female as “0” (97% male) (see Table 1 for descriptive figures separated out for the immediate transfer versus delayed arrival groups). Separate dichotomous variables were used to control for race/ethnicity with the first dichotomous variable for Black youth (42%) and a second for Hispanic youth (37%). White youth and those of other races/ethnicities were the reference category. Next, the age each youth started their sentence in Texas's juvenile facilities was controlled for (mean = 16.44, SD = 1.01) as was the age the youthful offender entered Texas adult prisonseither as an immediate transfer or delayed arrival (mean = 20.19, SD = 1.76).

Several delinquent history characteristics were also included as relevant covariates. First, as prior research has found youth with more extensive juvenile justice system involvement is strongly related to misconduct behavior (Blackburn & Trulson, 2010; Craig & Trulson, 2019), the number of prior adjudications each youth had was included (mean = 2.38, SD = 1.77). Second, research has also reported a correlation between gang membership and violent misconduct (Cunningham & Sorensen, 2007; Reid, 2017) so a dichotomous indicator of gang membership was also included (yes = ”1”; 41% of the sample was gang-affiliated). As prior work has found inconsistent effects of adjudication offense on the likelihood of misconduct (Butler, 2019; Drury & DeLisi, 2011), the current study also controlled for conviction of an assault-related offense. Here, if the youth was adjudicated for aggravated assault, aggravated robbery, or any assault they were coded as “1”; otherwise they were coded as “0.” Almost 60% (59.5%) of the sample had been adjudicated of an assault-related offense leading to their incarceration in Texas's juvenile facilities. Two additional delinquent history control variables included if TJJD records indicated the youth was a danger to others (“1” = yes, “0” = no; 71% were indicated as being a danger to others) and if the youth had displayed violent behavior towards their family (“1” = yes, “0” = no; 20% of the sample had been indicated as having a history of violence towards their family).

Additionally, three individual- and family-level risk factors were also included. As some research shows trauma-exposed youth are more likely to engage in misconduct (DeLisi et al., 2010; Reid & Listwan, 2018), a separate indicator of trauma was included. If the TJJD caseworker indicated the youth had experienced either physical abuse, neglect, emotional abuse, or sexual abuse, they were coded as “1.” Almost 40% (38.8%) of the sample were indicated as having experienced at least one of these forms of trauma. A separate indicator of poverty was included to measure if the family was living in poverty; 14.6% of the sample was found to be from an impoverished family. Finally, the summative score from the MAYSI-2 (Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument) scale was used to provide a measure of the youth's mental health (Grisso et al., 2001). This scale consists of several subscales (alcohol/drug use, angry/irritable, depressed/anxious, somatic complaints, suicide ideation, and traumatic experiences) that were summed to create an overall mental health scale. The scale was found to have a high Cronbach's alpha (α = .81), indicating good inter-item reliability. The mean mental health score of the entire sample was 15.22 (SD = 8.63), with a range of 0–37, where higher scores indicate more issues.

Analysis Plan

After first assessing the bivariate correlations for potential evidence of multicollinearity, we also assessed for potential differences in the control variables between the two groups. Next, a negative binomial regression model was estimated due to the count nature of the dependent variable. This model choice was preferred to Poisson models due to overdispersion of the dependent variable. An exposure variable was used in STATA allowing the models to take into account the length of time the youth served in TDCJ, essentially transforming the dependent variable to a rate of misconduct perpetration during the first 12 months of confinement.

Findings

Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 depicts the bivariate correlations between the key variables of interest. There is a weak but positive correlation between engaging in TDCJ violent misconduct within the first year of adult incarceration and being an immediate arrival youth (r = .27, p < .05). There is also a weak but positive correlation between engaging in violent misconduct in TDCJ and having been considered in the top 10% of violent misconduct offenders while in Texas's juvenile facilities (r = .38, p < .05).⁵

