The Effects of Child Protective Services and Juvenile Justice System Involvement on Academic Outcomes: Gender and Racial Differences

Abstract

The primary aim of this study was to examine gender and racial differences in the association between system involvement types (i.e., child protective services [CPS] only, juvenile justice system only, and dual involvement) and academic outcomes (i.e., grade failure, chronic absenteeism). This study used records from a linked database of public youth-serving institutional records within a county’s youth court, law enforcement agencies, and CPS. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. The impact of systems involvement on academic outcomes was most salient among Black males, while none of the system involvement types were associated with chronic absenteeism or grade failure among White males. Findings highlight the need for the development of intervention strategies to address educational needs of youth involved in the CPS and juvenile justice systems, with a heightened attention to Black and male youth, to improve their attendance and academic performance.

Keywords

child welfare involvement juvenile justice systems involvement dual involvement academic outcomes race gender

Introduction

Poor academic performance—including chronic absenteeism and grade failure—is a serious issue which has long-lasting negative impacts on the lives of adolescents, such as the development of criminal and antisocial behavior, substance use, poor job satisfaction/performance, lower earnings, and decreased social engagement (Ginsburg, Jordan, & Chang, 2014; Gottfried, 2014; Julian & Kominski, 2011; Kingston, Hubbard, Lapp, Schroeder, & Wilson, 2003; Payne & Welch, 2015). Prior research has indicated that systems-involved youth (child protective services [CPS], juvenile justice system) are at higher risk of exhibiting academic performance problems (Piescher, Colburn, LaLiberte, & Hong, 2014; Siennick & Staff, 2008; Stone & Zibulsky, 2015; Ward & Williams, 2014). Dually involved youth—defined here as youth who are involved in both CPS and the juvenile justice system—are likely to face even greater challenges than those involved with a single system; yet academic outcomes for dually involved youth has not been thoroughly examined. Furthermore, despite a robust body of literature indicating racial and gender disparities in systems involvement as well as in academic outcomes (e.g., the overrepresentation of Black and male youth in the systems [Wildeman et al., 2014]; higher rates of chronic absenteeism among Black youth [U.S. Department of Education, 2018]), the impact of systems involvement on academic outcomes in the context of gender and racial differences remains unclear. Therefore, we investigated (a) how CPS involvement, juvenile justice system involvement, and dual involvement are associated with chronic absenteeism and grade failure; and (b) how these associations vary by race and gender in a sample of 30,003 youth.

CPS Involvement and Academic Outcomes

Each year, approximately 3.5 million children are reported to CPS for alleged child abuse and neglect (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services [USDHHS], Administration for Children & Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau, 2018). CPS agencies provide protection and intervention to children and families and investigate reports of child maltreatment. Child maltreatment involves neglect as well as physical, emotional, and sexual abuse (USDHHS, Administration for Children & Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau, 2018). Scholars have identified a link between child maltreatment and poor academic outcomes, including heightened absenteeism, repeating grades, lower standardized achievement scores, and lower GPA (Eckenrode, Laird, & Doris, 1993; Leiter, 2007; Leiter & Johnsen, 1994; Rowe & Eckenrode, 1999). Furthermore, research has revealed that children involved with CPS—regardless of substantiation status—display lower grades and chronic absenteeism (Berger, Cancian, Han, Noyes, & Rios-Salas, 2015; Leiter, 2007; Piescher et al., 2014).

CPS involvement by gender is proportional, with girls slightly outnumbering boys (girls: 51.0%, boys: 48.6%, unknown: 0.4%; USDHHS, Administration for Children & Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau, 2018), which parallels the gender breakdown of children in the United States (girls: 51.0%, boys: 49.0%; Kids Count Data Center, 2018). However, there is a significant racial disproportionality and disparity in CPS involvement (USDHHS, Administration for Children & Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau, 2018). Black children, who make up approximately 13% of the general population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016), comprise about 21% of the CPS-involved population (USDHHS, Administration for Children & Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau, 2018). The overrepresentation of Black children in CPS involvement warrants further attention given that a robust body of literature indicates higher school dropout rates, greater school failure, poorer academic performance, and higher prevalence rates of chronic absenteeism among this population (Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002). Although researchers have found that Black youth are at increased risk of both CPS involvement and poorer academic outcomes, few studies have examined if the impact of CPS involvement on academic outcomes may differ for Black youth compared with White youth.

Juvenile Justice System Involvement and Academic Outcomes

The juvenile justice system in the United States was established to handle youth accused of committing delinquent or criminal acts, with the goal of encouraging rehabilitation. Involvement with the juvenile justice system is very disruptive to a youth’s education and has been associated with poor academic outcomes, including higher dropout rates, lower school attainment, and grade failure (Bernburg & Krohn, 2003; Seydlitz & Jenkins, 1998; Siegel & Senna, 2000; Siennick & Staff, 2008; Sweeten, 2006; U.S. Department of Education, 2018; Ward & Williams, 2014). Juvenile justice system–involved youth are at least 1 year behind in math and reading than noninvolved peers, are twice as likely to drop out of school, and up to 40% face grade retention (Stone & Zibulsky, 2015).

Similar to racial disparities in CPS involvement, Black youth are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. In 2014, Black youth were involved in the juvenile justice system at a rate of 35.1%, suggesting that Black youth are overrepresented more than two and a half times the general population of 13.3% (National Center for Juvenile Justice [NCJJ], 2016). In terms of gender, over 70% of the cases handled by juvenile courts include males, indicating that males are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system (NCJJ, 2016). A handful of studies have investigated if the impact of juvenile justice system involvement on school outcomes vary by race or gender and found no supporting evidence (Bernburg & Krohn, 2003; Sweeten, 2006). However, these studies were limited in that they did not consider the unique and combined effects of race and gender. Examining the combined effects of race and gender may be especially important for juvenile justice system–involved youth given that males are at higher of for juvenile justice system involvement; yet females tend to show slightly higher rates of chronic absenteeism in high school (U.S. Department of Education, 2018).

