Individual-Level Risk Factors of Incarcerated Youth

Abstract

This systematic review sought to understand the individual characteristics of incarcerated youth within the major risk factor domains identified by the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). A comprehensive search of the literature from 1979 to 2013 identified 85 articles of individual-level risk characteristics that relate to mental health, personality, psychological factors, social/emotional-behavioral issues, cognitive-intellectual development, academic achievement, victimization history, and substance use. Understanding the characteristics that place youth at risk of incarceration is important in the development and implementation of effective educational interventions to prevent incarceration and rehabilitate incarcerated youth. Considerations regarding how educators can use a multi-tiered prevention system to deliver a continuum of academic and behavioral supports to target students’ risk characteristics are discussed. In addition, future research is highlighted in response to the characteristics that place youth at risk of incarceration.

Keywords

incarcerated youth risk factors individual risk characteristics systematic review

More than 70,000 youth were detained in juvenile justice facilities according to a point-in-time count in 2010 (Sickmund, Sladky, Kang, & Puzzanchera, 2011). Alarmingly, youth with disabilities are overrepresented in these settings (Zhang, Barrett, Katsiyannis, & Yoon, 2011). Approximately 33% of incarcerated youth are served under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004, including 48% of youth with emotional-behavioral disorders (EBD) and 39% of youth with learning disabilities (LD; Quinn, Rutherford, Leone, Osher, & Poirier, 2005). The prevalence of disabilities among the incarcerated youth population in the United States demands educators’ attention to understand the characteristics that place these youth at risk of incarceration. This understanding may lead to the development of more relevant, effective interventions for students at risk of incarceration and recidivating. Subsequently, these interventions designed to prevent incarceration must be implemented in educational settings to facilitate abstention from criminal activity by youth at risk.

The U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) identified four risk factor domains in which youth are placed at greater risk of incarceration by how they are positioned within various risk factor domains (Wasserman et al., 2003). The four risk factor domains include (a) individual, (b) family, (c) peer, and (d) school and community. Each domain contains a number of variables, which appear to offer some insight into etiological issues of incarceration and identification of characteristics of incarcerated youth. The focus of this article is solely on the individual-level risk factor domain as student characteristics and needs are the primary focus in educational settings. The individual-level risk factor domain is defined as risk and protective factors of an individual’s genetic, emotional, cognitive, physical, and social/behavioral characteristics in relation to a youth’s risk of incarceration (Wasserman et al., 2003). Several characteristics pertain to individual risk factors for incarceration, including early antisocial behavior, high and low behavioral inhibition, poor cognitive development, low intelligence, and hyperactivity (Loeber & Farrington, 2001; Wasserman et al., 2003). Although these characteristics provide some indication of the characteristics that place youth at risk of incarceration, there are additional individual-level characteristics that may contribute to a more complete understanding of elements of risk to inform potential targeted interventions.

An understanding of the risk factor domains is likely beneficial to improve outcomes of juveniles at risk of incarceration (Wasserman et al., 2003). Therefore, educators’ knowledge of individual risk factors associated with incarceration is fundamental to integrate in a continuum of systemwide supports, resources, strategies, structures, and practices to mitigate risk. The use of a multi-tiered prevention system, such as Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), presents a framework for school systems to provide academic and behavioral supports that increase in intensity and focus to meet the needs of their diverse students (Averill & Rinaldi, 2011; Lane, 2007). Response to Intervention (RTI) and Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) are school-based prevention systems that offer instructional and intervention supports for students with or at risk of EBD and LD (Algozzine et al., 2012; Sugai & Horner, 2009). Successful intervention systems must address a range of risk and protective factors to prevent problem behavior from escalating into juvenile offending (Wasserman et al., 2003). The broad, national adoption of a multi-tiered prevention system across the grade span (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009; Lane et al., 2011), including early childhood and preschool programs (Greenwood et al., 2011), is encouraging to educators seeking to respond to youth who exhibit the increased risk characteristics associated with incarceration and those already involved in the juvenile justice system.

Purpose and Research Questions

Although numerous studies have examined particular characteristics and risk factors of incarcerated youth and risk factor domains outlined by Wasserman et al. (2003), we were unable to identify any syntheses or reviews that have summarized this body of research at the individual level. We seek to fill a gap in the literature by thoroughly analyzing and reporting the individual risk factors associated with incarcerated youth. We present the findings of a systematic review of the literature concerning individual-level characteristics of youth incarcerated in correctional facilities, juvenile detention centers, treatment facilities, or residential facilities as a result of adjudication. To address this need, we posed the following research question:

Research Question 1: What does the research indicate as individual-level risk factors of incarcerated youth in the United States?

Method

A comprehensive search of the literature was completed using a combination of search terms: attributes, traits, characteristics, risk factor, detention, incarceration, adjudicated, youth, children, and adolescents. Several search activities were conducted including electronic searches of the following databases: PsycINFO, PsycArticles, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, ERIC, and EconLit. Second, 10 journals were hand searched to identify any studies missed in the electronic database search. These journals frequently published relevant studies or related topics and included Adolescence, Behavioral Disorders, Beyond Behavior, Education and Treatment of Children, Journal of Child and Family Studies, Journal of Correctional Education, Journal of Emotional Behavioral Disorders, Journal of Personality Assessment, Journal of Special Education, and Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. Studies that appeared relevant from this series of searches were acquired. An ancestral hand search was then completed using the references of each of the qualified studies.

Studies were selected if they met all of the following criteria:

Studies in peer-reviewed journals as a control for quality. We only reviewed studies from refereed journals because we wanted to include the most rigorous evaluations and dissemination that informed the field during this time period.

Research completed and published between 1979 and 2013. These dates mark 30 plus years of significant developments in juvenile correctional education-related policy and law within the juvenile justice system. Also, laws pertaining to education of students with disabilities were 3 to 5 years into their implementation by 1979.

Studies conducted in U.S. juvenile correctional facilities to inform the field of youth involved in the U.S. juvenile justice system.

Studies addressed incarcerated youth, youth residing in detention facilities, between the ages of 11 and 18. This age range represents youth who are placed in correctional facilities for juveniles. Youth above 18 are typically placed in correctional facilities for adults, which is not the scope of the current review. Incarcerated youth may include youth who resided in a setting that qualified as some type of facility for incarcerated adolescents including a correctional facility, juvenile detention center, treatment facility, or residential facility as a result of adjudication.

Studies addressed one or more individual characteristics of incarcerated youth.

After all duplicates were removed from the pool and the abstracts were reviewed, the criteria for inclusion were applied to 193 studies. Described further in the section that follows, studies had to first meet all the inclusion criteria, then the studies were coded, and then the studies were analyzed using the Wasserman et al. (2003) risk factors. This resulted in a corpus of 85 studies that addressed the individual-level risk factors of incarcerated youth.

Article Coding and Analysis

All data were descriptively analyzed and then summarized thematically. First, we used a between-study analysis method (Onwuegbuzie, Leech, & Collins, 2012) to identify the primary categories or themes (i.e., risk domains) addressed in the studies. Next, we used a within-study analysis (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2012) to determine subthemes (i.e., individual risk factors). Subthemes emerged from the within-study analysis when the first and second authors reviewed the subtheme notes and developed initial codes. They independently coded all of the articles using the initial codes. The initial coding agreement was 87%. The few disagreements were discussed, and codes were refined. The first and second authors then recoded the data using the refined codes.

A code sheet was developed that included research question(s), participants, design, data set (if it was a large, already known data set), characteristics of youth, incarcerated setting, risk factor domain(s), and subtheme(s) under which each study was categorized. The researchers read each article and coded forced-choice items (e.g., participants, design, data set, risk factor domain[s], and subtheme[s]) and open-ended items (e.g., research question[s], age as described in text, characteristics of youth, and incarcerated setting).