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations for Study Variables.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17
TDCJ Violent Misconduct	1.00
Transfer Status	.27*	1.00
TJJD Misconduct Top 10%	.38*	.27*	1.00
Male	.04	−.02	.03	1.00
Black	.03	.08	.10*	−.13*	1.00
Hispanic	−.01	−.01	−.07	.11*	−.66*	1.00
White	−.02	−.09*	−.04	.03	−.44*	−.39*	1.00
Delinquency Background
Age at TJJD Start	−.14*	−.03	−.20*	.03	−.03	.01	.02	1.00
Age at TDCJ Start	−.26*	−.61*	−.31*	.02	−.11*	.07	.05	.16*	1.00
Prior Adjudications	−.01	−.01	.06	.02	−.02	.06	−.04	.17*	−.07	1.00
Gang Affiliation	.00	.01	.02	.10*	−.07	.23*	−.19*	−.04	−.06	.15*	1.00
Assault History	−.05	.02	−.05	−.06	.16*	.12*	−.34*	.03	−.02	.05	.19*	1.00
Danger to Others	−.01	.05	−.03	−.04	.01	−.09*	.09*	.01	−.13*	.00	−.04	−.05	1.00
Violent Towards Family	.02	−.03	.06	.03	−.14*	.06	.10*	−.04	.05	−.02	.09*	−.10*	−.01	1.00
Individual Risk Factors
Trauma	.07	−.02	.08	−.10*	−.11*	−.09*	.23*	−.09*	−.01	−.03	.02	−.19*	.09*	.26*	1.00
Poverty	−.05	.01	.04	−.08*	−.07	.04	.03	−.04	−.02	−.01	.10*	.03	.00	.26*	.15*	1.00
Mental Health Issues	.05	.05	.06	−.13*	−.07	−.01	.09*	.04	−.08	.19*	.09*	.10*	.02	.16*	.09*	.15*	1.00

*p < .05.

Table 1 provides descriptive figures on the dependent variable, which is the rate of misconduct in the first 12 months of incarceration for each group upon their arrival to TDCJ. Immediate transfer youth exhibited a higher rate of misconduct during their first year at TDCJ (.19) relative to their delayed arrival counterparts (.10, t = 2.48, p < .01).

Table 1 also presents the descriptive statistics for the full sample of youth, and then for each group of youth delineated by their transfer status. Focusing on the full combined sample, most youth were male (96% immediate transfer youth and 97% delayed arrival youth). While both groups were composed of a little over one-third of Hispanics (37%), a greater proportion of immediate transfer youth were Black compared to delayed arrival youth (48% compared to 40%, t = 1.82, p < .05). Likewise, a greater proportion of immediate transfer youth were White than delayed arrival youth (16% compared to 23%, t = -2.05, p < .05). The only other covariate that was significantly different between the two groups was the age at TDCJ start. On average, immediate transfer youth were 18.74 years of age upon TDCJ arrival while the delayed arrival youth were 20.97 years of age (t = -18.21, p < .001).

On an overall level, despite differences in transfer status, the groups of offenders were largely comparable across covariates. They differed in that a larger and statistically significant portion of immediate transfer youth were considered top 10% misconduct perpetrators as juvenile wards, compared to delayed arrivals. Notwithstanding differences in racial proportions across transfer status, the only other difference between the groups was the age that each group began their TDCJ incarceration. Next, we examine these and other potential determinants of involvement in violent assaultive misconduct in the adult prison setting.

Misconduct in the Adult Prison Setting

Table 3 presents the negative binomial model estimates predicting the effect of transfer status, being in the top 10% of violent misconduct in TJJD, as well as the additional covariates on later violent misconduct in TDCJ. While transfer status had no impact on the rate of violent misconduct in the first year of adult incarceration, the offenders that were found to engage in the most violent misconduct while in Texas's juvenile facilities (as defined by being in the top 10% based upon frequency of violent misconduct) were 186.3% more likely to engage in violent misconduct in the adult prison setting than those not in the top 10% of misconduct perpetrators (p < .001). Youth who were older upon arrival at TDCJ (measured as age in years) were 18.1% less likely to engage in violent misconduct in their first year at TDCJ (p < .05). Further, youth with a history of trauma (measured as having experienced physical abuse, neglect, emotional abuse or sexual abuse) were 60.7% more likely to engage in violent misconduct in their first year at TDCJ than those without a trauma history (p < .05). No other variables were significant in predicting the expected rate of misconduct in the first 12 months of adult imprisonment.

