Clinical Psychology Review 33 (2013) 448–459

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Clinical Psychology Review

The impact of incarceration on juvenile offenders

Ian Lambie ⁎, Isabel Randell
Psychology Department, University of Auckland, New Zealand

H I G H L I G H T S

► Incarcerating youth in prison has little positive impact in reducing crime.

► The literature highlights this problem, particularly in adult facilities.
► There are many negative effects from incarcerating young people in prisons.
► Incarceration fails to address both the young person's developmental and criminogenic needs.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Increasingly, research points to the negative effects of incarcerating youth offenders, particularly in adult facilities.
Received 25 October 2011 Literature published since 2000 suggests that incarceration fails to meet the developmental and criminogenic
Received in revised form 26 December 2012 needs of youth offenders and is limited in its ability to provide appropriate rehabilitation. Incarceration often results
Accepted 19 January 2013
in negative behavioral and mental health consequences, including ongoing engagement in offending behaviors and
Available online 28 January 2013
contact with the justice system. Although incarceration of youth offenders is often viewed as a necessary means of
Keywords:
public protection, research indicates that it is not an effective option in terms of either cost or outcome. The severe
Juvenile offending behavioral problems of juvenile offenders are a result of complex and interactive individual and environmental fac-
Incarceration tors, which elicit and maintain offending behavior. Therefore, the focus of effective treatment must be on addressing
Rehabilitation such criminogenic needs and the multiple “systems” in which the young person comes from. Recent research dem-
Community treatment onstrates that in order to achieve the best outcomes for youth offenders and the general public, community-based,
empirically supported intervention practices must be adopted as an alternative to incarceration wherever possible.
© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
2. Youth in the justice system—a special population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
2.1. Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
3. Outcomes of transfer and incarceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
3.1. Disruption of a natural “age out” of criminal behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451
3.2. Behavior and iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451
4. Rehabilitative limitations and negative effects of juvenile incarceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
4.1. Victimization within the criminal justice system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
4.2. Mental health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
4.3. Suicidal behaviors and ideation within the criminal system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
4.4. Social relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454
4.5. Physical health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454
4.6. Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454
4.7. Reentry into the community and impact on adulthood wellbeing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454
5. What are the alternatives? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456

⁎ Corresponding author at: Psychology Department, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand. Tel.: +64 9 3737599x85012; fax: +64 9 373 7000.
E-mail address: i.lambie@auckland.ac.nz (I. Lambie).