Dual Involvement and Academic Outcomes

Considering diminished academic outcomes among youth involved in either CPS or the juvenile justice system, those who are involved with both systems (i.e., dually involved youth) may be at even higher risk of negative academic outcomes. It is estimated that between 9% and 29% of youth involved with CPS also become involved with the juvenile justice system (Herz, 2008; Herz, Ryan, & Bilchik, 2010). Herz et al. (2010) found that educational attainment positively correlates with a decrease in recidivism for dually involved youth; yet the impact of dual involvement on academic outcomes remains unknown. While dual involvement is expected to be a greater negative factor than involvement in only one of the systems, research is largely lacking for academic outcomes experienced by dually involved youth and warrants further investigation. It is estimated that about one third of dually involved youth are female (Herz, 2008), which is disproportionate when compared with the percentage of females in the CPS system (50.9%), but somewhat mirrors the 27.7% population of females involved in the juvenile justice system. In addition, Black youth are believed to be overrepresented (Herz, 2008), which is congruent with the disproportionality shown in the CPS and juvenile justice system.

Current Study

This study investigated how involvement with CPS, the juvenile justice system, or dual systems affected the academic outcomes of grade failure and chronic absenteeism among 30,003 youth aged 10–19. Despite the growing interest in dually involved youth and the unique challenges experienced by this population—such as high risk for social exclusion (Lee & Patton, 2017)—few existing studies have explored the impact of dual system involvement on youth academic outcomes (Halemba, Siegel, Lord, & Zawacki, 2004). Furthermore, it is unknown how the impact of system involvement on grade failure and chronic absenteeism varies by gender, race, and intersection of gender and race. Understanding the effects of dual involvement on academic outcomes within the context of gender and racial influences will provide key information to effectively address the unique needs of vulnerable youth experiencing the CPS and juvenile justice systems through the development of gender-specific and culturally sensitive intervention programs. We sought to fill the aforementioned research gaps by addressing the following two primary research questions:

Research Question 1: What are the associations between systems involvement (CPS only, juvenile justice system only, dual involvement) and academic outcomes (grade failure, chronic absenteeism)?

Research Question 2: Do these associations differ by gender and race?

It was hypothesized that dually involved youth will have poorer academic outcomes (i.e., grade failure, chronic absenteeism) than youth with no history of systems involvement. Based on the overrepresentation of males and Black youth in systems involvement (Herz, 2008; Wildeman et al., 2014), it was hypothesized that the relations between systems involvement and poorer academic outcomes will be stronger for males and Black youth.

Method

Participants

Data on youth in this study were obtained from multiple agencies, including the Mississippi Department of Education, Juvenile Justice Data System, CPS, Jackson Police Department, and Hinds County Sherriff’s Office. A linked dataset of 109,890 youth was constructed using the Mississippi Department of Education records of youth who attended a school in Mississippi in any year from 2003 to 2013. Cases were matched using the child’s first name, last name, date of birth, sex, and race (Robertson & Walker, 2018). The Mississippi State University Institutional Review Board approved this analysis in 2017. The study sample was restricted to youth aged 10–19 who had educational data (our dependent variable) in 2013 (N = 30,735). To ensure temporal order of the study variables, we focused on the academic outcomes measured in the year 2013 and the system involvement history followed from 2003–2013. Youth were dropped from the study if they were aged 20 or older at the time of the outcomes assessment (n = 34, less than 0.1% of the sample) or if their ethnicity was other than White or Black (i.e., Native American: n = 13; Asian: n = 220; Hawaiian: n = 2; Hispanic: n = 409; multiracial: n = 54; who comprised 2.2% of the sample). This decision was based on our focus of youth (defined as individuals 10–19 years old [United Nations, 2011]) and racial differences (racial groups other than White and Black did not have enough power for the primary subgroup analysis due to small sample size and sparse cell problems). The final analytic sample included 30,003 youth.

Measures

Academic outcomes

This study focused on two academic outcomes as dependent variables: grade failure and chronic absenteeism. The academic outcomes (dependent variables) were measured in the year 2013. For grade failure, individuals who failed a grade were coded yes = 1. Chronic absenteeism was defined as missing more than 10% of school days (i.e., >18 days out of a 180-day school year; Attendance Works, 2013) and was coded dichotomously as 0 = no chronic absenteeism and 1 = chronic absenteeism.

System involvement

The system involvement history (2003–2013) was divided into four categories: no involvement, involvement with CPS only, involvement with the juvenile justice system only, and involvement with both CPS and the juvenile justice system (i.e., dual involvement). Youth with any reported allegations of abuse or neglect (e.g., physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, neglect) based on records from the state CPS agency were considered as having CPS involvement. Any allegations of child maltreatment, regardless of substantiation status, were used to define CPS involvement based on prior research indicating no significant differences in academic outcomes between unsubstantiated and substantiated reports (Leiter, Myers, & Zingraff, 1994). Juvenile justice system involvement was operationalized in this study as any arrests by the police department or the county sheriff’s office, regardless of the age at the time of arrest, or any referrals made to the county youth court by law enforcement, school officials, family, or others. The systems involvement variable was dummy coded. Using the “no system involvement” as the reference group, the following three dichotomous dummy variables were created and entered into the regression models: CPS involvement only (0 = no, 1 = yes), juvenile justice system involvement only (0 = no, 1 = yes), dual involvement (0 = no, 1 = yes).

Control variables

Control variables included age, gender (0 = female, 1 = male), race (0 = White, 1 = Black), and type of maltreatment. The type of maltreatment was included as a control variable based on previous studies that found differential impact of maltreatment on academic outcomes (e.g., Eckenrode et al., 1993; Holmes, Yoon, Berg, Cage, & Perzynski, 2018). Type of maltreatment was coded into three dichotomous variables: physical abuse (0 = no, 1 = yes), sexual abuse (0 = no, 1 = yes), and neglect (0 = no, 1 = yes). Age was classified into three categories based on the developmental stage (early adolescence: age 10–13; middle adolescence: ages 14–16; late adolescence: ages 17–19; Clark-Lempers, Lempers, & Ho, 1991) and dummy coded (middle adolescence: 0 = no, 1 = yes; late adolescence: 0 = no, 1 = yes), using early adolescence as a reference group.