Four raters were trained on the use and interpretation of items from the code sheet for a total of 6 hr. A total of 68 articles (80%) were read by at least 2 raters for reliability purposes. Point-by-point reliability was calculated for each code by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. Initial reliability across all coders was 85%. After a discussion of each of the coding discrepancies, indication of the page number(s) of the correct code, verification that each rater agreed, 100% reliability was reached between the raters. The design had the most disagreements because in the type of design (e.g., quasi-experimental), we also coded for the analysis used, which on occasion resulted in varied interpretations. Raters never disagreed concerning the individual-level risk factor domain.

Results

A total of 85 studies referred to variables that were designated as the individual-level risk factor domain. The number of studies per subtheme is as follows: 36 (42%) mental health, 8 (9%) personality, 10 (12%) psychological issues, 24 (28%) social/emotional-behavioral, 19 (22%) cognitive-intellectual, 27 (32%) academic achievement, 11 (13%) victimization history, and 13 (15%) substance use. Forty-one (48%) studies addressed more than one domain, and several studies addressed more than one subtheme (see Table 1). In the following sections, we present our findings according to identified subthemes.

Table 1.

Studies of Individual-Level Risk Factors.

Studies	Subthemes
Studies	Mental	Person	Psych	Emo	Cog	AcAch	Victim	Sub
1. Archwamety and Katsiyannis (1998)					•	•
2. Atkins et al. (1999)	•
3. Atwood, Gold, and Taylor (1989)		•	•
4. Beebe and Mueller (1993)						•
5. Bernstein (1981)			•
6. Beyer (2006)			•	•	•	•	•
7. Brennan, Breitenbach, and Dietrich (2008)				•
8. Burton (2008)							•
9. Calabrese and Adams (1990)				•
10. Cauffman, Lexcen, Goldweber, Shulman, and Grisso (2007)	•							•
11. Cauffman, Piquero, Broidy, Espelage, and Mazerolle (2004)	•		•
12. Cornell, Peterson, and Richards (1999)	•					•
13. Cox (1996)			•	•				•
14. Cruise, Marsee, Dandreaux, and DePrato (2007)	•
15. Daley and Onwuegbuzie (2001)						•		•
16. D. L. Davis, Bean, Schumacher, and Stringer (1991)	•				•
17. E. Davis and Beverly (1991)			•
18. A. D. Davis, Sanger, and Morris-Friehe (1991)					•
19. Dunham and Alpert (1987)						•
20. Eaker, Allen, Gray, and Heckel (1983)				•	•	•
21. Edwards (1996)			•	•
22. Ellis (1982)		•		•
23. Evans and And (1991)			•
24. Farrow and French (1986)								•
25. Fejes-Mendoza and Miller (1995)						•	•	•
26. Fejes-Mendoza and Rutherford (1987)						•		•
27. Fields and Abrams (2010)	•					•
28. Freeman, Dexter-Mazza, and Hoffman (2005)		•
29. Gagnon and Barber (2010)	•					•
30. Gagnon, Barber, Van Loan, and Leone (2009)						•
31. Gordon and Moore (2005)	•				•	•		•
32. Harris, Baltodano, Bal, Jolivette, and Mulcahy (2009)						•
33. Herz (2001)	•
34. Hollander and Turner (1985)	•	•			•
35. Hooper and Evans (1984)				•	•
36. Jacobs, Kennedy, and Meyer (1997)	•				•	•
37. Jefferson and Johnson (1991)		•
38. P. J. Kaplan and Arbuthnot (1985)				•
39. S. Kaplan and Cornell (2004)	•				•
40. Kataoka et al., (2001)	•					•		•
41. Keeley (2006)					•	•
42. Kimonis, Frick, Munoz, and Aucoin (2007)	•			•		•
43. Krezmien, Mulcahy, and Leone (2008)			•			•	•	•
44. Ledermann, Dakoff, Larrea, and Li (2004)	•						•	•
45. Lee and Prentice (1988)				•
46. D. O. Lewis, Pincus, Lovely, Spitzer, and Moy (1987)	•
47. Loper, Hoffschmidt, and Ash (2001)		•		•
48. Losada-Paisey (1998)		•
49. Martin, Martin, Dell, Davis, and Guerrieri (2008)	•
50. Matlack, McGreevy, Rouse, Flatter, and Marcus (1994)				•
51. McClelland, Elkington, Teplin, and Abram (2004)								•
52. Meltzer, Levine, Karniski, Palfrey, and Clarke (1984)						•
53. Meltzer, Roditi, and Fenton (1986)					•	•
54. Moody, Brissie, and Kim (1994)							•
55. Myers and Blashfield (1997)	•			•			•
56. O’Brien, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, and Shelley-Tremblay (2007)	•		•			•
57. Oas (1985)				•
58. Pardini (2011)				•	•
59. Pardini, Lochman, and Frick (2003)				•	•		•
60. Parker, Morton, Lingefelt, and Johnson (2005)	•		•
61. Perron and Howard (2008)	•
62. Plattner et al. (2007)				•
63. Rincker, Reilly, and Braaten (1990)					•	•
64. Roe-Sepowitz (2007)	•
65. Rozalski, Drasgow, Drasgow, and Yell (2009)	•					•
66. Shahinfar, Kupersmidt, and Matza (2001)				•
67. Simpson, Frick, Kahn, and Evans (2013)	•			•	•	•
68. Smith (1998)	•			•		•	•	•
69. Sorenson and Johnson (1996)							•
70. Steiner and Cauffman (1999)				•
71. Taylor, James, Reeves, and Kistner (2009)	•						•
72. Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan, and Mericle (2002)	•				•	•
73. Timmons-Mitchell, Brown, Schulz, Webster, Underwood, and Semple (1997)	•			•	•
74. Toldson, Woodson, Braithwaite, Holliday, and De La Rosa (2010)						•
75. Vaughn, Edens, Howard, and Toney Smith (2009)	•
76. Vaughn, Freedenthal, Jenson, and Howard (2007)	•
77. Vaughn, Howard, and DeLisi (2008)	•
78. Vaughn, Newhill, DeLisi, Beaver, and Howard (2008)	•
79. Vaughn, Newhill, Litschge, and Howard (2007)	•
80. Vitacco, Neumann, Robertson, and Durrant (2002)		•
81. Voorhees (1981)					•
82. Way and Urbaniak (2008)							•	•
83. Whitt, Garland, and Howard (2012)	•							•
84. Widom, Katkin, Stewart, and Fondacaro (1983)	•			•
85. Zamora (2005)						•

Note. Mental = mental health; Person = personality; Psych = psychology; Emo = social/emotional-ehavioral; Cog = cognitive-intellectual; AcAch = academic achievement; Victim = victimization history; Sub = substance use.

Mental Health

An abundance of research has revealed that youth in juvenile detention facilities have significant mental health concerns, have accessed mental health care, and used medication for mental health issues. Mental health issues apply to a large segment of the population of youth prior to and during incarceration. For example, Perron and Howard (2008) and Whitt, Garland, and Howard (2012) found that 52% and 51% of their samples, respectively, had diagnoses of mental illness. Findings revealed a positive correlation between psychopathology and general incarceration (D. O. Lewis, Pincus, Lovely, Spitzer, & Moy, 1987; Vaughn, Howard, & DeLisi, 2008) as well as with early (Vaughn, Newhill, DeLisi, Beaver, & Howard, 2008; Vaughn, Newhill, Litschge, & Howard, 2007) and continued contact (Vaughn, Newhill, et al., 2008) with the juvenile justice system.