0272-7358/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.01.007
 I. Lambie, I. Randell / Clinical Psychology Review 33 (2013) 448–459
1. Introduction
This paper reviews literature published since 2000 (and earlier if
of particular importance) concerning the outcomes of incarceration
on youth offenders and the rehabilitative limitations of their incarcer-
ation, as well as evidence-based alternatives. For the purposes of this
review, youth will be defined as any young person below the age of
18, with adolescence occurring between the ages of 13 and 18.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC) was established in 1989 to recognize the rights of children
worldwide (Muncie, 2009). This legal framework advocates for
the protection of any person under the age of 18, as it recognizes
children warrant special attention due to their age and associated de-
velopmental needs (Independent Police Conduct Authority, 2012).
Thus, the UNCRC proposes 40 specific rights for children, in particular
advocating for the special protection of ‘children in conflict with the
law’ (Muncie, 2009). Specifically relevant to this review, in all actions
concerning children in conflict with the law, the best interests of
the child shall be a primary consideration where the needs of persons
of his or her age need to be taken into account. In particular,
every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless
it is considered in the child's best interests not to do so (United
Nations, 1989). The UNCRC has been ratified by every recognized
country in the world apart from the United States (Mildred &
Plummer, 2009).
Although the ratification of the UNCRC highlights international
recognition of the protection of children and adolescents, a number of
law reforms in recent decades, particularly in the United States, have
imposed harsher penalties on serious young offenders, and have conse-
quently increased rates of incarcerated youth and made it easier for
youth to be treated and incarcerated as adults within the justice system
(Redding, 2003; Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). In most states throughout
the US, a juvenile is legally defined as anyone below 18 years of age
(Siegel & Welsh, 2008). However, children as young as 14, and some-
times younger, may be transferred and sentenced in adult court, and
incarcerated in adult prisons (Steinberg, 2009).
Based on two recent court cases, namely Roper v. Simmons (2005)
and Graham v. Florida (2010), the United States Supreme Court's cur-
rent position on juvenile offenders is that mandatory life sentences
without the possibility of parole violates the Eighth Amendment
ban on cruel and unusual punishment with regard to juvenile of-
fenders (Miller, 2012). Accordingly, juvenile offenders cannot receive
the death penalty, or receive a life sentence without parole except in
the case of homicide. However, law reform in the United States has
greatly increased the chance of adolescents being transferred to the
criminal court, which has jurisdiction over criminal cases involving
adult defendants (Fagan, 2008). Consequently, many juvenile of-
fenders are tried as adults, resulting in a greater likelihood of incar-
ceration and much harsher sentences than they would receive in
juvenile court (Carmichael, 2010). The changes have included lower-
ing the minimum age for transfer, expanding the list of crimes for
which transfer is an option, vesting greater discretion in prosecutors,
and eliminating some of the factors judges must consider before trans-
ferring youth (Redding, 2003). The number of delinquency cases that
were judicially transferred to criminal court in the United States peaked
in 1994, then declined until 2001, and increased between 2001 and
2007 (Puzzanchera, Adams, & Sickmund, 2010). Several authors suggest
that the decline in the second half of the 1990s is likely to be a result of
changes to the law, which enabled some serious young offenders to be
tried directly in the criminal court and for juvenile court to be bypassed
entirely (Puzzanchera et al., 2010).
Despite growing numbers of incarcerated adolescents throughout
the 1990s, in countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom
and New Zealand, since 2000, there has been a general stabilization,
or decline, in both youth offending and incarceration (Sickmund,
2010; Workman, 2011). It is estimated that adolescents comprise
449
around 5% of all those held in correctional facilities in developed
countries (Sabol, West, & Cooper, 2009). In the United States, 263 ju-
venile offenders were in placement for every 100,000 in the general
population in 2008 (Sickmund, 2010), and approximately 160,000
adolescent offenders are placed in residential facilities annually
(Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011). In 2007, 25% of delinquency cases
resulted in residential facility placement (Puzzanchera et al., 2010).
Increasingly, youth are also being placed in detention centers while
they await trial or placement in another facility or program
(Holman & Ziedenberg, 2006).
Barry (2011) describes increased rates of youth custody in Scot-
land as a result of the politicization of youth crime and a shift from
values of the juvenile justice system (which has jurisdiction over under-
age defendants) that prioritize the adolescent's best interests and
minimize intervention. Fagan (2010) argues that there is an inher-
ent contradiction between the existence of a juvenile justice system
intended to provide more remedial interventions and increasingly
punitive sanctions. A study of dispositional outcomes (i.e., proba-
tion vs. confinement) in Philadelphia and Phoenix juvenile court ju-
risdictions found that legal factors such as having a higher number
of court referrals, rather than factors such as developmental matu-
rity and mental health, were predictive of dispositional outcomes
(Cauffman et al., 2007). This suggests that the juvenile court system
in these jurisdictions fail to prioritize an individual's intervention