Analyses Plan

Preliminary analyses were conducted to understand sample characteristics and the descriptive nature of the study variables. Then, a series of binary logistic regressions were conducted to address the research questions. Furthermore, subgroup analysis was used when looking at the second research question (do associations differ by gender and race). Subgroup analysis is a statistical approach to separate the sample/data into subgroups (i.e., subsets) to make comparisons between the groups (Yellareddygari, Pasche, Taylor, & Gudmestad, 2016). We decided to perform a series of subgroup analyses rather than constructing interaction terms because this approach allows for parsimony and because three-way interactions (i.e., Race × Gender × System involvement) are difficult to interpret (Legendre & Legendre, 1998).

We stratified the sample on gender and conducted a subgroup analysis to examine gender differences (i.e., between-group differences by gender) in the predictive effects of system involvement on academic outcomes. Similarly, we stratified the sample on race and conducted a subgroup analysis to examine whether the predictive effects of system involvement varied by race. Finally, we created four subgroups (White males, White females, Black males, and Black females) and conducted a series of logistic regression models on these subgroups to examine how the impact of systems involvement on grade failure and chronic absenteeism differs by the intersection of gender and race.

All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS v.24. Due to the large sample size (N = 30,003), we used a conservative significance level alpha of .001 (99.9% confidence interval) to reduce the possibility of Type 1 error (incorrectly rejecting a true null hypothesis).

Results

Descriptive Results

The sample was evenly split between males (50.6%, n = 15,170) and females (49.4%, n = 14,833). The majority of the study sample was Black (87.2%, n = 26,154). The mean age of the study sample was about 14 years (range: 10–19). Regarding the history of system involvement (2003–2013), 78.4% (n = 23,515) of the youth had no involvement with CPS or the juvenile justice system. About 13.7% (n = 4,111) had a history of involvement with CPS only, 4.9% (n = 1,484) had a history of involvement in the juvenile justice system only, and 3% (n = 893) had a history of dual involvement (i.e., involvement in both child welfare and juvenile justice systems). Approximately one third (33.6%, n = 10,092) of the youth failed a grade, and a little over one third (36.8%, n = 11,035) were chronically absent in 2013.

Multivariate Models

System involvement as predictors of academic performance

Binary logistic regression models were conducted to examine the level of systems involvement (i.e., no involvement, CPS only, juvenile justice system only, dual involvement) as predictors of each academic outcome (failed grade, chronic absenteeism), while controlling for age, race, gender, and allegations of physical abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect (see Table 1). Youth with a history of CPS involvement but no involvement in the juvenile justice system had 1.49 times higher odds of a grade failure and 1.37 times higher odds of chronic absenteeism than youth with no history of systems involvement. Youth with a history of involvement in the juvenile justice system but no CPS involvement had 2.63 times and 4.26 times higher odds of grade failure and chronic absenteeism, respectively, than youth with no history of systems involvement. Dually involved youth who have been involved in both CPS and the juvenile justice system had 2.80 times and 4.11 times higher odds of grade failure and chronic absenteeism, respectively, than youth with no history of systems involvement.

Table 1.

System Involvement as Predictors of Academic Outcomes.

	Failed grade		Chronic absenteeism
	OR (99.9% CI)	p	OR (99.9% CI)	p
System involvement (reference: no involvement)
CPS involvement	1.49* [1.18, 1.87]	<.001	1.37* [1.09, 1.74]	<.001
JJ involvement	2.63* [2.19, 3.16]	<.001	4.26* [3.50, 5.18]	<.001
Dual involvement	2.80* [2.01, 3.91]	<.001	4.11* [2.89, 5.86]	<.001
Age (reference group: early adolescence)
Middle adolescence	1.45* [1.32, 1.60]	<.001	1.78* [1.62, 1.96]	<.001
Late adolescence	1.90* [1.70, 2.13]	<.001	3.31* [2.95, 3.71]	<.001
Black	1.75* [1.52, 2.01]	<.001	0.58* [0.51, 0.66]	<.001
Male	1.91* [1.75, 2.08]	<.001	0.99 [0.91, 1.08]	.805
Physical abuse	1.12 [0.91, 1.36]	.076	1.01 [0.83, 1.24]	.832
Sexual abuse	1.07 [0.85, 1.35]	.316	1.23 [0.97, 1.57]	.004
Neglect	1.46* [1.17, 1.82]	<.001	2.01* [1.60, 2.51]	<.001

Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; CPS = Child Protective Services; JJ = juvenile justice system.

p < .001.

Gender differences

We examined whether the relationships between a history of system involvement and academic outcomes differed by gender (Table 2). The results from separate analyses by gender indicated that a history of involvement in CPS only was associated with higher odds of grade failure and chronic absenteeism in males, but not in females. No gender differences were found in the relationships of juvenile justice system involvement only and dual involvement with academic outcomes; regardless of gender, youth who have been involved with the juvenile justice system only or have been dually involved had significantly higher odds of grade failure and chronic absenteeism compared with those who have not been involved with any system.

Table 2.

Relation Between System Involvement and Academic Outcomes by Gender.