Specific mental health diagnoses

Various studies have investigated specific psychological or psychiatric disorders in incarcerated youth, disorders defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; Versions DSM-III [3rd ed.], DSM-III-R [3rd ed., rev.], DSM-IV [4th ed.], and DSM-V [5th ed.]; APA, 2014). Specific mental health conditions that appear at a high rate are conduct disorder, substance abuse, depression, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), psychotic disorders, and sleep disorders (e.g., D. L. Davis, Bean, Schumacher, & Stringer, 1991; Martin, Martin, Dell, Davis, & Guerrieri, 2008). Mania, panic attacks, personality disorders, and somatic disorders appear to occur at a lesser rate (e.g., S. Kaplan & Cornell, 2004; Martin et al., 2008). Researchers suggest that 35% to 100% of incarcerated youth offenders have conduct disorders (e.g., Gagnon & Barber, 2010; Rozalski, Drasgow, Drasgow, & Yell, 2009). The prevalence of substance abuse disorders is quite high, 20% to 79%, in this population (e.g., Atkins et al., 1999; Rozalski et al., 2009). In addition, McClelland, Elkington, Teplin, and Abram (2004) found that 21% of their sample of incarcerated youth experienced multiple substance use disorders. Mood and affective disorders such as depression are quite prevalent as well (13% to 82%; for example, Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan, & Mericle, 2002; Timmons-Mitchell et al., 1997).

Specific groups of offenders

Another body of research has examined specific groups of youthful offenders with respect to mental health status. To this end, researchers have considered mental health status on the basis of offense type (e.g., violent versus nonviolent). Researchers also examined mental health status across the population of incarcerated youth but examined male and female differences.

Violent offenders

In a study of female murderers, Roe-Sepowitz (2007) learned that female murderers have significant mental health concerns. Parker, Morton, Lingefelt, and Johnson (2005) identified violent offenders as having elevated scores on measures of hysteria when compared with nonviolent offenders. Furthermore, violent offenders are more likely to meet the DSM criteria for conduct disorder (Myers & Blashfield, 1997). Cornell, Peterson, and Richards (1999) found that the role of anger proneness was a predisposing factor in aggressive behavior of juvenile offenders. Evidence suggested that those who commit sexual offenses have more severe psychopathological concerns, and severe psychopathology appeared to discriminate between youth incarcerated for sexual and nonsexual offenses (Jacobs, Kennedy, & Meyer, 1997).

Gender differences

Research has indicated that females tend to have more diagnosed mental health conditions. For instance, females self-reported mental health conditions (Cruise, Marsee, Dandreaux, & DePrato, 2007; Roe-Sepowitz, 2007) and mental health symptoms with higher frequency than males (Cauffman, Lexcen, Goldweber, Shulman, & Grisso, 2007). Other research suggested that males and females self-reported mental health disorders at similar rates (e.g., 28% for males, 31% for females), although females may be more likely than males to report anxiety and depression (e.g., Cauffman, Piquero, Broidy, Espelage, & Mazerolle, 2004; Teplin et al., 2002). These high rates of psychopathology among incarcerated females tend to be related to crimes such as theft and violence (Vaughn, Newhill, et al., 2008; Vaughn, Newhill, et al., 2007).

Personality

Personality has been found to be a relevant dimension of juvenile offending, but there remains controversy over the heterogeneity of personality traits. For example, Freeman, Dexter-Mazza, and Hoffman (2005) indicated that the personality dimension did not discriminate between juvenile sex offenders and nonsex offenders. In addition, Vitacco, Neumann, Robertson, and Durrant (2002) suggested that personality groups did not differ with respect to several variables including number of prior offenses. Yet, Losada-Paisey (1998) suggested the opposite by indicating that juvenile sex offenders and nonsex offenders could be discriminated by antisocial personality and cognitive disorganization characteristics. In fact, high scores on the antisocial personality and cognitive disorganization personality measures accurately classified 77% of sex offenders.

Other studies (Ellis, 1982; Jefferson & Johnson, 1991; Loper, Hoffschmidt, & Ash, 2001) have suggested that incarcerated youth have more deviant personality features, which somewhat dismisses the idea of heterogeneity. Loper et al. (2001) revealed that characteristics of specific violent acts committed by a juvenile offender were predictably related to a variety of personality features. Jefferson and Johnson (1991) identified specific heterogeneity in personality among incarcerated youth by identifying three specific personality subtypes: psychopathic-delinquent subtype, socialized-subcultural delinquent, and neurotic-delinquent.

Psychological

In addition to the mental health and personality domains, many of these individuals also face psychological issues. These psychological concerns are not DSM-defined. Specific concerns in the psychological domain include self-esteem and perceptions of self and peers.

Self-esteem

Researchers of four studies (Atwood, Gold, & Taylor, 1989; Cauffman et al., 2004; Edwards, 1996; Parker et al., 2005) investigated the self-esteem of incarcerated youth and found a significant negative relationship between self-esteem and incarceration (Edwards, 1996). Parker et al. (2005) found that juveniles who would go on to commit violent offenses scored significantly higher on the Low Self-Esteem Scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for Adolescents (MMPI-A). Atwood et al. (1989) compared the characteristics of incarcerated males classified as buoyant or beset. Males in the beset group, compared with the buoyant group, were described as more anxious, depressed, and had significantly lower self-esteem. Finally, incarcerated females were found to have lower self-esteem than males.

Perceptions of self and peers

Three studies (Bernstein, 1981; Beyer, 2006; E. Davis & Beverly, 1991) report on incarcerated youths’ perceptions of self and peers. Although Bernstein (1981) did not find differences between incarcerated and nonincarcerated males’ perceptions of themselves and others, the other two studies indicated that incarcerated youth have low perceptions of themselves or peers. Beyer (2006) concluded that a majority of incarcerated youth did not consider themselves good at anything and described themselves as “losers,” unable to get attention from positive peers. E. Davis and Beverly (1991) investigated the reasons for, and affective experience of, committing violent acts. The authors found that nearly all of the participants associated their particular acts of violence with some aspect of their personal reputation and believed that it was important to have a strong reputation. Two studies (Evans & And, 1991; O’Brien, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, & Shelley-Tremblay, 2007) specifically examined self-concept and locus of control of incarcerated youth with the finding that incarcerated youth generally have lower self-concept and more external locus of control. O’Brien et al. (2007) found that male incarcerated youth with attention deficits and males with combined reading and attention problems reported greater depression, reduced self-concept, and a more external locus of control at intake than male offenders with reading difficulties only. Female incarcerated youth also demonstrated reduced self-concept compared with males (Evans & And, 1991).

Social/Emotional-Behavioral

Related to mental health, personality, and psychological characteristics, a significant amount of research has addressed the social/emotional-behavioral characteristics of incarcerated youth. Social/emotional-behavioral components include constructs related to acting out behavior, emotion, social skills, and interpersonal factors.

Acting out behavior

Like most other domains, it appeared that acting out behavior is common among some incarcerated youth while less common among nonincarcerated youth. Hooper and Evans (1984) studied the characteristics of incarcerated youth who act out compared with those who do not act out. Youth with more acting out behavior had low scores of denial, alienation, abstraction, and social nonconformity, and lower estimated IQs. Although acting out behavior appeared to relate to social nonconformity, it does not appear that number or type of crime is related to impulsive behavior (Oas, 1985). Acting out behavior appeared to be a risk indicator for offending as Hooper and Evans found that youth with higher levels of acting out behavior had a greater number of court contacts.

Emotion and emotional factors

Two studies examined issues related to emotion and emotional control and suggested that incarcerated youth face a number of emotional challenges in addition to many other issues (Kimonis, Frick, Munoz, & Aucoin, 2007; Plattner et al., 2007). Kimonis et al. (2007) indicated that youth with callous-unemotional traits showed reduced attentiveness to distressing pictures, the highest levels of aggression, and violent behaviors. Similarly, Pardini (2011) found that juveniles with callous-unemotional traits seem to be aware that their aggressive behavior caused others to suffer, but the youth indicated that they did not care when they harmed others. Comparing incarcerated youth with a normative sample, Plattner et al. (2007) showed higher levels of negative state and negative trait emotions in the incarcerated youth sample.

