Institutional Offense Patterns in Adolescent Offenders

Abstract

The current study compared the antisocial and mental health functioning of incarcerated adolescents with histories of serious and persistent institutional misconduct to those with histories of minor forms of institutional misconduct. Institutional offense histories of 192 incarcerated adolescent offenders (84.5% male) were reviewed and their mental health was assessed using the Youth Self-Report (YSR) to determine whether mental health factors were more prevalent in serious/persistent institutional offenders. Youths with a history of serious/prolific institutional offending were younger at first arrest, had more convictions, spent more time incarcerated, and scored higher on YSR aggression and delinquency subscales than those with low/moderate institutional offending. Although antisociality is likely a major contributor to serious and persistent forms of institutional misconduct, these youths, especially the females, had significantly higher YSR anxiety/depression symptoms than the low/moderate institutional offending group. Although traditional criminogenic factors may be more salient to the risk of institutional misconduct, mental health should remain an important area of case management given its comorbidity with higher levels of misconduct and its potential impact on youths' responsivity to interventions focusing on criminogenic needs.

Keywords

juvenile offender adolescence institutional misbehavior mental health

Psychiatric diagnoses are overrepresented in youth incarcerated populations. As many as 80% of incarcerated youth meet criteria for at least one diagnosable mental health condition, which is a rate that is 2–4 times higher than youth from the general population (Canadian Community Health Survey, 2002; Corrado, Cohen, Hart, & Roesch, 2000; Grisso, Barnum, Fletcher, Cauffman, & Peuschold, 2001; Lamb & Weinberger, 1998; Odgers, Burnette, Chauhan, Moretti, & Repucci, 2005; Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan, & Mericle, 2002; Wasserman, McReynolds, Lucas, Fisher, & Santos, 2002). Concerns related to mental health and psychological status of incarcerated young offenders are further compounded by the often general lack of access to age-appropriate mental health care during the custodial period (Lopez-Williams, Vander Stope, Kuo, & Stewart, 2006), and the custodial environment having exacerbating effects on the symptoms of preexisting mental health problems (Cesaroni & Peterson-Badali, 2005; Penn, Esposito, Schaeffer, Fritz, & Spirito, 2003). Unfortunately, it is these high-needs youths who are most likely to be incarcerated.

In the recidivism literature, mental health factors tend not to be salient risk factors (with the exception of substance abuse disorders) for the prediction of future crimes over and above various demographic and criminogenic risk factors for juvenile offenders (Shubert, Mulvey, & Glasheen, 2011). However, can these conclusions be extended toward understanding misbehavior of adolescents while they are detained in criminal justice institutions? Drinkwater and Gudjonsson (1989) specified that institutional offending may be better characterized by the circumstances of the physical institutional environment as opposed to the individual’s history of community-based criminal offending or risk of recidivism (Trulson, DeLisi, & Marquart, 2011). Institutional misbehavior within criminal justice institutions has significant implications for the safety of staff and inmates, as well as for the general security of the institution. As such, significant economic efforts are devoted to achieving and maintaining the security of criminal justice institutions. Given that approximately half of all incarcerated offenders engage in some form of institutional offending during their incarceration (Mills & Kroner, 2003; Trulson, 2007), it is imperative that we understand the nature and source of institutional adjustment problems so that they can be more effectively managed. This understanding is no easy feat, given the wide range of behaviors involved in institutional misconduct (e.g., vocal disruptions, threats, intimidation, damage to property, violence), variations in the severity of these behaviors (e.g., noncompliance to violence against others), and the impact of contextual and individual influences (e.g., setting, staffing resources/training, mental health issues; Taylor, Kemper, & Kistner, 2007). This challenge becomes even more difficult when considering the developmental issues that impact on behavior in adolescent offender populations. Adolescence is a period characterized by great changes in physical, psychological, emotional, and neurobiological development (Blakemore & Choudhury, 2006; Casey, Jones, & Hare, 2008; Giedd et al., 1999; Lerner & Galambos, 1998), which places the youth at an increased risk for many forms of risk-taking behaviors (e.g., experimenting with alcohol/drugs, engaging in risky sexual behaviors, and various forms of juvenile delinquency).

While we can agree that there are high rates of mental health problems in youth custodial samples, the role that these factors play in institutional misbehavior is currently unclear (Serin, 2005). Little is known about whether the adult-derived risk factors for institutional misconduct (Gendreau, Goggin, & Law, 1997) should be extended downward to adolescent offenders. The few studies on adolescent institutional misbehavior indicate that such variables as demographic characteristics (age, gender), criminal history, conduct problems, psychopathic traits, gang membership, and actuarial risk prediction tools are each predictive of institutional misconduct (Butler, Loney, & Kistner, 2007; Cesaroni & Peterson-Badali, 2005; Edens, Poythress, & Lilienfeld, 1999; Marshall, Egan, English, & Jones, 2006; Taylor et al., 2007; Trulson, 2007, Trulson, DeLisi, Caudill, Belshaw, & Marquart, 2010). Yet, very few studies have examined the potential relationships between mental health variables and institutional misconduct in adolescent offenders. Of these studies, mixed results have been found (Butler et al., 2007; McReynolds & Wasserman, 2008; Taylor et al., 2004; Trulson, 2007; Young, Misch, Collins, & Gudjonsson, 2011). Young and colleagues (2011) found that attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was related to disruptive behaviors in the institution over and above the variance already accounted for by conduct disorder and substance misuse. Their results indicate that ADHD may impact on the youth’s ability to cope with the restricted physical environment as well as the stress and demands within the institutional setting. Conversely, McReynolds and Wasserman (2008) found that after statistically controlling for offender age, ethnicity, and length of incarceration, adolescents were less likely to engage in institutional misbehavior if they had internalizing (i.e., anxiety or affective disorder) or externalizing (i.e., disruptive behavior or substance use disorder) mental health disorders relative to when no disorder was present. Thus, a few studies have found that the presence of mental health factors might actually reduce institutional misconduct (McReynolds & Wasserman, 2008), while other studies support no role (DeLisi et al., 2008; Trulson, 2007) or even a positive predictive role for specific mental health issues (Taylor et al., 2007).