	Male				Female
	Failed grade		Chronic absenteeism		Failed grade		Chronic absenteeism
	OR (99.9% CI)	p	OR (99.9% CI)	p	OR (99.9% CI)	p	OR (99.9% CI)	p
System involvement
CPS involvement	1.69* [1.21, 2.37]	<.001	1.58* [1.12, 2.24]	<.001	1.33 [0.96, 1.83]	.004	1.21 [0.88, 1.67]	.049
JJ involvement	2.99* [2.39, 3.75]	<.001	4.62* [3.65, 5.85]	<.001	1.93* [1.37, 2.72]	<.001	3.56* [2.49, 5.08]	<.001
Dual involvement	3.36* [2.12, 5.35]	<.001	4.57* [2.83, 7.39]	<.001	2.32* [1.42, 3.79]	<.001	3.61* [2.10, 6.20]	<.001
Age
Middle adolescence	1.56* [1.37, 1.77]	<.001	1.75* [1.53, 2.00]	<.001	1.33* [1.15, 1.53]	<.001	1.82* [1.59, 2.08]	<.001
Late adolescence	1.90* [1.63, 2.22]	<.001	3.08* [2.62, 3.62]	<.001	1.89* [1.59, 2.24]	<.001	3.57* [3.03, 4.19]	<.001
Black	1.86* [1.55, 2.23]	<.001	0.61* [0.51, 0.72]	<.001	1.61* [1.31, 1.97]	<.001	0.55* [0.47, 0.66]	<.001
Physical abuse	0.98 [0.73, 1.31]	.774	0.97 [0.72, 1.31]	.735	1.26 [0.96, 1.66]	.008	1.04 [0.79, 1.39]	.622
Sexual abuse	0.94 [0.62, 1.41]	.616	1.14 [0.75, 1.73]	.322	1.17 [0.87, 1.56]	.099	1.34 [0.99, 1.80]	.001
Neglect	1.37 [0.99, 1.90]	.001	1.90* [1.37, 2.65]	<.001	1.52* [1.12, 2.07]	<.001	2.10* [1.54, 2.84]	<.001

Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; CPS = Child Protective Services; JJ = juvenile justice system.

p < .001.

Racial differences

Table 3 summarizes the results of the logistic regression analysis conducted separately by race to examine racial differences in the relationships between the type of system involvement and academic outcomes. We found that a history of involvement in CPS only was associated with higher odds of grade failure and chronic absenteeism in Black youth, but not in White youth. Similarly, a history of dual involvement significantly predicted higher odds of grade failure and chronic absenteeism among Black youth, but not among White youth. No racial differences were found in the relationships between juvenile justice system involvement only and both academic outcomes.

Table 3.

Relation Between System Involvement and Academic Outcomes by Race.

	White				Black
	Failed grade		Chronic absenteeism		Failed grade		Chronic absenteeism
	OR (99.9% CI)	p	OR (99.9% CI)	p	OR (99.9% CI)	p	OR (99.9% CI)	p
System involvement
CPS involvement	1.39 [0.67, 2.89]	.131	1.63 [0.81, 3.28]	.012	1.49* [1.17, 1.90]	<.001	1.34* [1.05, 1.72]	<.001
JJ involvement	2.80* [1.21, 6.48]	<.001	3.01* [1.15, 7.86]	<.001	2.62* [2.16, 3.16]	<.001	4.32* [3.53, 5.28]	<.001
Dual involvement	1.83 [0.42, 7.92]	.174	3.48 [0.55, 22.06]	.026	2.88* [2.04, 4.07]	<.001	4.14* [2.87, 5.97]	<.001
Age
Middle adolescence	1.69* [1.26, 2.25]	<.001	2.29* [1.79, 2.95]	<.001	1.43* [1.29, 1.58]	<.001	1.71* [1.54, 1.89]	<.001
Late adolescence	1.51* [1.05, 2.18]	<.001	4.38* [3.17, 6.06]	<.001	1.95* [1.73, 2.20]	<.001	3.17* [2.80, 3.58]	<.001
Gender (male)	1.64* [1.26, 2.14]	<.001	0.91 [0.73, 1.14]	.178	1.94* [1.77, 2.12]	<.001	1.01 [0.92, 1.10]	.678
Physical abuse	1.24 [0.67, 2.28]	.249	1.16 [0.62, 2.21]	.433	1.11 [0.89, 1.37]	.121	0.99 [0.80, 1.24]	.876
Sexual abuse	1.00 [0.49, 2.03]	.998	0.86 [0.42, 1.78]	.499	1.09 [0.85, 1.39]	.254	1.29 [1.04, 1.67]	.001
Neglect	1.82 [0.91, 3.64]	.004	2.11* [1.08, 4.12]	<.001	1.42* [1.13, 1.80]	<.001	1.99* [1.57, 2.53]	<.001

Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; CPS = Child Protective Services; JJ = juvenile justice system.

p < .001.

Differences by the intersection of gender and race

Table 4 presents the results of a series of logistic regression analyses run separately for four sub-groups: White male, White female, Black male, and Black female. For White females, juvenile justice system involvement only was associated with a greater likelihood of grade failure. White female youth who have been involved with the juvenile justice system but not CPS were about 5 times more likely to fail a grade. For White males, none of the three types of system involvement (i.e., CPS only, juvenile justice system only, dual involvement) was associated with grade failure or chronic absenteeism. For Black females, CPS involvement only was not significantly associated with either of the academic outcomes, while juvenile justice system involvement only and dual involvement predicted significantly higher odds of both grade failure and chronic absenteeism. For Black males, all three types of system involvement were significantly associated with higher odds of grade failure. Juvenile justice system involvement only and dual involvement were also significantly associated with higher odds of chronic absenteeism in Black males.

Table 4.

Relation Between System Involvement and Academic Outcomes by Gender and Race.