Social skills

Incarcerated youth appeared to face a number of challenges related to social skills (Edwards, 1996). Likewise, a number of studies (e.g., Brennan, Breitenbach, & Dietrich, 2008; Eaker, Allen, Gray, & Heckel, 1983; Matlack, McGreevy, Rouse, Flatter, & Marcus, 1994; Pardini, Lochman, & Frick, 2003; Shahinfar, Kupersmidt, & Matza, 2001) have addressed the social skills of incarcerated youth although agreement is lacking. Overall, incarcerated youth appeared to experience social skill deficits (Matlack et al., 1994), and there was agreement among several studies that these youth appear to be less empathically skilled as compared with nonincarcerated individuals (Brennan et al., 2008; Ellis, 1982; P. J. Kaplan & Arbuthnot, 1985; Loper et al., 2001). In contrast, Eaker et al. (1983) indicated that social skills ranged from average to deficient, and Lee and Prentice (1988) suggested that social skills, like empathy, do not differ between incarcerated and nonincarcerated youth. Also, closely related to social skills is the idea of impulse control and self-restraint. Steiner and Cauffman (1999) studied distress and restraint of incarcerated youth and found that youth who are highly distressed and exhibit high levels of restraint have the lowest rearrest rates (44%), with more than half remaining free after 4.5 years. In addition, 89% of the youth who exhibited low levels of distress and of restraint were rearrested within 4.5 years after release.

Interpersonal characteristics

Interpersonal characteristics are related to social skills considerations. While some research points to the variability of these factors (Brennan et al., 2008), other research suggests that incarcerated youth have severe deficits in their relatedness to others (Calabrese & Adams, 1990; Widom, Katkin, Stewart, & Fondacaro, 1983). Brennan et al. (2008) suggested that the interpersonal characteristics of incarcerated youth run the range from being aggressive to nonaggressive and socially isolated to nonsocially isolated. However, other research (Calabrese & Adams, 1990; Widom et al., 1983) has found that incarcerated youth show higher levels of alienation, need for power, and powerlessness. Incarcerated youth, compared with nonincarcerated youth, appeared to have a greater need for affiliation, relationships, power, and importance. They also exhibited more hostility, extroversion, impulsivity, and aggression.

Cognitive-Intellectual Development

Studies repeatedly found that incarcerated youth tend to have mean IQs of 70 to 100 (Archwamety & Katsiyannis, 1998; A. D. Davis, Sanger, & Morris-Friehe, 1991; Hollander & Turner, 1985; Hooper, & Evans, 1984; Keeley, 2006; Pardini, 2011; Pardini et al., 2003; Rozalski et al., 2009; Simpson, Frick, Kahn, & Evans, 2013; Timmons-Mitchell et al., 1997). Pardini et al. (2003) found that male participants tended to have a significantly lower IQ of 76 compared with females’ IQ score of 82. Beyer (2006) analyzed the developmental assessment of incarcerated youth and found that all of the incarcerated youth showed immature thinking, including limited ability to anticipate consequences; poor decision making when afraid; tendency to minimize danger and take risks; not seek help from families, school staff, or other adults; lack of adaptation to situations; and not recognizing alternative options.

Language development

Incarcerated youth are at greater risk of exhibiting communication deficits than their peers with no history of incarceration. A. D. Davis, Sanger, and Morris-Friehe (1991), and Voorhees (1981) suggested that incarcerated youth had reduced language abilities. For example, Davis and colleagues reported that incarcerated youth performed significantly lower on both the informal language sample and standardized language measures than their nonincarcerated peers. Voorhees also indicated that incarcerated youth struggled with integration of words and sentences.

Attention deficit disorder with and without hyperactivity

Researchers (Gordon & Moore, 2005; S. Kaplan & Cornell, 2004) have investigated the likelihood of ADHD among incarcerated youth and found an increased prevalence (18% to 24%) of ADHD identified as high as 76% (Atkins et al., 1999; D. L. Davis, Bean, et al., 1991; Timmons-Mitchell et al., 1997). In fact, S. Kaplan and Cornell (2004) found that nearly half of youth had a history of psychostimulant medication use, and one fourth were diagnosed with ADHD. Gordon and Moore (2005) also found that students with ADHD had more serious behavioral problems in school prior to entering the institution than students without an ADHD diagnosis.

Academic Achievement

Among the studies in this review, six (Beyer, 2006; Meltzer, Levine, Karniski, Palfrey, & Clarke, 1984; Meltzer, Roditi, & Fenton, 1986; O’Brien et al., 2007; Rincker, Reilly, & Braaten, 1990; Zamora, 2005) found the academic achievement of incarcerated youth to be several years below grade level. For example, O’Brien et al. (2007) found that nearly half of the sample met criteria for a reading problem, defined as reading two to three grade levels below. Likewise, Rincker et al. (1990) found that, on average, juvenile offenders lag 4 years behind their peers in reading comprehension and arithmetic computation. Findings from Meltzer et al. (1986) indicated that incarcerated youth scored the lowest on word recognition, reading comprehension, and spelling. The incarcerated group also performed similar to the LD group on the simile, concept formation, and number series tasks. These findings are further supported by the described characteristics of Beyer’s (2006) sample where findings revealed difficulty with maintaining attention, digestion of information, academic progress, and understanding of cause and effect. Zamora (2005) indicated that although 87% of her sample (n = 317) were in Grades 7 to 10, only 25% scored at the middle or high school levels in reading and math, while the rest of the sample scored much lower. Through their study of 583 youthful offenders, Beebe and Mueller (1993) suggested that reading and math difficulties are a result of difficulties with conceptualizing or processing information related to basic reading and math computation skills.

An additional five studies (A. D. Davis, Sanger, & Morris-Friehe; 1991; Harris, Baltodano, Bal, Jolivette, & Mulcahy, 2009; Keeley, 2006; Krezmien, Mulcahy, & Leone, 2008; Ledermann, Dakoff, Larrea, & Li, 2004) found that incarcerated youth do not perform as well as nonincarcerated youth on academic achievement measures, with incarcerated youths’ performance being on average one standard deviation below the mean. As a group, incarcerated youth demonstrated significant academic difficulty, attended school less often, and on average, only completed the ninth grade (Cox, 1996; Dunham & Alpert, 1987; Myers & Blashfield, 1997).

Aside from indications of low achievement on standardized measures, incarcerated youth have relatively low grade point averages (GPAs; Ledermann et al., 2004; Toldson, Woodson, Braithwaite, Holliday, & De La Rosa, 2010). In their study of incarcerated females, Ledermann et al. (2004) found that, overall, females reported liking school but had low GPAs and somewhat low educational aspirations. For example, the average GPA of these females was 1.05 on a 4.0 scale. First-time female detainees had slightly higher GPAs (1.21 on a 4.0 scale) and higher educational aspirations than those who had been previously detained (0.65 GPA on a 4.0 scale). In their study of 1,576 participants, Toldson et al. (2010) found an average self-reported GPA of 2.4.

Special education

Several studies also demonstrated that incarcerated youth are more likely to be identified with disabilities defined in IDEIA (2004) and/or received special education services (Fejes-Mendoza & Rutherford, 1987; Fields & Abrams, 2010; Gagnon & Barber, 2010; Gagnon, Barber, Van Loan, & Leone, 2009; Gordon & Moore, 2005; Kataoka et al., 2001; Kimonis et al., 2007; Krezmien et al., 2008; Rozalski et al., 2009; Simpson et al., 2013; Teplin et al., 2002; Timmons-Mitchell et al., 1997). Kataoka et al. (2001) described incarcerated youth as having disproportionate contact with special education. In fact, Gordon and Moore (2005) stated that incarcerated youth are 61% more likely to receive special education supports and services than any other educational placement. In their study of 71 incarcerated youth (Fields & Abrams, 2010), 31% of males and 26% of females reported being served in special education programs. Prevalence rates from these self-report data are consistent with those given by researchers (38%, Gagnon et al., 2009; 28%, Simpson et al., 2013). Disabilities such as EBD, intellectual disability, or LD appear to be particularly prevalent (Gagnon & Barber, 2010; Rozalski et al., 2009; Simpson et al., 2013). Half of the sample studied by Rozalski et al. (2009) were served with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for EBD.