Further complicating the understanding of youth institutional misconduct are the potential gender differences in patterns of mental health functioning and institutional maladjustment between male and female incarcerated youth. Male adolescents upon first arrest have also been found to have higher rates of attention-deficit hyperactivity difficulties, oppositional defiant problems, and nondelinquent externalizing difficulties as compared to nonarrested youth (Hirschfield, Maschi, White, Traub, & Loeber, 2006). In keeping with the conclusions from White, Shi, Hirschfield, Mun, and Loeber (2010), Hirschfield et al. found that the presence of internalizing problems in males can actually lower the risk of subsequent arrest. However, the current literature indicates that female adolescent offenders may present an even greater risk of internalizing and externalizing disorders in incarcerated samples as compared to incarcerated males and individuals in the community (Cauffman, 2004; Cauffman, Lexcen, Goldweber, Shulman, & Grisso, 2007) and often have been found to be more assaultive toward custodial staff (Trulson, Marquart, Mullings, & Caeti, 2005). Additionally, the presence of a mental health disorder may be especially relevant for delinquency outcomes in females and not as relevant for males (Welch-Brewer, Stoddard-Dare, & Mallett, 2011; White, Shi, Hirschfield, Mun, & Loeber, 2010). Therefore, these gender inconsistencies make it essential to examine the differential effects of mental health factors on institutional offending in males and females.

In summary, there are variations in the psychological and behavioral functioning of youths who engage in institutional misconduct, and it is uncertain as to what degree mental health factors might discriminate between different forms of this behavior. Additionally, given the differing patterns of mental health problems between male and female adolescent offenders, it is possible that mental health factors will play an even greater role for females in terms of their institutional adjustment.

Current Study

Given the high base rate of mental health problems in incarcerated adolescents, and the potential impact of these symptoms on an adolescent’s responsivity to institutional environments, it is essential that researchers and service providers better understand which aspects of a youth’s mental health and psychological functioning elevate his or her risk of institutional misbehavior, as defined as any form of rule-breaking behavior ranging from disobedience of staff orders to violence toward staff/other inmates. Additionally, the individual’s behavior within the institution can impact on decision making for release or subsequent sentencing despite studies indicating that there is limited support for this as a determinant of recidivism (Trulson et al., 2011). Thus, the objectives of the current study were to identify antisocial and mental health indicators that differentiate between adolescent offenders with a minor/moderate history of institutional misconduct versus those with more serious/prolific misconduct histories (Trulson et al., 2010). Various demographic and criminal history variables were also examined for their usefulness in distinguishing these two groups, as were gender variations in these discriminators. A greater understanding of how to discriminate youths at different risk thresholds for misconduct will have implications for security and intervention intensity decision making, as well as prioritizing much needed mental health services for those at greatest need. It was hypothesized that youths with the most serious/prolific pattern of institutional misconduct would be those cases with a more extensive history of criminal offending behavior (as indicated by young age at first offense, length of time spent in incarceration, etc.), and higher levels of mental health symptomatology. Mental health problems were expected to be more typical of female offenders with more significant institutional misconduct than for males engaging in such behavior.

Method

Participants

Incarcerated adolescent offenders (N = 226) from the only two youth custody centers in Nova Scotia, Canada, were recruited for the current study. This sample represents all individuals who entered the facility during a given time period and the information was collected as part of the intake procedure. These facilities housed adolescents serving custodial sentences or who were remanded while waiting for court matters to be resolved and both operate under the same provincial protocols, policies, and sanctions for handling institutional misbehavior. Of the 226 original offenders, 21 were missing data on institutional offense histories and another 10 did not fully complete the Youth Self-Report (YSR) and were excluded from analyses, while the remaining 3 were missing data on various other measures. The final sample consisted of 192 youths (84.4% males and 15.6% females), with a mean age of 16.70 years (SD = 1.46, range = 13–20 years). Most were of Caucasian ethnicity (84.9%). No compensation was provided for participation.

Procedures

As part of a larger study on the prevalence of mental health problems in incarcerated adolescents, each young offender admitted to the institution was asked to complete a battery of self-report questionnaires during their intake assessment. Included in this battery was the YSR. A staff member not directly involved in the youth’s case administered all the questionnaires in two sessions over a 2-day period (the YSR would have been completed in one sitting), and returned the information to the researcher in a sealed envelope. Youths were told that their participation in the study would in no way influence their treatment at the facility or their sentence, and that their participation was completely voluntary.

In addition to the collection of self-report data, correctional files were reviewed at a later date to obtain demographic (i.e., current age and gender) and criminal history information (i.e., age at first offense, total number of days served in custody since first involvement with the youth justice system, and total number of previous convictions), as well as to calculate the number and type of institutional offenses youths had acquired in previous periods of incarceration or during their current detention prior to the study assessment. At the time of data collection, youths could receive three different levels of sanctions based on the severity of their misbehavior (Nova Scotia Department of Justice, 2004).

Measures

Youth self-report

The YSR (Achenbach, 1991) is a self-report measure of problem behaviors and mental health symptoms for youths between 11 and 18 years old. The YSR is composed of eight subscale problems areas: withdrawn, somatic complaints, anxious/depressed, social problems, thought problems, attention problems, delinquent behaviors, and aggressive behaviors. Each item is rated on a scale of 0 (not true) to 2 (very true or often true) with reference to behavior over the past 6 months. Raw scores, T scores and percentiles are calculated based on gender, with T scores above 70 denoting individuals in the clinical range of a particular subscale. The YSR has shown high levels of internal consistency, test–retest reliability, acceptable criterion-related validity, and has been supported by means of confirmatory factor analysis (e.g., Achenbach, 1991; Song, Singh, & Singer, 1994).