Table 3.

Negative Binomial Models Predicting TDCJ Violent Misconduct.

	%Exp(b)	B(SE)
Transfer Status	.4	.00 (.25)
TJJD Misconduct Top 10%	186.3***	1.05 (.23)
Male^a	129.1	.83 (.67)
Black^b	1.6	.02 (.27)
Hispanic^b	23.4	.21 (.28)
Delinquency Background
Age at TJJD Start	−7.7	−.08 (.09)
Age at TDCJ Start	−18.1*	−.20 (.08)
Prior Adjudications	−.6	−.01 (.05)
Gang Affiliation	−17.7	−.19 (.19)
Assault History	−14.8	−.16 (.20)
Danger to Others	−18.9	−.21 (.20)
Violent Towards Family	−4.5	−.04 (.24)
Individual Risk Factors
Trauma	60.7*	.47 (.20)
Poverty	−50.8	−.71 (.30)
Mental Health Issues	.9	.01 (.01)

Female as reference group; ^bWhite as reference group; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Discussion

The broad goal of this study was to examine the disciplinary misconduct of serious and violent youthful offenders as they transitioned out of state juvenile correctional facilities and entered adult imprisonment. For juveniles sentenced under Texas's blended sentencing law, following a period of incarceration in Texas's juvenile correctional facilities, a decision is made whether to transfer a youthful offender to adult prison or to release them to the community (almost always on some form of community supervision). Because Texas places emphasis on the institutional behavior of offenders in making the prison transfer versus release decision, we believed the transfer status of the juvenile wards would be important in how offenders would adjust to adult imprisonment with respect to involvement in institutional misconduct.

The potential for different dynamics associated with being an immediate transfer to prison versus a delayed arrival (e.g., younger age, potential physical and psychological maturation differences, less time spent in a juvenile correctional facility and related access to rehabilitation programming, a general indicator of being a more problematic juvenile ward), led us to explore the unknown issue of whether these differences would translate into different misconduct experiences upon entrance to the adult prison setting. Indeed, the group of immediate transfers arrived in the Texas prison system at roughly age 19, whereas the delayed arrivals arrived at roughly age 21. Moreover, the delayed arrivals served approximately six more months in TJJD before they were released to the community, and on average, entered the adult prison system almost two years later than the immediate prison transfers. Further, a significantly larger proportion of the immediate transfers demonstrated very high levels of violent institutional misconduct perpetration as juvenile wards, compared to the delayed arrivals.

The findings of this study can be summarized as follows: the most frequent misconduct perpetrators as juvenile wards—the top 10% misconduct perpetrators while in juvenile confinement—were predicted to engage in a higher expected rate of violent misconduct in the adult prison setting. This finding is in line with prior research (Cihan & Sorensen, 2019; Craig & Trulson, 2019). Second, the youngest offenders with respect to the age that they were initially committed to the adult prison system were predicted to engage in higher levels of violent misconduct, net the effects of other variables in the model, which is consistent with prior research (Steiner et al., 2014; Trulson et al., 2016; Valentine et al., 2015). Finally, those offenders who evinced prior trauma as children were predicted to engage in a higher expected rate of misconduct upon entrance to adult prisons.

Extant research has not examined the question of what to expect when serious and violent, longer-term juvenile wards transfer onto adult prisons with respect to their involvement in violent institutional infractions. We believe this study is a step to addressing that gap and believe the findings herein can inform both practice and theory. In practice, adult prison authorities might utilize information on offenders’ juvenile correctional experience—especially those were engaged in high rates of misconduct—and be attuned that these offenders may emerge as the most likely candidates to be violent perpetrators upon entrance to the adult prison environment. In addition, it seems useful for prison managers to pay particular attention to the youngest of adult prison inmates and those with prior childhood trauma. With respect to young age, this study was not able to ferret out the potential age-related reasons for increased odds of engaging in violent misconduct—whether such violence was initiated as a primary perpetrator due to age-graded factors such as impulsiveness or possibly as a response to potential victimization by older and more sophisticated adult inmates—but such insight seems important with respect to the safety and security of offenders, staff, and institutions.