	Failed grade		Chronic absenteeism
	OR (99.9% CI)	p	OR (99.9% CI)	p
White female
System involvement
CPS involvement	1.03 [0.37, 2.88]	.931	1.00 [0.38, 2.63]	.995
JJ involvement	4.59* [1.20, 17.64]	<.001	2.21 [0.51, 9.59]	.074
Dual involvement	1.61 [0.25, 10.33]	.396	2.32 [0.22, 24.95]	.243
Age (reference: early adolescence)
Middle adolescence	1.47 [0.95, 2.29]	.004	2.36* [1.64, 3.37]	<.001
Late adolescence	1.10 [0.63, 1.93]	.587	5.11* [3.23, 8.08]	<.001
Physical abuse	1.99 [0.86, 4.58]	.007	1.40 [0.57, 3.48]	.218
Sexual abuse	1.15 [0.46, 2.85]	.625	1.04 [0.40, 2.73]	.894
Neglect	2.23 [0.85, 5.87]	.006	3.37* [1.33, 8.50]	<.001
White male
System involvement
CPS involvement	2.20 [0.77, 6.32]	.014	2.93 [1.03, 8.30]	.001
JJ involvement	2.00 [0.69, 5.81]	.033	3.83 [1.07, 13.79]	.001
Dual involvement	1.80 [0.15, 22.27]	.444	5.75 [0.29, 115.73]	.055
Age (reference: early adolescence)
Middle adolescence	1.82* [1.24, 2.68]	<.001	2.24* [1.58, 3.19]	<.001
Late adolescence	1.93* [1.18, 3.14]	<.001	3.76* [2.37, 5.97]	<.001
Physical abuse	0.72 [0.29, 1.81]	.246	0.86 [0.34, 2.17]	.592
Sexual abuse	0.79 [0.25, 2.54]	.508	0.72 [0.22, 2.30]	.350
Neglect	1.29 [0.47, 3.55]	.412	1.22 [0.45, 3.29]	.515
Black female
System involvement
CPS involvement	1.37 [0.87, 1.91]	.002	1.24 [0.88, 1.74]	.039
JJ involvement	1.81* [1.28, 2.58]	<.001	3.67* [2.54, 5.30]	<.001
Dual involvement	2.43* [1.46, 4.04]	<.001	3.81* [2.18, 6.66]	<.001
Age (reference: early adolescence)
Middle adolescence	1.31* [1.13 1.52]	<.001	1.74* [1.51, 2.01]	<.001
Late adolescence	2.00* [1.67, 2.39]	<.001	3.37* [2.83, 4.01]	<.001
Physical abuse	1.20 [0.90, 1.61]	.039	1.01 [0.75, 1.36]	.944
Sexual abuse	1.18 [0.87, 1.60]	.072	1.40* [1.02, 1.91]	.001
Neglect	1.45* [1.05, 2.00]	<.001	1.97* [1.42, 2.72]	<.001
Black male
System involvement
CPS involvement	1.64* [1.15, 2.34]	<.001	1.46 [1.01, 2.12]	.001
JJ involvement	3.06* [2.42, 3.86]	<.001	4.67* [3.67, 5.93]	<.001
Dual involvement	3.35* [2.08, 5.41]	<.001	4.37* [2.67, 7.15]	<.001
Age (reference: early adolescence)
Middle adolescence	1.53* [1.33, 1.75]	<.001	1.68* [1.45, 1.94]	<.001
Late adolescence	1.90* [1.61, 2.24]	<.001	2.99* [2.52, 3.55]	<.001
Physical abuse	1.01 [0.74, 1.38]	.902	.98 [0.71, 1.35]	.830
Sexual abuse	0.96 [0.62, 1.49]	.771	1.20 [0.77, 1.89]	.117
Neglect	1.38 [0.98, 1.94]	.002	2.01* [1.41, 2.86]	<.001

Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; CPS = Child Protective Services; JJ = juvenile justice system.

p < .001.

Discussion

The current study reveals that having a history of system involvement at any level placed an individual at greater risk of chronic absenteeism and grade failure when compared with youth with no history of system involvement. The risk factors for low academic achievement, such as learning disabilities and poor self-regulation, are exacerbated by the school instability that is often experienced by systems-involved youth (Gottfried, 2014; O’Higgins, Sebba, & Gardner, 2017; Yun, Cheong, & Walsh, 2014). This study’s findings are consistent with prior research that found poorer academic outcomes among youth involved with CPS or the juvenile justice system (Piescher et al., 2014; Robertson & Walker, 2018; Siennick & Staff, 2008; Stone & Zibulsky, 2015; Ward & Williams, 2014).

Consistent with our hypothesis and prior research (Abbott & Barnett, 2016; Bilchik & Nash, 2009; Elbert et al., 2009; Herz et al., 2010; Randall, Sabatelli, & Farrell, 2015), dually involved youth had significantly higher odds of experiencing grade failure and chronic absenteeism compared with youth who have never been involved with any systems. Furthermore, our post hoc analysis (results not shown) indicated that dually involved youth were significantly more likely to experience those negative academic outcomes than those who have been involved with CPS but did not crossover from CPS to the juvenile justice system. This suggests dually involved youth may face additional challenges compared with youth who are only involved with CPS.

Interestingly, the post hoc analysis results also found that there were no statistically significant differences in grade failure or chronic absenteeism between dually involved youth and youth who have been involved only with the juvenile justice system. This may suggest that dually involved youth share more similar characteristics with juvenile justice system-involved youth than with CPS-involved youth, and juvenile delinquency rather than child maltreatment may be a key barrier to achieve favorable academic outcomes in vulnerable youth. Put differently, juvenile justice involvement could be a primary driver for adverse academic outcomes in dually involved youth.

In this study, Black males involved only in the juvenile justice system were significantly associated with the likelihood of chronic absenteeism. This finding is further supported by extensive research showing that Black youth disproportionately experience arrest and incarceration in the United States. Moreover, they represent the more than 70% of youth who are involved in school-related arrests and are more likely to be sentenced as adults, in spite of state and federal legislation to produce more equitable treatment in courts (Brinkley-Rubenstien, Craven & McCormack, 2014; Mendel, 2011; Rodriguez, 2010; Rodriguez, 2007; United States Department of Education, 2012). Consequently, scholars suggest that these disparities are the result of blatant bias or racial discrimination based on social and structural factors (e.g., poverty, population density, female-headed households, racial composition, residential mobility) or legal factors (e.g., penalties for drug crimes, or the aforementioned unfair sentencing practices) and play a significant role for Black versus White youth (Brinkley-Rubinstein, Craven, & McCormack, 2014; Case, 2008; Freiburger & Jordan, 2011; Mitchell & Caudy, 2015; Sampson & Loeffler, 2010). However, more research is needed to disentangle the complex associations among systems involvement, academic outcomes, and the presence of organizational, systemic, and intersectional structural factors impacting Black youth.