Offense levels

Specifically, Offense Level I constituted minor breaches of institutional rules and regulations (i.e., poor performance or disobedience, nonparticipation, horseplay). These behaviors were not viewed as being of a serious or malicious nature, and sanctions for this level could include verbal warning, written reprimands, loss of privileges, assignment of extra work, room confinement, or group sanctions. Offense Level II constituted more serious breaches of rules and regulations (i.e., disobedience of orders, indecent acts, and physical confrontation) that were intentional and/or malicious in nature, and could include aggressive acts. Finally, Offense Level III constituted the most serious breaches of the rules and regulations (i.e., assault, encouraging disobedience, endangering staff/security, and possession of drugs and/or weapons). Like Level II, these behaviors were considered to be intentional and/or of a malicious nature, and could include more serious acts of violence than a Level II offense. Various progressive sanctions could be imposed for Level II and III offenses and were at the discretion of the staff member imposing the sanction. A hearing and disposition may also have occurred at these more serious levels of misconduct. Each institutional offense severity level could include a violent or a nonviolent act. Thus, a distinction between violent and nonviolent institutional behavior could not be made in the current study, while it was possible to record the severity of the institutional offense. Specifically, once a youth engaged in an institutional offense incident, staff would determine which of three different severity levels best captured the nature of the behavior, and this decision would then be used to determine the sanction imposed by the institution.

The total number of Level I, II, and III offenses accrued by each youth over the course of any periods of incarcerations up to the time of the assessment was recorded for the current study. These totals were then used to classify youths into categories of institutional offending groups that would be used in statistical analyses. The “no-offense” group captured youths with no history of institutional offending across any of the three levels of offenses. The “low/minor offense” captured youths who only committed the minor Level I offenses. The “moderate offense” group included youths who had committed a mixture of Level I and II offenses or only Level II offenses, but who did not engage in any Level III offenses. The “serious offense” group included youths who committed a combination of Level II and III offenses without any Level Is or who had only committed Level III offenses. The final group was labeled the “prolific offense” group because they committed a combination of Level I, II, and III offenses during their incarceration. Nine youths were classified as falling in the low/minor offense category, which collectively represented 4.9% of the sample. The moderate offense group reflected 39.5% of the sample (n = 76). The small number of low/minor offense category was insufficient for inferential analyses and was combined with the moderate offense group to form a new category labeled the “low/moderate offense” group. Furthermore, given that only two youths fell in the serious offense group, these two cases were combined with the 105 youths who were classified as prolific offense cases. This last group was then relabeled the “serious/prolific offense” group and represented 55.7% of the sample. Thus, two primary groups of institutional offenders were used in subsequent analyses; a low/moderate group (n = 85) and a serious/prolific group (n = 107).

Analyses

The data were analyzed using descriptive and correlation statistics to examine the patterns and relationships of the variables. Additionally, a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted to examine whether YSR subscales significantly varied as a function of youths’ institutional offense grouping (i.e., serious/prolific vs. low/moderate). The number of days of incarceration was entered as a covariate in the analyses.

Results

Descriptive statistics for the sample are presented in Table 1. Over the course of the sample’s involvement with the youth justice system, which could include single or multiple custodial periods, youths had been incarcerated for a mean total of 461.28 days (range: 0–2,558 days). Given the positive skew for institutional offenses, the median appeared to be a better reflection of central tendency than the mean. Level I offenses were the most common form of institutional misbehavior, with a median of 36 Level I offenses. Level II offenses had a median of 11 incidents and Level III had a median of 2 incidents across youths. Youths with a higher number of Level I offenses also had a higher number of Level II (r = .83, p < .001) and III offenses (r = .43, p < .001). Likewise, youths with more Level II offenses also engaged in more frequent Level III offenses (r = .52, p < .001). The number of these offenses for each offender was used to calculate the rate of institutional offending at each of the three levels based on the number of months of prior incarceration. Offenders with Level I offenses had an average rate of 5.68 offenses/month incarcerated (SD = 6.56), offenders with Level II offenses had an average rate of 1.89 offenses/month incarcerated (SD = 2.63), and offenders with Level III had an average rate of .57 offenses/month incarcerated (SD = 1.17).

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations of Institutional Offense Severity Categories.

	Institutional Offense Severity Category
Variables	Low/Moderate (n = 85, males = 70, females = 15)	Serious/Prolific (n = 107, males = 92, females = 15)	Total (n = 192)
Variables	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Demographic variables
Current age*	16.99 (1.44)	16.48 (1.44)	16.70 (1.46)
Criminal history variables
Age at first offense***	15.59 (1.47)	14.65 (1.44)	15.06 (1.52)
Days of incarceration***	310.08 (310.64)	585.52 (455.44)	461.28 (418.90)
Total prior crimes*	8.39 (11.21)	12.70 (12.09)	10.79 (11.87)
Youth self-report
Withdrawn	54.94 (6.81)	57.44 (8.06)	56.33 (7.62)
Somatic complaints	60.45 (10.60)	61.65 (11.34)	61.11 (11.01)
Anxiety/depression*	58.22 (10.16)	60.68 (11.54)	59.59 (10.99)
Social problems	54.86 (6.97)	56.36 (8.10)	55.69 (7.62)
Thought problems	58.72 (10.62)	59.00 (10.83)	58.88 (10.71)
Attention problems	59.64 (10.44)	62.28 (10.66)	61.11 (10.62)
Delinquent rule-breaking**	73.32 (10.90)	77.59 (10.63)	75.70 (10.93)
Aggressive behaviors***	59.95 (9.26)	65.80 (11.10)	63.21 (10.70)

Note. *p ≤ .05.^.**p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Correlations shown in Table 2 reflect the association between the rate of past institutional offenses by number of previous days incarcerated and current mental health functioning. The strongest correlations for Level I, II, and III offenses were with demographic and criminal history variables. A higher number of Level III institutional offenses were also, not surprisingly, positively correlated with YSR delinquency subscale scores. In addition to these behavioral correlates, a higher number of previous Level III offenses were weakly, but significantly associated with higher YSR anxiety/depression scores.