History of Victimization

Unfortunately, victimization appears to be experienced by a large percentage of adolescent youth committed to incarceration facilities. Many researchers have suggested that incarcerated youth experience maltreatment at a much higher rate than their peers without incarceration history (Beyer, 2006; Burton, 2008; Fejes-Mendoza & Miller, 1995; Ledermann et al., 2004; Pardini et al., 2003; Sorenson & Johnson, 1996; Taylor, James, Reeves, & Kistner, 2009; Way & Urbaniak, 2008). For instance, Way and Urbaniak (2008) reported that adolescents with a history of incarceration had significantly higher rates of documented physical abuse, physical neglect, and multiple forms of maltreatment victimization than youth with no incarceration history. Likewise, Pardini et al. (2003) found that one fourth of adjudicated youth reported a history of physical and/or sexual abuse; females were most likely to report a history of physical/sexual abuse. Being a previous victim of sexual abuse also appeared to contribute to the likelihood of an individual becoming sexually abusive (Burton, 2008; Moody, Brissie, & Kim, 1994). Burton (2008) found that sexually abusive youth were higher on all forms of trauma except emotional neglect. Also, several studies (Beyer, 2006; Ledermann et al., 2004; Smith, 1998) indicated that incarcerated youth have experienced traumatic events. Ledermann et al. (2004) found that the majority of youth have been victims of traumatic events such as witnessing a violent attack on somebody else, thinking that themselves or someone close was going to be killed or hurt badly, being threatened with a weapon, and being sexually abused.

Substance Use

In addition to substance abuse disorders, as reported in the “Mental Health” section, substance use appears to be another common problem faced by incarcerated youth. Studies have demonstrated that youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system have higher rates of substance use than do nonincarcerated youth (Atkins et al., 1999; Cauffman et al., 2007; D. L. Davis, Bean, et al., 1991; Way & Urbaniak, 2008). Other studies descriptively examined substance use and abuse among incarcerated youth (Daley & Onwuegbuzie, 2001; Farrow & French, 1986; Fejes-Mendoza & Miller, 1995; Fejes-Mendoza & Rutherford, 1987; Gordon & Moore, 2005; Kataoka et al., 2001; Ledermann et al., 2004; Smith, 1998; Whitt et al., 2012). Smith (1998) found that the majority of participants reported substance use with half reporting psychotropic drug use. Ledermann and colleagues’ (2004) findings indicated that more than half of their sample had, at a minimum, tried alcohol or drugs, and among females, drug use was reported at a rate of two thirds. In their sample of 723 incarcerated adolescents, Whitt et al. (2012) found that 85% used alcohol and 87% used marijuana.

Age of onset of alcohol and drug use was found to begin between the ages of 10 and 16 (Daley & Onwuegbuzie, 2001; Farrow & French, 1986). In addition, a majority of the participants used drugs within the 6 months prior to incarceration for a variety of reasons, including to decrease feelings of sadness and depression, for the fun if it, because peers used drugs, to be cool, and to escape problems, respectively. More than one third of the participants reported to be under the influence when they committed their crimes (Farrow & French, 1986; Fejes-Mendoza & Miller, 1995).

Discussion

The primary purpose of this review was to determine the individual-level characteristics of incarcerated youth. The reviewed research indicates that the individual-level risk characteristics include those related to mental health, personality, psychological issues, emotional-behavioral and social challenges, cognitive-intellectual development, academic achievement, victimization history, and substance use. Across each of these areas, incarcerated youth experience a number of challenges. The body of evidence from this review overwhelmingly suggests that incarcerated youth experience a variety of issues and, thus, require multi-component interventions that are designed to target the number of factors associated with incarceration.

Educators are some of the earliest practitioners to interact with youth and therefore may be able to offer prevention to youth who exhibit risk characteristics for incarceration. Risk characteristics summarized in this review may inform an integrated continuum of academic and behavioral interventions and prevention practices that are responsive to students’ mental health, psychological, and educational needs. Without knowledge of these risk factors, educators will lack such early insight. In the next section, we offer prevention and intervention considerations for educators to enhance effective implementation of a multi-tiered system to reduce individual-level risk characteristics associated with incarceration.

Considerations for Prevention and Intervention

The number of incarcerated youth who experience these risk characteristics at the individual level continues to suggest a need to understand these factors to design and implement a responsive prevention model delivered in educational settings with youth who manifest these characteristics. A major finding from this review documents the low academic achievement and identified disabilities of youth in incarcerated settings. The overlap between disability and academic and emotional-behavioral characteristics of incarcerated youth should be a particular concern for educators. This means that general and special education teachers as well as other school staff (e.g., counselors and administration) and related services providers (e.g., speech and language pathologists and psychologists) must remain vigilant to identify students’ additional risk factors and implement appropriate and timely interventions.

Perhaps a primary and efficient way for educators to prevent youth from incarceration is to implement an integrated continuum of academic and behavioral interventions and practices as early as preschool. Evidence suggests poor intellectual development and behavior problems during early childhood can explain the association between academic achievement and incarceration (Fergusson & Horwood, 1995; Maguin & Loeber, 1996). Early antisocial behavior, such as in the form of opposition or aggression, may be the best predictor of later incarceration (Wasserman et al., 2003). Educational systems, prior to kindergarten, can implement prevention practices to target problem behaviors, hyperactivity, oppositional behavior, and physical aggression associated with incarceration (Lahey, McBurnett, & Loeber, 2000).

Educators must understand the individual characteristics of incarcerated youth to help inform the universal and secondary supports that reduce youths’ risk of incarceration and subsequently result in proactive, protective measures to prevent offending behavior associated with incarceration. For instance, some common protective factors against disruptive behavior are prosocial behavior, such as empathy during the preschool years, and cognitive performance, such as appropriate language development and academic performance (Wasserman et al., 2003). The proportion of protective factors to risk factors has a significant influence on offending, and protective factors may offset the influence of a youth’s exposure to multiple risk factors (Wasserman et al., 2003). As a result of educators’ knowledge of both risk and protective factors, multi-tiered systems should integrate academic and behavioral supports to reduce risk and increase protective factors.

No single risk factor can be attributed to causing a youth to become incarcerated. In fact, multiple factors increase the odds of offending and subsequent incarceration (Loeber & Farrington, 2001). Youth at risk of incarceration may be ideal individuals for whom an MTSS framework might be quite useful, as they appear to have a number of mental health, psychological, social/emotional-behavioral, and academic risk factors. MTSS can offer more increasingly intensive interventions to address combinations of these risk factors for youth identified as at risk and progressively intensive interventions to reduce their risk.

Within a MTSS framework, educators can target intellectual and emotional development, particularly addressing the factors associated with risk of incarceration, such as language development, social cognition, academic achievement, and neuropsychological function (Wasserman et al., 2003). As concluded from studies in this review, characteristics of incarcerated youth associated with school settings are closely intertwined with the characteristics of the specific individual, perhaps most notably a student’s IQ score. As IQ is known to be a relatively strong predictor of academic performance (D. Fuchs & Young, 2006), it is no surprise that incarcerated youth have been shown to perform one standard deviation below the population mean on standardized academic tests (Krezmien et al., 2008). Related to IQ and development, findings from this review suggest that language development was limited in the population of incarcerated youth. Language limitations particularly affected expressive language. Trained specialists can provide these targeted, academic interventions to address academic achievement for youth who demonstrate learning and language difficulties. Furthermore, use of proactive strategies within SWPBIS may contribute to fewer disruptive and violent behaviors, which appears highly effective for reducing risk (Rozalski et al., 2009), fewer antisocial behaviors (Lane et al., 2011), and shows promise for youth at risk of incarceration (Gagnon & Barber, 2010) and youth who are incarcerated (Jolivette & Nelson, 2010; Sprague et al., 2013). SWPBIS can assist in addressing the issues related to the prevention, educational identification, and effective intervention implementation through a systematic framework for educators to provide behavior support for all students (Lane et al., 2011; T. J. Lewis, Jones, Horner, & Sugai, 2010; Sugai & Horner, 2009).