Interestingly, gender and racial differences were noted in the association between system involvement and academic outcomes. Males with a history of CPS involvement were at greater risk of grade failure and chronic absenteeism compared with their female counterparts; there were no associations between CPS involvement and academic outcomes for females. Self-regulation, an important determinant of academic achievement, has been found to be less accomplished in male youth (Weis, Heikamp, & Trommsdorff, 2013), and lack of self-regulation skills often results in behavioral problems. Behavioral problems are not only disruptive to the education process but also contribute to CPS involvement (Chamberland, Lacharité, Clément, & Lessard, 2015).

Our finding of CPS involvement being associated with higher risk of grade failure and chronic absenteeism for males, but not females, may also be explained by gender differences in the primary type of maltreatment experienced by youth. The maltreatment literature has consistently indicated that girls are more likely to experience sexual abuse than boys (May-Chahal, 2006). Research has also suggested that victims of child sexual abuse are more likely to receive services (Villagrana, 2010). Receipt of various services after child sexual abuse experiences may serve as a protective factor for female youth who have been involved with the CPS system. Another potential explanation for these findings is that female youth involved with CPS are more resilient than their male counterparts. A recent study on academic functioning in CPS-involved children found that female children were more likely to show resilient academic developmental trajectories (e.g., high-stable, increasing academic functioning) than male CPS-involved children (Holmes et al., 2018).

Compared with White youth, Black youth were at greater risk of poor academic outcomes, especially if they were involved with CPS or dually involved in both systems. In other words, CPS involvement and dual involvement had significant relations with academic outcomes among Black youth, but not among White youth. This finding is consistent with previous literature that suggests Blacks have disproportionate contact with both CPS and the juvenile justice system, as well as poorer academic outcomes compared with other racial groups (Herz, 2008; U.S. Department of Education, 2018; USDHHS, Administration for Children & Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau, 2018). Our findings of more salient effects of CPS involvement and dual involvement on academic outcomes for Black youth versus White youth may be attributed to a constellation of other developmental challenges and psychiatric problems (e.g., substance use, anxiety disorder) experienced by Black youth, especially those who are dually involved in both systems (Baetz, 2015). Furthermore, prior research has well documented that Black youth face racial disparities in accessing and receiving services for multiple reasons, such as stigma or financial barriers (Broman, 2012; Kutash, Duchnowski, & Green, 2015). Conversely, White youth are more likely to receive and utilize a wide range of quality services, including behavioral health services, which may play a protective role for systems-involved White youth. For instance, White youth who have lived in an affluent neighborhood with more resources and received a higher quality education and services might still obtain favorable academic outcomes even after their involvement with systems (Baicker, Chandra, Skinner, & Wennberg, 2004).

Our findings suggest that it is not just gender or race alone, but rather the intersection of gender and race that plays an important role in explaining the association between systems involvement and academic outcomes. The examination of combined effects of gender and race (i.e., four distinct groups broken down by the combination of gender and race) revealed interesting differences in the impact of systems involvement on grade failure and chronic absenteeism. That is, none of the systems involvement types (i.e., CPS only, juvenile justice system only, dual involvement) predicted poor academic outcomes for White males, suggesting that systems involvement did not have a detrimental impact on academic performance for this specific population. For White females, the only significant predictor was involvement with the juvenile justice system, which predicted grade failure; no other systems involvement variables were significantly related to academic outcomes. For Black females, both juvenile justice systems involvement and dual involvement predicted higher likelihood of grade failure and chronic absenteeism, but involvement with the CPS system only was not predictive of academic outcomes. In contrast to the other groups (especially with White males), Black males’ academic outcomes were heavily affected by systems involvement. All types of systems involvement—including CPS only, juvenile justice system only, and dual involvement—predicted poor performance in both outcomes (grade failure and chronic absenteeism) for Black males, except for the association between CPS involvement and chronic absenteeism.

These findings are closely in line with a recent study that found that race and gender alone did not predict educational attainment among child welfare-involved youth, but the intersection of race and gender (specifically being a Black male) predicted a lower likelihood of education completion (Cage, Corley, & Harris, 2018). Similarly, another study found that dually involved Black males are less likely to graduate high school than dually involved White males (Baetz, 2015). This is consistent with other research findings that suggest structural barriers created by race may influence older Black males’ perceptions of future opportunities, including educational attainment (Brinkley-Rubinstein et al., 2014). In summary, our findings suggest that Black males are particularly vulnerable to the negative impact of systems involvement on academic outcomes and more targeted intervention efforts should be directed toward this population. Our findings also highlight the importance of applying an intersectionality (of race and gender) frame work in understanding developmental outcomes of systems-involved youth to investigate the impact of prolonged disenfranchisement related to the multiple and intersecting marginalized facets of their identify, which may not support the pursuit and achievement of favorable academic outcomes (MacLeod, 2008).

This study has several limitations. First, this is a secondary analysis of data collected from one county in the United States. Consequently, the findings may not represent youth outside of this locale and may not be generalizable to youth in different regions or geographical locations. Second, we primarily focused on the type of system involvement and did not examine other characteristics of system involvement, such as the severity and timing of systems involvement. Although beyond the scope of this study, various aspects of system involvement including the frequency, timing, severity, and chronicity of systems involvement may play critical roles in shaping academic outcomes, and thus should be considered in future studies. Yet, the findings from this study are noteworthy given its focus and the potential to inform more effective strategies to reduce the risk of negative academic outcomes for this population.