Table 2.

Correlations Between Institutional Offense Levels and Category of Severity and Demographic, Criminal History, and Mental Health Variables.

Rate of Institutional Offense Level by Number of Days Incarcerated
Variables	Level I Rate	Level II Rate	Level III Rate
Demographic variables
Current age	−.49**	−.37*	−.38**
Gender	.02	.06	.11
Criminal history variables
Age at first offense	−.49**	−.36**	−.42**
Total number of prior crimes	.05	−.06	−.13
Youth self-report (YSR)
Withdrawn	−.01	−.001	..09
Somatic complaints	.14	.12	.18
Anxiety/depression	.05	.13	.29**
Social problems	.04	.05	.01
Thought problems	−.01	−.06	−.003
Attention problems	.06	.05	.17
Delinquent rule-breaking	.03	.04	.24*
Aggressive behaviors	.10	.10	.16
YSR total	.03	.04	.14

Note. The rate of institutional offenses by number of days incarcerated reflects the number of institutional offenses each youth accrued divided by the number of days spent in the institutional setting.

*p ≤ .05.^.**p ≤ .01.

As shown in Table 1, serious/prolific institutional offenders were significantly younger at the age of their first arrest (M = 14.65 years, SD = 1.44) than low/moderate institutional offenders (M = 15.59 years, SD = 1.47), t(186) = 4.42, p < .001, and were significantly younger based on their current age, t(189) = 2.44, p = .016. However, there was no significant gender differences between the two groups, t(190) = .69, p = .49. The low/moderate offender group was comprised of 70 males and 15 females, whereas the serious/prolific group consisted of 92 males and 15 females.

When offending histories were compared, serious/prolific institutional offenders had a higher number of previous offenses (M = 12.70, SD = 12.01) than the low/moderate group (M = 8.39, SD = 11.21), t(190) = −2.54, p = .012. Similarly, serious/prolific offenders had been incarcerated for significantly longer (M = 585.52 days, SD = 455.44) than the low/moderate group (M = 310.08 days, SD = 310.64), t(176.3) = −4.857, p < .001. This result remained unchanged when a logarithmic transformation was used on the total number of days in custody to adjust for a significant positive skew in the distribution (p < .001). Thus, the serious/prolific institutional offender group had more significant antisocial histories than the low/moderate offender group (Table 1).

In terms of the sample’s mental health functioning, the majority of the sample (96.1%) were clinically elevated on the YSR delinquency subscale, while the next most common elevations were on YSR attention problems (14.3%), somatic complaints (13.5%), anxious/depressed (12.5%), thought problems (10.5%), aggression (3.8%), social problems (3.8%), and withdrawn (3.4%). When YSR delinquency and aggression subscales were excluded, 28.2% of the sample scored above the clinical cutoff for one or two of the YSR subscales. When examining who scored in the clinical range on three or more of these subscales (excluding those with one or two elevations), an additional 10.4% scored in that range. Thus, there was a significant degree of mental health concerns present in the current sample even when symptoms of delinquency and aggression were omitted from consideration.

A MANCOVA was conducted to examine whether YSR subscales significantly varied as a function of youths’ institutional offense grouping (i.e., serious/prolific vs. low/moderate). Given that youths varied in incarceration durations, the number of days incarcerated since the youth’s first involvement with the criminal justice system was entered as a covariate in the analysis. However, the number of days spent in custody was not a significant covariate in the omnibus analysis, Pillai’s Trace = .04, F(8, 191) = 1.06, p = .39, η² = .04. As such, further univariate analyses with this covariate are not reported. Given that mental health issues have been known to vary across gender (Graves, Frabutt, & Shelton, 2007), gender was included as an independent variable in the analysis to determine whether significant interactions existed between gender and institutional offense groups on YSR subscales.

Results indicated that there was a significant omnibus main effect of institutional offense group on the aggregate of YSR subscales, Pillai’s Trace = .11, F(8, 181) = 2.91, p = .004, η² = .11. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs indicated that significant main effects for institutional offense group were found for YSR subscales of aggressive behavior, F(1, 188) = 16.48, p < .001, η² = .08, delinquency, F(1, 188) = 7.65, p = .006, η² = .04, and anxiety/depression, F(1, 188) = 7.07, p = .009, η² = .04. Specifically, as shown in Table 1, youths who fell in the serious/prolific institutional offending group reported significantly higher mean scores on the YSR aggressive behavior, delinquency, and anxiety/depression subscales relative to youths in the low/moderate group.

There was no significant main effect of gender on YSR subscales in the omnibus MANCOVA, Pillai’s Trace = .06, F(8, 181) = 1.46, p = .17, η² = .06, but there was a significant omnibus interaction between gender and institutional offense history group, Pillai’s Trace = .06, F(8, 181) = 2.37, p = .02, η² = .09. Univariate analyses indicated that the source of this interaction rested with the YSR anxiety/depression subscale, F(1, 188) = 4.11, p =.04, η² = .02. As shown in Figure 1, girls in the serious/prolific group of institutional offenders had significantly higher scores on the anxiety/depression subscale (M = 67.67, SD = 11.46) than girls in the low/moderate institutional offense group (M = 57.40, SD = 15.28), t(28) = −2.08, p = .047. Male serious/prolific institutional offenders were similar to males in the low/moderate group on YSR anxiety/depression scores (Ms = 59.64 and 58.13, SDs = 11.19 and 8.80, respectively), t(161) = −.94, p = .35.