We believe the previously noted implication has broader application beyond the specific samples in this study. Indeed, blended sentencing in the state under study is one way in which individuals adjudicated as juveniles may eventually end up in an adult prison. Other states feature blended sentencing schemes which may also result in individuals under the authority of juvenile correctional authorities and in the transition to adulthood being placed into adult prisons, not to mention the other various mechanisms across states which allow for juveniles to be sent to adult prisons through judicial and legislative waiver processes. While replication studies are needed, the current study is a starting point for researchers to begin to address these and related questions about the behavior of those under the authority of juvenile correctional authorities who end up in adult prisons after a stay in a long-term state juvenile correctional facility.

Theoretically, the findings provide some evidence in support of behavioral continuity and life-course importation models of inmate behavior (DeLisi et al., 2011; Reidy et al., 2012; Sorensen & Davis, 2011). However, like prior research, we did not find that every pre-prison or juvenile confinement institutional adjustment variable was necessarily predictive of institutional misconduct. This means that other covariates including demographic features, history of violence, poverty, mental health problems, and gang involvement do not axiomatically result in institutional misconduct.

Limitations

There are study limitations. First, while we had access to a number of important variables linked to explaining potential violent misconduct among this cohort of offenders, some measures were dichotomies which lacked more specific details which might have improved this study. Related, more specific information with respect to the situation surrounding misconduct perpetration would have allowed us to code misconduct into more precise definitions beyond a simple count. For example, it would have been useful to understand if misconduct perpetration was related to victim status or for protection.

We were not able to account for variance in the discovery and documentation of violent misconduct incidents, and whether documentation and discovery varied both within specific juvenile and adult correctional facilities, and between the juvenile and adult prison system in Texas. In short, some violent incidents are likely undocumented for a variety of reasons and this may vary by institution and the larger system which institutions are situated

Still further, misconduct perpetration between the juvenile to adult system could possibly be affected by “exposure” or opportunity to perpetrate these incidents in the adult system. For example, because of young age, perhaps more inexperienced and less sophisticated youthful adult inmates are more often placed in protective custody which could dampen opportunity to engage in assaultive misconduct. On the other hand, perhaps these younger one-time juvenile wards are more likely to be placed in administrative segregation/protective custody for extended periods of time not for their protection, but for the protection of others. While the data for this study did not allow us to examine these specific possibilities, a benefit of focusing on violent misconduct—instead of generalized misconduct such as rule violations or minor contraband possession and so on—is that violent assaultive misconduct is perhaps the most likely to be uncovered and documented regardless of facility and regardless of the broader juvenile or adult correctional system differences.

As a final limitation, we did not have access to a generalized sample of older adult prison inmates with which to compare the outcomes of our cohorts as they transitioned to adult imprisonment. Indeed, a question that would be useful to examine would be how the rateof violent misconduct engaged in by the immediate transfers and the delayed arrivals compares to a group of prisoners generally, a group of prisoners by additional age-grades, and/or a group of prisoners who did not experience state incarceration as juveniles (see, Kuanliang et al., 2008). These and related questions, with additional comparison groups, would shed further light on how those offenders who were incarcerated in state juvenile facilities adjust to adult imprisonment with respect to participation in violent misconduct.

Conclusion

Despite these limitations, we believe this research helps to close some of the gap in the literature with respect to institutional adjustment among youthful offenders who were incarcerated in juvenile facilities, and then transferred onto adult facilities or later showed up in adult prison facilities as young adults. Indeed, we are not aware of another study that has been able to bring specific information about a juvenile offender's background and adjustment to a long-term state juvenile facility to bear on how that juvenile adapts to the adult prison environment, at least with respect to perpetration of violent assaultive misconduct. The current findings serve as a step for other researchers and us as we continue to explore and understand how information about offenders’ experiences as incarcerated delinquents might foretell how they will navigate the adult prison environment.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Chad R. Trulson, PhD, is professor and associate chair in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of North Texas (UNT). He is also the co-editor of Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice (YVJJ).