The findings of this study add to the growing body of literature that suggests dually involved Black youth, especially males, are at greater risk of poor academic outcomes than their White male and female counterparts. Results from the current study suggest the need for heightened attention to the needs of system-involved Black male youth, especially those who are dually involved, to improve their school attendance and academic performance. These findings highlight the need to identify and intervene appropriately with youth in school settings, as well as with their parents and caregivers. A blended approach to prevention should focus on intersectional individual and structural factors (Brinkley-Rubinstein et al., 2014). In addition, understanding the nuances of system involvement for youth, as well as their demographic factors, could carry information about risk and protective factors that could inform prevention and intervention efforts to target appropriate intervention strategies.

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.

ORCID iD

Susan Yoon

Author Biographies

Susan Yoon is an assistant professor at The Ohio State University College of Social Work. Dr. Yoon’s research seeks to promote resilience and well-being in children who have experienced childhood maltreatment. Specifically, her research focuses on understanding the longitudinal effects of child maltreatment on child development, with a particular interest in identifying factors, mechanisms, and pathways that promote or hinder resilient development following child maltreatment.

Camille R. Quinn is an LCSW and an assistant professor at The Ohio State University College of Social Work. Dr. Quinn’s research seeks to foster the well-being and health equity of youth and young adults involved in or at risk of involvement in the juvenile justice system. Specifically, her research focuses on investigating the individual, structural and intersectional factors associated with their mental health disparities and recidivism, with an emphasis on identifying the barriers, mechanisms, and pathways that foster their mental wellness and desistance from crime.

Karla Shockley McCarthy, MSW, LSW, is a doctoral student at The Ohio State University College of Social Work. Karla received her BA in History at Allegheny College, and her MSW from The Ohio State University. She has extensive experience in the education system as a teacher, exceptional student advocate, and school social worker. Karla’s research interests concern child and adolescent mental health, family and school system influences, the impact of family-based trauma, and protective factors of belongingness and social support.

Angela A. Robertson is a research professor and the associate director of the Social Science Research Center at Mississippi State University. She conducts multi-site and longitudinal research on behavioral health issues among offender populations, develops and tests behavioral interventions to reduce drug use and continued involvement with the justice system, and test strategies for enhancing inter-organizational relationships between justice agencies and service providers to meet the needs of offenders.

References

Abbott

Barnett

(2016). The crossover youth practice model (CYPM). Washington, DC. Available from http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/

Attendance Works. (2013). The attendance imperative: How states can advance achievement by reducing chronic absence [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.attendanceworks.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/AAM-Policy-Brief-Final-9.16.pdf

Baetz

C. L.

(2015). A long-term follow-up of crossover youth: Young adult outcomes for maltreated youth in the juvenile justice system. New York, NY. Retrieved from https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1861&context=gc_etds

Baicker

Chandra

Skinner

J. S.

Wennberg

J. E.

(2004). Who you are and where you live: How race and geography affect the treatment of Medicare beneficiaries. Health Affairs, 23, 33-44.

Berger

L. M.

Cancian

Han

Noyes

Rios-Salas

(2015). Children’s academic achievement and foster care. Pediatrics, 135(1), e109-e116.

Bernburg

J. G.

Krohn

M. D.

(2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41, 1287-1318.

Bilchik

Nash

(2009). Child welfare and juvenile justice: Two sides of the same coin. Juvenile and Family Justice Today, 1-5. Retrieved from http://nc.casaforchildren.org/files/public/community/judges/March_2010/NashCrossoverarticle1.pdf

Brinkley-Rubinstein

Craven

K. L.

McCormack

M. M.

(2014). Shifting perceptions of race and incarceration as adolescents age: Addressing disproportionate minority contact by understanding how social environment informs racial attitudes. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 31, 25-38.

Broman

(2012). Race differences in the receipt of mental health services among young adults. Psychological Services, 9, 38-48.

10.

Cage

Corley

N. A.

Harris

L. A.

(2018). The educational attainment of maltreated youth involved with the child welfare system: Exploring the intersection of race and gender. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 550-557.

11.

Case

P. F.

(2008). The relationship of race and criminal behavior: Challenging cultural explanations for a structural problem. Critical Sociology, 34, 213-238.

12.

Chamberland

Lacharité

Clément

M.-È.

Lessard

(2015). Predictors of development of vulnerable children receiving child welfare services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 2975-2988.

13.

Clark-Lempers

D. S.

Lempers

J. D.

(1991). Early, middle, and late adolescents’ perceptions of their relationships with significant others. Journal of Adolescent Research, 6, 296-315.

14.

Eckenrode

Laird

Doris

(1993). School performance and disciplinary problems among abused and neglected children. Developmental Psychology, 29, 53-62.

15.

Elbert

Schauer

Huschka

Hirth

Neuner

(2009). Trauma-related impairment in children—A survey in Sri Lankan provinces affected by armed conflict. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 238-246. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.02.008

16.

Freiburger

T. L.

Jordan

K. L.

(2011). A multilevel analysis of race on the decision to petition a case in the juvenile court. Race and Justice, 1, 185-201.

17.

Ginsburg

Jordan

Chang

(2014). Absences add up: How school attendance influences student success. Retrieved from https://www.attendanceworks.org/absences-add-up/.

18.

Gottfried

M. A.

(2014). Chronic absenteeism and its effects on students’ academic and socioemotional outcomes. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 19, 53-75.

19.

Halemba

Siegel

Lord

Zawacki

(2004). Arizona dual jurisdiction study final report. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

20.

Herz

D. C.

(2008). Crossover youth practice model. Retrieved from https://cjjr.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CYPM-The-Research-Summary.pdf

21.

Herz

D. C.

Ryan

J. P.

Bilchik

(2010). Challenges facing crossover youth: An examination of juvenile-justice decision making and recidivism. FCRE Family Court Review, 48, 305-321.

22.

Holmes

M. R.

Yoon

Berg

K. A.

Cage

J. L.

Perzynski

A. T.

(2018). Promoting the development of resilient academic functioning in maltreated children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 75, 92-103.