Figure 1.

Gender by institutional offense history group interaction.

Discussion

Mental health problems affect approximately 20% of adolescents from the general population, while the rate of mental illness among incarcerated youth is as much as 2–4 times higher (Corrado et al., 2000; Grisso et al., 2001; Teplin et al., 2002). As such, the impact of mental health problems on a youth’s adjustment to incarceration and his or her risk of institutional misbehavior is of particular concern. From adult research (e.g., Gendreau et al., 1997), it is clear that mental health factors associated with personal distress (e.g., anxiety/depression) often play a weak, if any, role in institutional behavior. However, the relationship of mental health issues to institutional behavior during the adolescent period of development is less well understood. Moreover, it not clear whether youth who engage in more severe institutional misconduct (e.g., aggression) are qualitatively different from those youth who engage in more minor institutional offenses (e.g., talking back, swearing). Thus, the purpose of the current study was to determine whether incarcerated adolescent offenders with histories of serious institutional misconduct experience more mental health problems than those who have minor histories of institutional offenses and whether further differences exist between males and females.

The level of mental health problems within the current sample was concerning, but consistent with other incarcerated adolescent offender samples (Corrado et al., 2000; Grisso et al., 2001; Lamb & Weinberger, 1998; Odgers et al., 2005; Wasserman et al., 2002). As many as 28.2% of the youths had clinical elevations on at least one or two of the YSR subscales other than delinquency and aggression. Furthermore, 10.4% of youths were elevated on three or more of these scales. These rates reaffirm the need for greater mental health resources within adolescent custodial facilities to meet the needs of these youths. However, it was clear from the current results that the two groups representing different levels of institutional misbehavior histories did not vary substantially on most mental health factors and many of the averages obtained on the subscales remained within the “normal range.” When differences were noted, they primarily rested with the presence of more significant antisocial and aggressive symptoms. Youths with histories of a diverse and/or serious institutional offending tended to be younger at the age of their first arrest, spent more time incarcerated and had a higher number of criminal convictions than youths falling in the low/moderate offense cluster. This finding is consistent with previous research with adult offenders (Gendreau et al., 1997; Harer & Steffenmeister, 1996), which emphasize criminogenic factors (e.g., antisocial orientation/attitudes, substance abuse) as the strongest predictors of institutional misconduct. Youth with more significant antisocial attitudes that reinforce social nonconformity, rule noncompliance, and aggressiveness are likely to have greater difficulty abiding by institutional rules (Trulson et al., 2010).

Of particular concern for institutional offending profiles was the variable of age. Offenders who were younger at the time of their first offense were more likely to show an extensive history of institutional offending behaviors than older youths and this is consistent with the findings of Trulson, DeLisi, Caudill, Belshaw, and Marquart (2010). From a developmental perspective, this finding makes sense, given that younger individuals are more likely to have difficulty with impulse and inhibitory control and may be more attracted to risk taking (Casey, Getz, & Galvan, 2008; Casey, Jones, et al., 2008). Younger adolescents do not yet have fully matured judgment and reasoning skills due to brain changes and development (Blakemore & Choudhury, 2006; Giedd et al., 1999). This means that youths in the early stages of adolescent development should be expected to have greater difficulties with inhibiting their behavior and making sound decisions than their older counterparts. When these maturational factors are combined with early antisociality, the individual’s ability to comply with rules and manage his or her aggression within an institution may prove to be difficult. Additionally, a younger age of onset for conduct problem behavior is associated with increased risk of recidivism and persistent antisocial behavior (Soothill, Ackerley, & Francis, 2003). Thus, the younger adolescents in the sample may have engaged in fairly significant criminal behavior to warrant incarceration and may have reflected a more seriously conduct disordered group of offenders at greater risk of institutional misconduct. However, it is not surprising that a youth with a younger onset of criminal behavior would have accrued more offenses than a youth with an older age of onset given the greater period of time in which they have to engage in criminal behavior. Additionally, while younger age at arrest was associated with more significant institutional offense histories, in actuality, the difference was modest (i.e., just over 1 year difference), but remained statistically significant.

Although the strongest associations with institutional offending were rooted in criminal history and externalizing behavior problems, it is important to note that youths with a history of serious/prolific institutional offenses reported experiencing higher levels emotional problems as evidenced by higher YSR anxiety/depression scores than youths with low/moderate institutional offense histories. Other studies often have found that adolescents with serious behavior problems experience comorbid concerns with anxiety and depression, with the presence of problematic behavior likely predicting the onset of internalizing problems during adolescence (Egeland, Pianta, & Ogawa, 1996; Kopp & Beauchaine, 2007; Wiesner & Kim, 2006; Zahn-Waxler, Shirtcliff, & Marceau, 2008). However, upon further examination, a significant gender by institutional offense history group interaction was found, in that symptoms of anxiety/depression were highest for girls within the serious/prolific offender category. Internalizing symptoms are more common in adolescent girls and may be a reflection of these youths’ difficulties in coping with the challenges of adolescence. White and colleagues (2010) found no difference in levels of anxiety/depression for incarcerated adolescent boys versus unconfined controls. Blackburn and Trulson (2010) proposed that girls “enter institutionalization with a tremendous amount of baggage that may set them up for poor institutional adjustment” (p. 1133). Thus, those female youths who present with higher internalizing problems at intake (Cauffman, 2004; Cauffman et al., 2007) may be at an increased risk of maladjustment problems (e.g., inability to exhibit positive institutional behavior) when entering institutions (Cesaroni & Peterson-Badali, 2005; Penn et al., 2003). Further research is required to explore the dynamics of this gender–institutional offending relationship using longitudinal designs. In general, the traditional institutional response of punishment to address mental illness-induced misbehavior may only exacerbate the problems associated with more complicated mental health issues (Toch, 2008), especially when individuals who exhibit both types of these behaviors have a tendency for serious maladjustment as measured by other indicators (Capaldi, 1991).