Other individual-level risk factors that researchers and practitioners should integrate into a continuum of supports were more challenging to synthesize across the 85 articles that qualified for this review. To illustrate, there is great heterogeneity in personality features and interpersonal characteristics. Understanding commonalities of juveniles’ personality could potentially inform the field of interventions that may reduce hostility, extroversion, impulsivity, and aggression. This review revealed similarities across studies that allow for further conclusions to be drawn. Incarcerated youth often engage in acts of violence to promote their perception of self and peers. This finding should influence interventionists to integrate behavioral interventions that aim not only to decrease acts of violence but also to assist at-risk juveniles and incarcerated youth to understand how to avoid acting out behavior and instead model behaviors that promote success. Considering that nearly half of the studies in this review suggest that incarcerated youth have mental health needs, designated school personnel should be available to provide supplemental and individualized supports as needed for youth who may not have access to mental health services in their communities. This may prevent incarceration as the first regular health care/mental health care they receive.

Limitations and Future Implications and Research

The present review has a set of limitations. First, all the information gathered and reviewed is from published research in peer-reviewed journals. A limited number of studies were published in special education journals despite that some special education journals include the topic of risk factors of youth, limiting the audience to which this research is disseminated. There may be additional knowledge to glean from unpublished or nonrefereed formats. A related limitation is that this review is limited by the quality of the research in the published studies. Second, it is possible that our search terms did not capture all of the relevant studies despite that we used multiple terms and various combinations of such terms in an attempt to systematically search for all studies that met our criteria for inclusion in this review. Our inclusion criteria required that studies addressed incarcerated, youth offenders; therefore, our findings are limited to those studies rather than including all studies related to juvenile incarceration. Third, we also only included studies conducted in the United States as legal systems and sociocultural factors vary worldwide. Finally, there is considerable overlap among the risk domains presented by Wasserman et al. (2003): individual, family, peer, and school and community. Although we attempted to address those risk factors that pertain to the individual, we recognize the overlap between individual characteristics and the broader context (e.g., individuals develop within social systems).

Beyond understanding the individual-level risk factors of incarcerated youth, educators must expand multi-tiered system approaches to offer a continuum of academic and behavioral supports that specifically target these risk factors. Academic and behavioral interventions within MTSS frameworks are effective for closing the achievement gap experienced by youth with EBD (Benner, Kutash, Nelson, & Fisher, 2013) and LD (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005); however, the research does not generally ascribe RTI as having been effective in reducing LD identification despite the reduction in LD identification during the last decade (L. S. Fuchs & Vaughn, 2013; Zirkel, 2013). Researchers and practitioners must continue to develop feasible and effective prevention and intervention practices to implement within a systemwide, multi-tiered framework to facilitate change associated with improved outcomes for incarcerated youth with regard to these individual-level characteristics and evaluate their efficacy for continual improvement. Designing interventions that are responsive to multiple risk factors, with particular focus on antisocial behavior, mental health, and learning and language development, in combination with early and ongoing special education evidence-based practices delivered in a MTSS framework, offers hope that this may be a responsive, school-based model to prevent future incarceration.

Future research should not only examine the effective types of prevention and intervention practices within this domain but also investigate the programs that aim to assist the individual in coping with or rehabilitating from the particular individual characteristics that place the individual at risk. Gaps in the research are noted by the limited research available in few subdomains. For example, nearly half the studies included in this review explored individual-level risk of incarcerated youth’s mental health, whereas about one third addressed social/emotional-behavioral issues and academic achievement and one fourth cognitive-intellectual issues, yet very few studies addressed personality, psychological issues, victimization history, and substance use.

As suggested from the findings of this review, prevention and intervention practices should focus on one or more of the risk areas identified (i.e., mental health, personality, psychological, social/emotional-behavioral, cognitive-intellectual development, academic achievement, victimization history, and substance use). Researchers and practitioners must consider these characteristics of risk to more effectively prevent incarceration and/or rehabilitate incarcerated youth. Given that these factors are frequently interrelated, additional research is warranted to understand the underlying mechanisms through which these individual risk factors occur to design effective interventions that address a range of risk and protective factors.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Institute of Education Sciences or The Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by Grants R324A100022 and R324B080008 from the Institute of Education Sciences and by The Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk.

References

Algozzine

Wang

White

Cooke

Marr

M. B.

Algozzine

. . .Duran

G. Z.

(2012). Effects of multi-tier academic and behavior instruction on difficult to teach students. Exceptional Children, 79(1), 45–64.

American Psychiatric Association. (2014). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Retrieved from http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm/dsm-history-of-the-manual

*Archwamety

Katsiyannis

(1998). Factors related to recidivism among delinquent females at a state correctional facility. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 7, 59–67.

*Atkins

D. L.

Pumariega

A. J.

Rogers

Montogomery

Nybro

Jeffers

Sease

(1999). Mental health and incarcerated youth. I: Prevalence and nature of psychopathology. Journal of Child and Family, 8, 193–204. doi:10.1023/A%3A1022040018365

*Atwood

Gold

Taylor

(1989). Two types of delinquents and their institutional adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 68–75.

Averill

O. H.

Rinaldi

(2011). Research Brief: Multi-Tier System of Supports (MTSS). Retrieved from http://www.districtadministration.com/article/multi-tier-system-supports

*Beebe

M. C.

Mueller

(1993). Categorical offenses of juvenile delinquents and the relationship to achievement. The Journal of Correctional Education, 44, 193–198.

Benner

G. J.

Kutash

Nelson

J. R.

Fisher

M. B.

(2013). Closing the achievement gap of youth with emotional and behavioral disorders through multi-tiered systems of support. Education & Treatment of Children, 36(3), 15–29.

Berkeley

Bender

W. N.

Peaster

L. G.

Saunders

(2009). Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85–95.

10.

*Bernstein

R. M.

(1981). The relationship between dimensions of delinquency and the development of self and peer perception. Adolescence, 16, 543–556.

11.

*Beyer

(2006). Fifty delinquents in juvenile and adult court. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 202–214.

12.

*Brennan

Breitenbach

Dietrich

(2008). Towards an explanatory taxonomy of adolescent delinquents: Identifying several social-psychological profiles. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24, 179–203.

13.

Brown-Chidsey

Steege

M. W.

(2005). Response to intervention: Principles and strategies for effective practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

14.

*Burton

D. L.

(2008). An exploratory evaluation of the contribution of personality and childhood sexual victimization to the development of sexually abusive behavior. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 102–115.

15.

*Calabrese

R. L.

Adams

(1990). Alienation: A cause of juvenile delinquency. Adolescence, 25, 435–440.

16.

*Cauffman

Lexcen

F. J.

Goldweber

Shulman

E. P.

Grisso

(2007). Gender differences in mental health symptoms among delinquent and community youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5, 287–307.

17.

*Cauffman

Piquero

A. R.

Broidy

Espelage

D. L.

Mazerolle

(2004). Heterogeneity in the association between social-emotional adjustment profiles and deviant behavior among male and female serious juvenile offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 235–253.

18.

*Cornell

D. G.

Peterson

C. S.

Richards

(1999). Anger as a predictor of aggression among incarcerated adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 108–115. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.67.1.108

19.

*Cox

(1996). An exploration of the demographic and social correlates of criminal behavior among adolescent males. Journal of Adolescent Health, 19, 17–24. doi:10.1016/1054-139X(95)00198-2

20.

*Cruise

K. R.

Marsee

M. A.

Dandreaux

D. M.

DePrato

D. K.

(2007). Mental health screening of female juvenile offenders: Replication of a subtyping strategy. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 615–625.

21.

*Daley

C. E.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

(2001). Educational, familial, social, and criminal profiles of male juvenile offenders. Education Research Quarterly, 25(1), 12–27.

22.

*Davis

A. D.

Sanger

D. D.

Morris-Friehe

(1991). Language skills of delinquent and nondelinquent adolescent males. Journal of Communication Disorders, 24, 251–266.