23.

Julian

Kominski

(2011). Education and synthetic work-life earnings estimates American community survey reports. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED523770.pdf

24.

Kids Count Data Center. (2018). Child population by gender in the United States. Retrieved from https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/102-child-population-by-gender?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38,35,18/14,15,65/421,422

25.

Kingston

P. W.

Hubbard

Lapp

Schroeder

Wilson

(2003). Why education matters. Sociology of Education, 76, 53-70.

26.

Kutash

Duchnowski

A. J.

Green

A. L.

(2015). Meeting the mental health needs of youth with emotional and behavioral disorders. Beyond Behavior, 24(2), 4-13.

27.

Lee

J. S.

Patton

(2017). The social exclusion of dually-involved youth: Toward a sense of belonging. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 44, Article 5.

28.

Legendre

(1998). Numerical Ecology. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

29.

Leiter

(2007). School performance trajectories after the advent of reported maltreatment. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 363-382. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.09.002

30.

Leiter

Johnsen

M. C.

(1994). Child maltreatment and school performance. American Journal of Education, 102, 154-189. doi:10.1086/444063

31.

Leiter

Myers

K. A.

Zingraff

M. T.

(1994). Substantiated and unsubstantiated cases of child maltreatment: Do their consequences differ? Social Work Research, 18, 67-82.

32.

MacLeod

(2008). Ain’t no makin’ it. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

33.

May-Chahal

(2006). Gender and child maltreatment: The evidence base. Social Work & Society, 4, 53-68.

34.

Mendel

. (2011). No place for kids: The case for reducing juvenile incarceration. Washington, D.C.: Anne E. Casey Foundation.

35.

Mitchell

Caudy

M. S.

(2015). Examining racial disparities in drug arrests. Justice Quarterly, 32, 288-313.

36.

National Center for Juvenile Justice. (2016). Juvenile court statistics. Retrieved from http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/jcsreports/jcs2016report.pdf

37.

O’Higgins

Sebba

Gardner

(2017). What are the factors associated with educational achievement for children in kinship or foster care: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 198-220. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.004

38.

Payne

A. A.

Welch

(2015). How school and education impact the development of criminal and antisocial behavior. In J. Morizot & L. Kazemian (Eds.), The development of criminal and antisocial behavior (pp. 237-251). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

39.

Piescher

Colburn

LaLiberte

Hong

(2014). Child protective services and the achievement gap. Children and Youth Services Review, 47, 408-415. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.11.004

40.

Randall

K. G.

Sabatelli

R. M.

Farrell

A. F.

(2015). Crossover youth: Child welfare trajectories of youth who move from the child welfare to the juvenile justice system. Retrieved from https://appliedresearch.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1024/2015/11/Crossover-Youth-Technical-Report.pdf

41.

Robertson

A. A.

Walker

C. S.

(2018). Predictors of justice system involvement: Maltreatment and education. Child Abuse & Neglect, 76, 408-415.

42.

Rodriguez

(2010). The cumulative effect of race and ethnicity in juvenile court outcomes and why preadjudication detention matters. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 47, 391-413.

43.

Rodriguez

. 2007. ‘‘Juvenile Court Context and Detention Decisions: Reconsidering the Role of Race, Ethnicity, and Community Characteristics in Juvenile Court Processes.’’ Justice Quarterly, 24, 629-56.

44.

Rowe

Eckenrode

(1999). The timing of academic difficulties among maltreated and nonmaltreated children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 813-832. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(99)00044-7

45.

Sampson

R. J.

Loeffler

(2010). Punishment’s place: The local concentration of mass incarceration. Daedalus, 139(3), 20-31.

46.

Seydlitz

Jenkins

(1998). The influence of family, friends, schools, and community on delinquent behavior. In Gullota

Adams

Montemayor

(Eds.), Delinquent violent youth. Trends and interventions (pp. 129-134). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

47.

Siegel

L. J.

Senna

J. J.

(2000). Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice, and law (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

48.

Siennick

S. E.

Staff

(2008). Explaining the educational deficits of delinquent youths. Criminology, 46, 609-635.

49.

Skiba

R. J.

Michael

R. S.

Nardo

A. C.

Peterson

R. L.

(2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34, 317-342.

50.

Stone

Zibulsky

(2015). Maltreatment, academic difficulty, and systems-involved youth: Current evidence and opportunities. Psychology in the Schools, 52, 22-39.

51.

Sweeten

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

52.

United Nations. (2011). The state of the world’s children 2011. Retrieved from https://data.unicef.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/SOWC_2011_83.pdf

53.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts selected: United States. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216

54.

U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Chronic absenteeism in the nation’s schools. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/datastory/chronicabsenteeism.html

55.

United States Department of Education. (2012). Civil Rights Data Collection. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education.

56.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2018). Child maltreatment. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment

57.

Villagrana

(2010). Pathways to mental health services for children and youth in the child welfare system: A focus on social workers’ referral. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 27, 435-449.

58.

Ward

Williams

(2014). Does juvenile delinquency reduce educational attainment? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 12, 716-756.

59.

Weis

Heikamp

Trommsdorff

(2013). Gender differences in school achievement: The role of self-regulation. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 442. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00442

60.

Wildeman

Emanuel

Leventhal

J. M.

Putnam-Hornstein

Waldfogel

Lee

(2014). The prevalence of confirmed maltreatment among U.S. children, 2004 to 2011. JAMA Pediatrics, 168, 706-713. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.410

61.

Yellareddygari

S. K. R.

Pasche

J. S.

Taylor

R. J.

Gudmestad

N. C.

(2016). Individual participant data meta-analysis of foliar fungicides applied for potato early blight management. Plant Disease, 100, 200-206.

62.

Yun

Cheong

Walsh

(2014). The relationship between academic achievement and likelihood of police arrest among delinquents. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58, 607-631. doi:10.1177/0306624X13482882