In addition to the high numbers of individuals with clinical elevations on the YSR within the sample, another concern was the high incidence of institutional offenses. All but one youth included in this sample had institutional offenses in their history (range of 0–679 offenses, median of 52.50, and an average rate per day of incarceration of .27). While many of these incidents were at the minor level, over half of the sample fell within the serious/prolific offender group. This suggests that many adolescent offenders have difficulty with rule compliance and engage in inappropriate behaviors during their incarceration periods. It is also possible that rules in these institutions are quite strict, perhaps excessively, making it very difficult to comply with all of them at all times. Thus, institutional misconduct is fairly common in incarcerated adolescent populations and is of the utmost concern from both an offender and staff safety perspective (Trulson, 2007).

Despite the limited value of mental health factors for distinguishing cases at high risk of institutional misconduct and aggression from less serious forms of misconduct for males and, to lesser extent, females, these factors should not be ignored or dismissed. Consideration of mental health factors still have a place within the criminal justice institution, especially when developing risk reduction–oriented case plans with young offenders. The importance of identifying and attending to mental health concerns within a correctional plan is highlighted in the responsivity principle of effective correctional management described by Andrews and Bonta (2007) in their Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model. The other two of the main principles of the RNR model pertain to the means used for the prediction of risk and identification of criminogenic targets for intervention to reduce risk, while the responsivity principle is concerned with maximizing the offender’s ability to respond to empirically supported interventions by being sensitive to factors that could affect treatment response (e.g., cognitive impairments, physical challenges, motivation, learning disabilities) and by emphasizing the individual’s strengths and abilities. It is within the context of the responsivity principle that mental health problems are particularly relevant as they might affect the individual’s overall functioning and his or her ability to respond to interventions intended to reduce the risk of institutional misbehavior. Mental health concerns, particularly those impacting on a youth’s judgment, thought processes, and emotional management, can impede an individual’s ability to access, participate, and respond to rehabilitation efforts while in custody and upon release. Identification of mental health issues is also relevant for protecting youth who might be victimized or taken advantage of by other incarcerated youth because of their mental health concerns (Mood Disorders Society of Canada, 2007).

The detection of mental health issues can be facilitated with routine screening. The Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-2 is a self-report assessment tool that has been shown to be an effective and time efficient means of screening mental health problems in adolescent offenders (including the assessment of psychotic symptoms, but only for males), and is intended for use by frontline correctional staff without mental health training (Grisso & Quinlan, 2008). Measures of this sort should be a standard component of the intake assessment procedures within youth correctional centers. Youths who are identified as in need of further assessment can be referred to the appropriate mental health resources. Notably, Cesaroni and Peterson-Badali (2005) found that adolescent offenders with more significant internalizing problems worried more about being victimized, had fewer friends, and greater interpersonal difficulties with peers during their incarceration than those with few internalizing symptoms. Thus, even though youths with emotional difficulties may not be at particular risk of engaging in institutional misconduct, they may be at greater risk of being victimized by such behavior. Thus, it is essential that case management plans for these youths include rehabilitation goals that target these identified mental health needs in addition to the criminogenic needs that directly impact on his or her risk of criminal behavior and institutional adjustment.

Strengths and Limitations

Several strengths are apparent in the current study. The sample consisted of close to 200 adolescent offenders who represented over 90% of individuals incarcerated at the recruitment institutions during the data collection period. Therefore, we are fairly confident that the sample is representative of youths typically incarcerated in youth detention centers in Nova Scotia. It is unlikely that any systematic differences existed between the two institutions from which the samples were drawn, because these are the only institutions located in Nova Scotia, and staff would be governed by the same provincial protocols, sanctions, and policies for institutional misconduct. However, it is important to note that this sample included relatively few minorities, which is generally characteristic of the population of Nova Scotia. Second, statistical analyses were completed using two categories of offense pattern severity, which allowed conclusions to be drawn about whether individuals in these groups differed based on mental health factors. Distinguishing between such offender typologies has the potential to allow for better prediction and subsequent prevention of institutional misbehavior (Vitacco et al., 2009).

Several limitations of the current study also must be highlighted. First, the study followed a retrospective design. Information regarding institutional offenses was collected from file reviews of previous incarcerations and current detention prior to the mental health evaluation, while mental health data were collected only at the time of the current detention. As such, it is not possible to determine whether the mental health issues present for a youth at the time of his assessment were also present and impacting on the youth during previous episodes of institutional misconduct. Prospective data collection would be required to capture this predictive assessment and to infer causation. Second, the measurement of past institutional offenses was based on official institutional reports maintained by staff, which may underestimate the incidence of misbehavior given the high level of discretion bestowed upon staff in determining which offenses should be reported, especially for the lower level offenses. In addition, these official records did not capture institutional misbehavior that went undetected by staff, therefore, there are no means of determining the reliability and validity of the ways in which the institutional offenses were defined. Third, official reports of institutional offenses were categorized based on the severity of offense, not type of offense, which prohibited the possibility of making separate conclusions for violent and nonviolent incidents or for different forms of misbehavior (e.g., reactive vs. instrument aggression, drug-related versus staff-directed). Fourth, the level of self-reported aggressive behaviors was relatively low for an incarcserated sample, with only 3.8% reporting clinically significant levels of aggression as measured by the YSR. This begs the question of whether more seriously violent and/or aggressive youths would be more negatively influenced by difficulties with their mental health functioning while detained in a custodial environment. This finding may also call into question the validity of the YSR for measuring self-reported aggression in incarcerated young offenders in a Canadian custodial center. Related to the YSR, although there were high numbers of clinically significant elevations on the subscales, many of the means used in the analyses still fell within the “normal” range. Therefore, the use of group mean scores may underestimate the experience of the smaller group of individuals who fall outside of the normal range of mental health difficulties. And finally, there were very few females in the sample (less than 15%). This is generally characteristic of the number of adolescent females incarcerated in Atlantic Canada, but it makes it difficult to place confidence in the results obtained. Further research is needed to tease apart the influence of gender on the relationship between mental health functioning and institutional misbehavior.