Jessica M. Craig, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of North Texas (UNT). Her research interests include juvenile justice and life course criminology, with a focus on the consequences of child maltreatment.

Jonathan W. Caudill, PhD is a professor and serves as the director for the Master of Criminal Justice Program at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. His research traverses aspects of formal social control; including offender recidivism and institutional misconduct, the efficacy of laws, and official discretion. He is also the co-editor of Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice (YVJJ).

Matt DeLisi, PhD, is College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Dean's professor, coordinator of criminal justice studies, professor in the Department of Sociology, and faculty affiliate of the Center for the Study of Violence at Iowa State University.

References

Ahlin

E. M.

Hummer

(2019). Sexual victimization of juveniles incarcerated in jails and prisons: An exploratory study of prevalence and risk factors. Victims & Offenders, 14(7), 793–810. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2019.1658675.

Berg

M. T.

DeLisi

(2006). The correctional melting pot: Race, ethnicity, citizenship, and prison violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(6), 631–642. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.09.016.

Bishop

Frazier

(2000). Consequences of transfer. In Fagan

Zimring

F. E.

(Eds.), The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court (pp. 227–276). University of Chicago Press.

Bishop

D. M.

Frazier

C. E.

Lanza-Kaduce

Winner

(1996). The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Does it make a difference? Crime & Delinquency, 42(2), 171–191. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128796042002001.

Blackburn

A. G.

Trulson

C. R.

(2010). Sugar and spice and everything nice? Exploring institutional misconduct among serious and violent female delinquents. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(6), 1132–1140. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.09.001.

Butler

H. D.

(2019). An examination of inmate adjustment stratified by time served in prison. Journal of Criminal Justice, 64, 101628. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2019.101628.

Cao

Zhao

Van Dine

(1997). Prison disciplinary tickets: A test of the deprivation and importation models. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25(2), 103–113. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(96)00054-2.

Choi

Dulisse

(2020). The importation of violent “codes” of south Korean inmates. The Prison Journal, 100(3), 287–311. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0032885520916816.

Cihan

Davidson

Sorensen

(2017). Analyzing the heterogeneous nature of inmate behavior: Trajectories of prison misconduct. The Prison Journal, 97(4), 431–450. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885517711420.

10.

Cihan

Sorensen

J. R.

(2019). Examining developmental patterns of prison misconduct: An integrated model approach. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(14), 2406–2421. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19849565.

11.

Craig

J. M.

Trulson

C. R.

(2019). Continuity of the delinquent career behind bars: Predictors of violent misconduct among female delinquents. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 49(November-December), 101301. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.06.002.

12.

Cunningham

M. D.

Sorensen

J. R.

(2007). Predictive factors for violent misconduct in close custody. The Prison Journal, 87(2), 241–253. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885507303752.

13.

DeLisi

(2003). Criminal careers behind bars. Behavioral Sciences & the law, 21(5), 653–669. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.531.

14.

DeLisi

Butler

H. D.

(2020). Murder as importation: An empirical study of the continuity of homicide offending from community to confinement. Homicide Studies, 4(24),398-416. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767920928106.

15.

DeLisi

Drury

A. J.

Kosloski

A. E.

Caudill

J. W.

Conis

P. J.

Anderson

C. A.

Beaver

K. M.

(2010). The cycle of violence behind bars: Traumatization and institutional misconduct among juvenile delinquents in confinement. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8(2), 107–121. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204009349399.

16.

DeLisi

Trulson

C. R.

Marquart

J. W.

Drury

A. J.

Kosloski

A. E.

(2011). Inside the prison black box: Toward a life course importation model of inmate behavior. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(8), 1186–1207. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X11383956.

17.