23.

*Davis

D. L.

Bean

G. J.

Schumacher

J. E.

Stringer

T. L.

(1991). Prevalence of emotional disorders in a juvenile justice institutional population. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 9(1), 5–17.

24.

*Davis

Beverly

(1991). Youth violence: An action research project. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 1(3), 33–44.

25.

*Dunham

R. G.

Alpert

G. P.

(1987). Keeping juveniles delinquents in school: A prediction model. Adolescence, 22(85), 45–57.

26.

*Eaker

H. A.

Allen

S. S.

Gray

Heckel

R. V.

(1983). A factor analytic study of personality and intellectual variables in incarcerated delinquent males and females. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 614–616.

27.

*Edwards

(1996). A measurement of delinquency differences between a delinquent and nondelinquent sample: What are the implications? Adolescence, 31(124), 973–989.

28.

*Ellis

P. L.

(1982). Empathy: A factor in antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 10, 123–133.

29.

*Evans

And

(1991). Self concept and delinquency: The on-going debate. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 16, 59–74.

30.

*Farrow

French

(1986). The drug abuse-delinquency connection revisited. Adolescence, 21(84), 951–960.

31.

*Fejes-Mendoza

Miller

(1995). Portraits of dysfunction: Criminal, education, and family profiles of juvenile female offenders. Education & Treatment of Children, 18, 309–321.

32.

*Fejes-Mendoza

K. E.

Rutherford

R. B.

(1987). Learning handicapped and nonlearning handicapped female juvenile offenders: Educational and criminal profiles. The Journal of Correctional Education, 38, 148–153.

33.

Fergusson

D. M.

Horwood

L. J.

(1995). Early disruptive behavior, IQ, and later school achievement and delinquent behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 23, 183–199.

34.

*Fields

Abrams

L. S.

(2010). Gender differences in the perceived needs and barriers of youth offenders preparing for community reentry. Child Youth Care Forum, 39, 253–269. doi:10.1007/s10566-010-9102-x

35.

*Freeman

K. A.

Dexter-Mazza

E. T.

Hoffman

K. C.

(2005). Comparing personality characteristics of juvenile sex offenders and non-sex offending delinquent peers: A preliminary investigation. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 3–12.

36.

Fuchs

Young

C. L.

(2006). On the irrelevance of intelligence in predicting responsiveness to reading instruction. Exceptional Children, 73(1), 8–30.

37.

Fuchs

L. S.

Vaughn

(2013). Response-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195–203. doi:10.1177/0022219412442150

38.

*Gagnon

J. C.

Barber

(2010). Characteristics of and services provided to youth in secure care facilities. Behavioral Disorders, 36(1), 7–19.

39.

*Gagnon

J. C.

Barber

B. R.

Van Loan

Leone

P. E.

(2009). Juvenile correctional schools: Characteristics and approaches to curriculum. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(4), 673–696.

40.

*Gordon

J. A.

Moore

P. M.

(2005). ADHD among incarcerated youth: An investigation on the congruency with ADHD prevalence and correlates among the general population. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 87–97.

41.

Greenwood

C. R.

Bradfield

Kaminski

Linas

Carta

J. J.

Nylander

(2011). The response to intervention (RTI) approach in early childhood. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43(9), 1–22.

42.

*Harris

P. J.

Baltodano

H. M.

Bal

Jolivette

Mulcahy

(2009). Reading achievement of incarcerated youth in three regions. The Journal of Correctional Education, 60, 120–145.

43.

*Herz

D. C.

(2001). Understanding the use of mental health placements by the juvenile justice system. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 173–181. doi:10.1177/106342660100900303

44.

*Hollander

H. E.

Turner

F. D.

(1985). Characteristics of incarcerated delinquents: Relationship between development disorders, environmental and family factors, and patterns of offense and recidivism. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24, 221–226.

45.

*Hooper

F. A.

Evans

R. G.

(1984). Screening for disruptive behavior of institutionalized juvenile offenders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 159–161.

46.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446, (2006).

47.

*Jacobs

W. L.

Kennedy

W. A.

Meyer

J. B.

(1997). Juvenile delinquents: A between group comparison study of sexual and nonsexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 9, 201–217.

48.

*Jefferson

T. W.

Johnson

J. H.

(1991). The relationship of hyperactivity and sensation seeking to delinquency subtypes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18, 195–201.

49.

Jolivette

Nelson

C. M.

(2010). Adapting positive behavioral interventions and supports for secure juvenile justice settings: Improving facility-wide behavior. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 28–42.

50.

*Kaplan

P. J.

Arbuthnot

(1985). Affective empathy and cognitive role-taking in delinquent and nondelinquent youth. Adolescence, 20(78), 323–333.

51.

*Kaplan

Cornell

D. G.

(2004). Psychopathy and ADHD in adolescent male offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2, 148–160.

52.

*Kataoka

S. H.

Zima

B. T.

Dupre

D. A.

Moreno

K. A.

Xiaowei

McCracken

J. T.

(2001). Mental health problems and service use among female juvenile offenders: Their relationship to criminal history. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 549–555.

53.

*Keeley

J. H.

(2006). Will adjudicated youth return to school after residential placement? The results of a predictive validity study. The Journal of Correctional Education, 57, 65–87.

54.

*Kimonis

E. R.

Frick

P. J.

Munoz

L. C.

Aucoin

K. J.

(2007). Can a laboratory measure of emotional processing enhance the statistical prediction of aggression and delinquency in detained adolescents with callous-unemotional traits? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 773–785.

55.

*Krezmien

M. P.

Mulcahy

C. A.

Leone

P. E.

(2008). Detained and committed youth: Examining differences in achievement, mental health needs, and special education status. Education & Treatment of Children, 31, 445–464.

56.

Lahey

B. B.

McBurnett

Loeber

(2000). Are attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiant disorder developmental precursors to conduct disorder? In Sameroff

Lewis

Miller

S. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychopathology (2nd ed., pp. 431–446). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

57.

Lane

K. L.

(2007). Identifying and supporting students at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders within multi-level models: Data driven approaches to conducting secondary interventions with an academic emphasis. Education & Treatment of Children, 30, 135–164.

58.

Lane

K. L.

Kalberg

J. R.

Menzies

Bruhn

Eisner

Crnobori

(2011). Using systematic screening data to assess risk and identify students for targeted supports: Illustrations across the K-12 continuum. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 39–54.

59.

*Ledermann

C. S.

Dakoff

G. A.

Larrea

M. A.

(2004). Characteristics of adolescent females in juvenile detention. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27, 321–337.

60.

*Lee

Prentice

N. M.

(1988). Interrelations of empathy, cognition and moral reasoning with dimensions of juvenile delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 127–139.

61.

*Lewis

D. O.

Pincus

J. H.

Lovely

Spitzer

Moy

(1987). Biopsychosocial characteristics of matched samples of delinquents and nondelinquents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, 744–752.

62.

Lewis

T. J.

Jones

S. E. L.

Horner

R. H.

Sugai

(2010). School-wide positive behavior support and students with emotional/behavioral disorders: Implications for prevention, identification and intervention. Exceptionality, 18, 82–93. doi:10.1080/09362831003673168

63.

Loeber

Farrington

D. P.

(Eds). (2001). Child delinquents: Development intervention, and service needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

64.

*Loper

Hoffschmidt

Ash

(2001). Personality features and characteristics of violent events committed by juvenile offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19, 81–96.

65.

*Losada-Paisey

(1998). Use of the MMPI-A to assess personality of juvenile male delinquents who are sex offenders and nonsex offenders. Psychological Reports, 83, 115–122.

66.

Maguin

Loeber

(1996). Academic performance and delinquency. In Tonry

(Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 20, pp. 145–264). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

67.

*Martin

Martin

Dell

Davis

Guerrieri

(2008). Profile of incarcerated juveniles: Comparison of male and female offenders. Adolescence, 43(171), 607–622.

68.