Conclusions

With a few expected exceptions, the current study found that youths with significant histories of institutional misconduct did not substantially vary in their mental health functioning from those with less significant histories. Nonetheless, the prevalence of mental health problems in this general population of adolescent offenders was high and it appears to have been a particular factor associated with institutional offending in female adolescents engaging in serious and persistent forms of misconduct. Institutional misconduct among adolescents warrants further research attention to understand the potential impact of these problems on an adolescent’s responsivity to intervention and ability to adjust to institutional life in other ways that do not involve misconduct (i.e., isolation, risk of victimization). A greater understanding of the impact of normal adolescent development on behaviors displayed during incarceration is required, given that younger adolescents were associated with engaging in higher levels of institutional misbehavior. Many questions remain unanswered in this area and more research is needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the role that mental health factors play in adjustment of youths to an institutional environment.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This study would not have been possible without the generous support of the Nova Scotia Departments of Justice and Health, the cooperation of staff and administration of the Nova Scotia Youth Centre and the former Shelburne Youth Centre, and the adolescents who provided their information.

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

Funding for the larger project from which the current data were drawn was provided by the Nova Scotia Department of Justice. The authors received no financial support for the authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Achenbach

T. M.

(1991). Manual for the youth self-report and 1991 profile. Burlington: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2007). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Blackburn

A. G.

Trulson

C. R.

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

Blakemore

S.-J.

Choudhury

(2006). Development of the adolescent brain: Implications for executive function and social cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 296–312. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01611.x

Butler

M. A.

Loney

B. R.

Kistner

(2007). The Massachusetts youth screening instrument as a predictor of institutional maladjustment in severe male juvenile offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 476–492. doi:10.1177/0093854806291711

Canadian Community Health Survey. (2002). Statistics Canada. Public Use Microdata File, Statistics Canada. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-617-x/index-eng.htm

Capaldi

D. M.

(1991). Co-occurrence of conduct problems and depressive symptoms in early adolescent boys: I familial factors and general adjustment at grade six. Development and Psychopathology, 3, 277–300. doi:10.1017/S0954579400005319

Casey

B. J.

Getz

Galvan

(2008). The adolescent brain. Developmental Review, 28, 62–77. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.003

Casey

B. J.

Jones

R. M.

Hare

T. A.

(2008). The adolescent brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124, 111–126. doi:10.1196/annals.1440.010

10.

Cauffman

(2004). A statewide screening of mental health symptoms among juvenile offenders in detention. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 430–439. doi:10.1097/00004583-200404000-00009

11.

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. doi:10.1177/1541204007301292

12.

Cesaroni

Peterson-Badali

(2005). Young offenders in custody: Risk and adjustment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 251–277. doi:10.1177/0093854804274370

13.

Corrado

R. R.

Cohen

Hart

Roesch

(2000). Comparative examination of the prevalence of mental disorders among jailed inmates in Canada and the United States. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 23, 633–647. doi:10.1016/S0160-2527(00)00054-6

14.

DeLisi

Vaughn

M. G.

Beaver

K. M.

Wright

J. P.

Hochstetler

Kosloski

A. E.

Drury

A. J.

(2008). Juvenile sex offenders and institutional misconduct: The role of thought psychopathology. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 18, 292–305. doi:10.1002/cbm.707

15.

Drinkwater

Gudjonsson

G. H.

(1989). The nature of violence in psychiatric hospitals. In Howells

Hollin

C. R.

(Eds.), Clinical approaches to violence (pp. 287–307). Chichester, England: John Wiley.

16.

Edens

J. F.

Poythress

N. G.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

(1999). Identifying inmates at risk for disciplinary infractions: A comparison of two measures of psychopathy. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 435–443. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0798(199910/12)17:4<435::AID-BSL356>3.0.CO;2-Z

17.

Egeland

Pianta

Ogawa

(1996). Early behavior problems: Pathways to mental disorders in adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 735–749. doi:10.1017/S0954579400007392

18.

Gendreau

Goggin

C. E.

Law

M. A.

(1997). Predicting prison misconducts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 414–431. doi:10.1177/0093854897024004002

19.

Giedd

J. N.

Blumenthal

Jeffries

N. O.

Castellanos

F. X.

Liu

Zijdenbos

Rapoport

J. L.

(1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence: A longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 861–863. doi:10.1038/13158

20.

Graves

K. N.

Frabutt

J. M.

Shelton

T. L.

(2007). Factors associated with mental health and juvenile justice involvement among children with severe emotional disturbance. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5(2), 147–167. doi:10.1177/1541204006292870

21.

Grisso

Barnum

Fletcher

K. E.

Cauffman

Peuschold

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

22.

Grisso

Quinlan

J. C.

(2008). Massachusetts youth screening instrument – Version 2. In Grisso

Vincent

Seagrave

(Eds.), Mental health screening and assessment in juvenile justice (pp. 99–111). New York, NY: Guilford.

23.

Harer

Steffensmeier

(1996). Race and prison violence. Criminology, 34, 323–355. doi:10.1177/1541204006295162

24.

Hirschfield

Maschi

White

H. R.

Traub

L. G.

Loeber

(2006). Mental health and juvenile arrests: Criminality, criminalization, or compassion? Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 44, 593–630. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00058.x

25.