Drury

A. J.

DeLisi

(2010). The past is prologue: Prior adjustment to prison and institutional misconduct. The Prison Journal, 90(3), 331–352. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885510375676.

18.

Drury

A. J.

DeLisi

(2011). Gangkill: An exploratory empirical assessment of gang membership, homicide offending, and prison misconduct. Crime & Delinquency, 57(1), 130–146. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128708325051.

19.

Gover

A. R.

Pérez

D. M.

Jennings

W. G.

(2008). Gender differences in factors contributing to institutional misconduct. The Prison Journal, 88(3), 378–403. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885508322453.

20.

Grisso

Barnum

Fletcher

K. E.

Cauffman

Peuschold

(2001). Massachusetts youth screening instrument for mental health needs of juvenile justice youths. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(5), 541–548. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200105000-00013.

21.

Hochstetler

DeLisi

(2005). Importation, deprivation, and varieties of serving time: An integrated-lifestyle-exposure model of prison offending. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(3), 257–266. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2005.02.005.

22.

Holman

Ziedenberg

(2006). The dangers of detention. Justice Policy Institute.

23.

Irwin

Cressey

D. R.

(1962). Thieves, convicts and the inmate culture. Social Problems, 10(2), 142–155.

24.

Johnson

Lanza-Kaduce

Woolard

(2011). Disregarding graduated treatment: Why transfer aggravates recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 57(5), 756–777. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128708328867.

25.

Kolivoski

K. M.

Shook

J. J.

(2016). Incarcerating juveniles in adult prisons: Examining the relationship between age and prison behavior in transferred juveniles. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(9), 1242–1259. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816631793.

26.

Kuanliang

Sorensen

J. R.

Cunningham

M. D.

(2008). Juvenile offenders in an adult prison system: A comparative examination of rates and correlates of misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(9), 1186–1201. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808322744.

27.

Lai

Y. L.

(2019). Determinants of importation and deprivation models on committed juvenile offenders’ violent misconduct: A Taiwanese perspective. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(8), 1242–1264. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18815991.

28.

Lanza-Kaduce

Lane

Bishop

D. M.

Frazier

C. E.

(2005). Juvenile offenders and adult felony recidivism: The impact of transfer. Journal of Crime and Justice, 28(1), 59–77. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2005.9721207.

29.

Leigey

M. E.

Hodge

J. P.

(2013). And then they behaved: Examining the institutional misconduct of adult inmates who were incarcerated as juveniles. The Prison Journal, 93(3), 272–290. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885513490270.

30.

MacKenzie

D. L.

(1987). Age and adjustment to prison: Interactions with attitudes and anxiety. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14(4), 427–447. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854887014004002.

31.

Marquart

Trulson

(2016). Understanding the contours of prison disciplinary procedures. In The Oxford handbook of prisons and imprisonment (pp. 320–339). Oxford University Press.

32.

Mears

D. P.

(1998). Evaluation issues confronting juvenile justice sentencing reforms: A case study of texas. Crime & Delinquency, 44(3), 443–463. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128798044003007.

33.

Morris

R. G.

Carriaga

M. L.

Diamond

Piquero

N. L.

Piquero

A. R.

(2012). Does prison strain lead to prison misbehavior? An application of general strain theory to inmate misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(3), 194–201. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.12.001.

34.

Morris

R. G.

Longmire

D. R.

Buffington-Vollum

Vollum

(2010). Institutional misconduct and differential parole eligibility among capital inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(4), 417–438. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810361672.

35.

Mulvey

E. P.

Schubert

C. A.

(2012). Some initial findings and policy implications of the pathways to desistance study. Victims & Offenders, 7(4), 407–427. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2012.713903.

36.

Myers

D. L.

(2003). The recidivism of violent youths in juvenile and adult court: A consideration of selection bias. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1(1), 79–101. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204002238365.

37.

I. Y.

Sarri

R. C.

Shook

J. J.

Stoffregen

(2012). Comparison of correctional services for youth incarcerated in adult and juvenile facilities in michigan. The Prison Journal, 92(4), 460–483. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885512457547.

38.