*Matlack

M. E.

McGreevy

M. S.

Rouse

R. E.

Flatter

Marcus

R. F.

(1994). Family correlates of social skill deficits in incarcerated and nonincarcerated adolescents. Adolescence, 29(113), 117–132.

69.

*McClelland

G. M.

Elkington

K. S.

Teplin

L. A.

Abram

K. M.

(2004). Multiple substance use disorders in juvenile detainees. Journal of the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 1214–1224.

70.

*Meltzer

L. J.

Levine

M. D.

Karniski

Palfrey

J. S.

Clarke

(1984). An analysis of the learning styles of adolescent delinquents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 600–608. doi:10.1177/002221948401701006

71.

*Meltzer

L. J.

Roditi

B. N.

Fenton

(1986). Cognitive and learning profiles of delinquent and learning-disabled adolescents. Adolescence, 21(83), 581–591.

72.

*Moody

E. E.

Brissie

Kim

(1994). Personality and background characteristics of adolescent sexual offenders. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 14, 38–48.

73.

*Myers

W. C.

Blashfield

(1997). Psychopathology and personality in juvenile sexual homicide offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 25, 497–508.

74.

*Oas

P. T.

(1985). Impulsivity and delinquent behavior among incarcerated adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 422–424.

75.

*O’Brien

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

Shelley-Tremblay

(2007). Reading problems, attentional deficits, and current mental health status in adjudicated adolescent males. The Journal of Correctional Education, 58, 293–315.

76.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Leech

N. L.

Collins

K. M. T.

(2012). Qualitative analysis techniques for the review of the literature. The Qualitative Report, 17, Article 56.

77.

*Pardini

D. A.

(2011). Perceptions of social conflicts among incarcerated adolescents with callous-unemotional traits: “You’re going to pay. It’s going to hurt, but I don’t care.” The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 248–255. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02336.x

78.

*Pardini

D. A.

Lochman

J. E.

Frick

P. J.

(2003). Callous/unemotional traits and social-cognitive processes in adjudicated youths. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 364–371.

79.

*Parker

J. S.

Morton

T. L.

Lingefelt

M. E.

Johnson

K. S.

(2005). Predictors of serious and violent offending by adjudicated male adolescents. North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 407–417.

80.

*Perron

B. E.

Howard

M. O.

(2008). Prevalence and correlates of traumatic brain injury among delinquent youths. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 18, 243–255.

81.

*Plattner

Karnik

Hall

R. E.

Schallauer

Carrion

. . .Steiner

(2007). State and trait emotions in delinquent adolescents. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 38, 155–169.

82.

Quinn

M. M.

Rutherford

R. B.

Leone

P. E.

Osher

D. M.

Poirier

J. M.

(2005). Youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections: A national survey. Exceptional Children, 71, 339–345.

83.

*Rincker

J. L.

Reilly

T. F.

Braaten

(1990). Academic and intellectual characteristics of adolescent juvenile offenders. The Journal of Correctional Education, 41, 124–131.

84.

*Roe-Sepowitz

(2007). Adolescent female murderers: Characteristics and treatment implications. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 7, 489–496.

85.

*Rozalski

Drasgow

Yell

(2009). Assessing the relationships among delinquent male students’ disruptive and violent behavior and staff’s proactive behavior in a secure care residential treatment center. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17, 80–92. doi:10.1177/1063426608324098

86.

*Shahinfar

Kupersmidt

Matza

(2001). The relation between exposure to violence and social information processing among incarcerated adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 136–141.

87.

Sickmund

Sladky

T. J.

Kang

Puzzanchera

(2011). Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement. Retrieved from www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/

88.

*Simpson

T. P.

Frick

P. J.

Kahn

R. E.

Evans

L. J.

(2013). Therapeutic alliance in justice-involved boys undergoing mental health treatment: The role of callous-unemotional traits. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 12, 83–92.

89.

*Smith

(1998). Behavioral and emotional characteristics of children in detention. The Journal of Correctional Education, 49, 63–66.

90.

*Sorenson

Johnson

(1996). Subtypes of incarcerated delinquents constructed via cluster analysis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 293–303.

91.

Sprague

J. R.

Scheuermann

Wang

Nelson

C. M.

Jolivette

Vincent

(2013). Adopting and adapting PBIS for secure juvenile justice settings: Lessons learned. Education of Treatment & Children, 36, 121–134.

92.

*Steiner

Cauffman

(1999). Personality traits in juvenile delinquents: Relation to criminal behavior and recidivism. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 256–262.

93.

Sugai

Horner

R. H.

(2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17, 223–237. doi:10.1080/09362830903235375

94.

*Taylor

James

Reeves

Kistner

(2009). Borderline personality traits are associated with poor clinical and psychosocial functioning in delinquent boys. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31, 94–103.

95.

*Teplin

L. A.

Abram

K. M.

McClelland

G. M.

Dulcan

M. K.

Mericle

A. A.

(2002). Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 1133–1143.

96.

*Timmons-Mitchell

Brown

Schulz

Webster

S. E.

Underwood

L. A.

Semple

W. E.

(1997). Comparing the mental health needs of female and male incarcerated juvenile delinquents. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 15, 195–202.

97.

*Toldson

I. A.

Woodson

K. M.

Braithwaite

Holliday

R. C.

Rosa

(2010). Academic potential among African American adolescents in juvenile detention centers: Implications for reentry to school. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49, 551–570. doi:10.1080/10509674.2010.519666

98.

*Vaughn

M. G.

Edens

J. F.

Howard

M. O.

Toney Smith

(2009). An investigation of primary and secondary psychopathy in a statewide sample of incarcerated youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7, 172–188.

99.

*Vaughn

M. G.

Freedenthal

Jenson

J. M.

Howard

M. O.

(2007). Psychiatric symptoms and substance use among juvenile offenders: A latent profile investigation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1296–1312.

100.

*Vaughn

M. G.

Howard

M. O.

DeLisi

(2008). Psychopathic personality traits and delinquent careers: An empirical examination. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31, 407–416.

101.

*Vaughn

M. G.

Newhill

C. E.

DeLisi

Beaver

K. M.

Howard

M. O.

(2008). An investigation of psychopathic features among delinquent girls: Violence, theft, and drug abuse. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6, 240–255.

102.

*Vaughn

M. G.

Newhill

C. E.

Litschge

C. M.

Howard

M. O.

(2007). Cluster profiles of residentially incarcerated adolescent females: Violence and clinical mental health characteristics. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 24(1), 35–53.

103.

*Vitacco

Neumann

Robertson

Durrant

(2002). Contributions of impulsivity and callousness in the assessment of adjudicated male adolescents: A prospective study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 87–103.

104.

*Voorhees

(1981). Neuropsychological differences between juvenile delinquents and functional adolescents: A preliminary study. Adolescence, 16(61), 57–66.

105.

Wasserman

G. A.

Keenan

Tremblay

R. E.

Coie

J. D.

Herrenkohl

T. I.

Loeber

Petechuk

(2003). Risk and protective factors of juvenile delinquency (Child Delinquency: Bulletin Series). Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

106.

*Way

Urbaniak

(2008). Delinquent histories of adolescents adjudicated for criminal sexual conduct. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1197–1212.

107.

*Whitt

Garland

E. L.

Howard

M. O.

(2012). Helium inhalation in adolescents: Characteristics of users and prevalence of use. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 44, 365–371. doi:10.1080/02791072.2012.736803

108.

*Widom

C. S.

Katkin

F. S.

Stewart

A. J.

Fondacaro

(1983). Multivariate analysis of personality and motivation in female delinquents. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 20, 277–290.

109.

*Zamora

(2005). Levels of academic achievement and further delinquency among detained youth. The Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 2(1), 42–53.

110.

Zhang

Barrett

D. E.

Katsiyannis

Yoon

(2011). Juvenile offenders with and without disabilities: Risks and patterns of recidivism. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 12–18. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.09.006

111.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2013). The trend in SLD enrollments and the role of RTI. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 473–479. doi:10.1177/0022219413495297