Kopp

L. M.

Beauchaine

T. P.

(2007). Patterns of psychopathology in families of children with conduct problems, depression, and both psychiatric conditions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 301–312. doi:10.1007/s10802-006-9091-2

26.

Lamb

H. R.

Weinberger

L. E.

(1998). Persons with severe mental illness in jails and prisons: A review. Psychiatric Services, 49, 483–492.

27.

Lerner

R. M.

Galambos

N. L.

(1998). Adolescent development: Challenges and opportunities for research, programs, and policies. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 413–446. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.413

28.

Lopez-Williams

Vander Stope

Kuo

Stewart

D. G.

(2006). Predictors of mental health service enrollment among juvenile offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 266–280. doi:10.1177/1541204006290159

29.

Marshall

Egan

English

Jones

R. M.

(2006). The relative validity of psychopathy versus risk/need-based assessments in the prediction of offending behavior. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 197–210. doi:10.1348/135532505X68719

30.

McReynolds

L. S.

Wasserman

G. A.

(2008). Risk for disciplinary infractions among incarcerated male youths: Influence of psychiatric disorder. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 35(9), 1174–1185. doi:10.1177/0093854808319936

31.

Mills

J. F.

Kroner

D. G.

(2003). Anger as a predictor of institutional misconduct and recidivism in a sample of violent offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 282–294. doi:10.1177/0886260502250085

32.

Mood Disorders Society of Canada. (2007). Quick facts: Mental illness and addiction in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.mooddisorderscanada.ca/page/quick-facts

33.

Nova Scotia Department of Justice. (2004). Offense levels system. Nova Scotia Youth Facility. Personal correspondence with Alyson Muzzerall, June 27, 2008.

34.

Odgers

C. L.

Burnette

M. L.

Chauhan

Moretti

M. M.

Reppucci

N. D.

(2005). Misdiagnosing the problem: Mental health profiles of incarcerated juveniles. Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Review, 14, 26–29.

35.

Penn

J. V.

Esposito

C. L.

Schaeffer

L. E.

Fritz

G. K.

Spirito

(2003). Suicide attempts and self-mutilative behavior in juvenile correctional facility. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 762–769. doi:10.1097/01.CHI.0000046869.56865.46

36.

Shubert

C. A.

Mulvey

E. P.

Glasheen

(2011). Influence of mental health and substance use problems and criminogenic risk on outcomes in serious juvenile offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 50, 925–937. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2011.06.006

37.

Serin

R. C.

(2005). Evidence-based practice: Principles for enhancing correctional results in prisons. Discussion paper prepared under contract for National Institute of Corrections. Retrieved from http://nicic.org/Downloads/PDF/Library/021139.pdf

38.

Song

Singh

Singer

(1994). The Youth Self-Report inventory: A study of its measurements fidelity. Psychological Assessment, 6, 236–245. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.3.236

39.

Soothill

Ackerley

Francis

(2003). The persistent offenders debate: A focus on temporal changes. Criminal Justice: International Journal of Policy and Practice, 3, 389–412. doi:10.1177/146680250334004

40.

Taylor

Kemper

T. S.

Kistner

J. A.

(2007). Predicting institutional maladjustment in severe male juvenile delinquents from criminal history and personality/clinical subtype. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 769–780. doi:10.1177/0093854806293550

41.

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. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.59.12.1133

42.

Toch

(2008). Punitiveness as ‘behavior management’. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 388–397. doi:10.1177/0093854807309427

43.

Trulson

C. R.

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

44.

Trulson

C. R.

DeLisi

Caudill

J. W.

Belshaw

Marquart

J. W.

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

45.

Trulson

C. R.

DeLisi

Maruqart

J. W.

(2011). Institutional misconduct, delinquent background, and rearrest frequency among serious and violent delinquent offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 57, 709–731. doi:10.1177/0011128709340224

46.

Trulson

C. R.

Marquart

J. W.

Mullings

J. L.

Caeti

T. J.

(2005). In between adolescence and adulthood: Recidivism outcomes of a cohort of state delinquents. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3, 355–387. doi:10.1177/1541204005278802

47.

Vitacco

M. J.

Van Rybrock

G. J.

Rogstad

J. E.

Yahr

L. E.

Tomony

J. D.

Saewert

(2009). Predicting short-term institutional aggression in forensic patients: A multi-trait method for understanding subtypes of aggression. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 308–319. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9155-7

48.

Wasserman

G. A.

McReynolds

L. S.

Lucas

C. P.

Fisher

P. W.

Santos

(2002). The voice DISC-IV with incarcerated male youth: Prevalence of disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 314–321. doi:10.1097/00004583-200203000-00011

49.

Welch-Brewer

C. L.

Stoddard-Dare

Mallett

C. A.

(2011). Race, substance abuse, and mental health disorders as predictors of juvenile court outcomes: Do they vary by gender? Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 28, 229–241. doi:10.1007/s10560-011-0229-x

50.

White

H. R.

Shi

Hirschfield

Mun

E. Y.

Loeber

(2010). Effects of institutional confinement for delinquency on levels of depression and anxiety among male adolescents. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8, 295–313. doi:10.1177/1541204009358657

51.

Wiesner

Kim

H. K.

(2006). Co-occurring delinquency and depressive symptoms of adolescent boys and girls: A dual trajectory modeling approach. Developmental Psychology, 426, 1220–1235. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1220

52.

Young

Misch

Collins

Gudjonsson

(2011). Predictors of institutional behavioral disturbance and offending in the community among young offenders. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 22, 72–86. doi:10.1080/14789949.2010.495991

53.

Zahn-Waxler

Shirtcliff

E. A.

Marceau

(2008). Disorders of childhood and adolescence: Gender and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 275–303. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091358