I. Y.

Shen

Sim

Sarri

R. C.

Stoffregen

Shook

J. J.

(2011). Incarcerating juveniles in adult prisons as a factor in depression. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21(1), 21–34. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.783.

39.

Redding

R. E.

(2003). The effects of adjudicating and sentencing juveniles as adults: Research and policy implications. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1(2), 128–155. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204002250875.

40.

Reid

S. E.

(2017). Friendship group composition and juvenile institutional misconduct. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61(2), 191–209. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15589737.

41.

Reid

S. E.

Listwan

S. J.

(2018). Managing the threat of violence: Coping strategies among juvenile inmates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(8), 1306–1326. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515615143.

42.

Reidy

T. J.

Sorensen

J. R.

Cihan

(2018). Institutional misconduct among juvenile offenders serving a blended sentence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 57(July-August), 99–105. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.05.003.

43.

Reidy

T. J.

Sorensen

J. R.

Cunningham

M. D.

(2012). Community violence to prison assault: A test of the behavioral continuity hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 36(4), 356–363. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093934.

44.

Rembert

D. A.

Threadcraft-Walker

Henderson

Jackson

(2018). Predicting youth assault and institutional danger in juvenile correctional facilities. Journal of Criminal Justice, 58(September-October), 47–55. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.07.003.

45.

Ruch

D. A.

Sheftall

A. H.

Schlagbaum

Rausch

Campo

J. V.

Bridge

J. A.

(2019). Trends in suicide among youth aged 10 to 19 years in the United States, 1975 to 2016. JAMA Network Open, 2(5), e193886–e193886. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3886.

46.

Salekin

R. T.

Rogers

Ustad

K. L.

(2001). Juvenile waiver to adult criminal courts: Prototypes for dangerousness, sophistication–maturity, and amenability to treatment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(2), 381–408. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.2.381.

47.

Sorensen

Davis

(2011). Violent criminals locked up: Examining the effect of incarceration on behavioral continuity. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(2), 151–158. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.01.003.

48.

Steiner

Butler

H. D.

Ellison

J. M.

(2014). Causes and correlates of prison inmate misconduct: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(6), 462–470. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.08.001.

49.

Tasca

Griffin

M. L.

Rodriguez

(2010). The effect of importation and deprivation factors on violent misconduct: An examination of black and latino youth in prison. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8(3), 234–249. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204010366619.

50.

Trulson

C. R.

(2007). Determinants of disruption: Institutional misconduct among state- committed delinquents. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5(1), 7–34. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204006295162.

51.

Trulson

C. R.

DeLisi

Caudill

J. W.

Belshaw

Marquart

J. W.

(2010). Delinquent careers behind bars. Criminal Justice Review, 35(2), 200–219. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016809360326.

52.

Trulson

C. R.

Haerle

D. R.

Caudill

J. W.

DeLisi

(2016). Lost causes: Blended sentencing, second chances, and the texas youth commission. University of Texas Press.

53.

Valentine

C. L.

Mears

D. P.

Bales

W. D.

(2015). Unpacking the relationship between age and prison misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(5), 418–427. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.05.001.

54.

Walters

G. D.

(2016). From prison to the streets: Can importation work in reverse? Law and Human Behavior, 40(6), 660–669. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000213.

55.

Walters

G. D.

Crawford

(2013). In and out of prison: Do importation factors predict all forms of misconduct or just the more serious ones? Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(6), 407–413. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.08.001.

56.

Winner

Lanza-Kaduce

Bishop

D. M.

Frazier

C. E.

(1997). The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Reexamining recidivism over the long term. Crime & Delinquency, 43(4), 548–563. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128797043004009.

57.

Woolard

J. L.

Odgers

Lanza-Kaduce

Daglis

(2005). Juveniles within adult correctional settings: Legal pathways and developmental considerations. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 4(1), 1–18. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2005.10471209.

58.

Zane

S. N.

Welsh

B. C.

Mears

D. P.

(2016). Juvenile transfer and the specific deterrence hypothesis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(3), 901–925. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12222.