based on rehabilitative need over court processes (Cauffman et al.,
2007).
Although only around 1% of all formally processed delinquency
cases in the United States are judicially transferred to criminal court
(Puzzanchera et al., 2010; Puzzanchera & Kang, 2011), transfer can
have serious consequences for the adolescents involved. While the
consequences of juvenile transfer differ between states, they can in-
clude being placed on the public record of convictions, the compulso-
ry reporting of the conviction on employment applications, being
subject to criminal court jurisdiction for all subsequent offenses com-
mitted as a juvenile, registration in a state's sex offender registries,
and the potential to receive an adult sentence and incarceration in
adult prison (Redding, 2003).
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of
1974 requires that juvenile offenders be “sight and sound” separated
from adult inmates when detained in a jail or lock-up facility. How-
ever, juvenile offenders who have been waived to adult court no
longer fall under the jurisdiction of the JJDPA as they are thereby
considered as adults in criminal court (Levitt, 2010; Sickmund,
2004). Consequently, juvenile offenders incarcerated in adult
prisons are not protected separately from adult offenders by federal
law (Levitt, 2010). While it is likely that some youth offenders are
separated from the general population in some adult prisons, re-
search suggests that in a majority of states (i.e., 31 states), youth of-
fenders are housed with the general adult prison population (Bishop,
2000). A minority of states allow for the segregation of juvenile and
adult offenders or graduated incarceration, whereby inmates under
the age of 18 begin their sentences in juvenile facilities until they
reach the age of 18 where they are then transferred to adult prisons
(Austin, Johnson, & Gregoriou, 2000; Storm, 2000). Subsequently,
Storm (2000) also found that only 6 states in the US require separate
housing in state prisons for offenders under the age of 18. Due to
youth being more vulnerable because of their age, this puts youth
at greater risk of victimization from adult inmates within adult cor-
rectional facilities (Fagen & Kupchik, 2011).
The justifications for incarcerating juveniles range from rehabilita-
tion and punishment to providing a deterrent for future offending.
However, a growing body of evidence suggests that there are numer-
ous negative psychological and behavioral consequences for young
people who are incarcerated, particularly for those incarcerated in
adult prisons and with adult offenders (Lane, Lanza-Kaduce, Frazier,
& Bishop, 2002; Tie & Waugh, 2001).
450 I. Lambie, I. Randell / Clinical Psychology Review 33 (2013) 448–459
2. Youth in the justice system—a special population
It is widely accepted that juveniles do not possess the same develop-
mental level of psychological maturity as adults (Steinberg, Cauffman,
Woolard, Graham, & Banich, 2009; Steinberg, Graham, O'Brien, Woolard,
Cauffman, & Banich, 2009; Steinberg & Scott, 2003) and can have difficul-
ty regulating their moods, impulses, and behaviors (Spear, 2000).
Anatomical and functional changes in the brain occur throughout devel-
opment and continue into early adulthood (Giedd, 2008). Such changes
involve self-regulation, reward processing, processing of social informa-
tion, and the development of psychosocial maturity, involving risk per-
ception, lowered levels of sensation seeking and impulsivity, resistance
to peer influence, and anticipation of future consequences (Steinberg,
2009; Steinberg, Cauffman, et al., 2009 and Steinberg, Graham, et al.,
2009). Additionally, and probably as a result of heightened reward
salience, particularly in relation to social rewards, involvement in
sensation-seeking and risk-taking behaviors peaks during adolescence
(Steinberg, 2008, 2009, 2010). Adolescents are more influence than adults
by the presence of peers, social rewards and approval (Steinberg, 2010).
Immediate and concrete rewards, particularly those involving peer
approval, greatly influence their behavior, and they are particularly
susceptible to peer influence and impulsivity, provocation, and stressful
situations (Steinberg & Scott, 2003).
There are several implications of the psychosocial immaturity of
adolescent offenders. Firstly, their vulnerability to peer influence,
coercion, provocation, and immature decision making may mean
that culpability is mitigated, making incarceration in an adult pris-
on an inappropriate sentence (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). Additionally,
incarceration is intended to support the major task of adolescent devel-
opment of achieving both social autonomy and social integration.
Instead, incarceration inhibits opportunities for successful prosocial
development by restricting autonomy, thus limiting the young person's
options for social interaction and preventing integration (Dmitrieva,
Monahan, Cauffman, & Steinberg, 2012).
Youth offenders are a particularly disadvantaged population and
often come from backgrounds of family dysfunction and maltreatment
(Ou & Reynolds, 2010). Between 70% and 95% of detained youth
offenders have at least one psychiatric diagnosis, along with coexisting
mental health problems (Lader, Singleton, & Meltzer, 2003; Robertson,
Dill, Husain, & Undesser, 2004). Rates of substance use are extremely
high among this population, with substance abuse and dependence af-
fecting 40%–70% of youth offenders (Aarons, Brown, Hough, Garland, &
Wood, 2001; McClelland, Elkington, Teplin, & Abram, 2004; Robertson
et al., 2004). Over a third of juvenile offenders have special education
needs (Cruise, Evans, & Pickens, 2011; Minor, Wells, & Angel, 2008),
and many are below their chronological age level in terms of reading,
spelling, comprehension, and cognitive abilities (Kroll et al., 2002). Due
to high rates of smoking, alcohol, and drug use, as well as engagement
in risky sexual and violent behavior, adolescent offenders are also at
high risk for numerous health concerns (Fazel & Baillargeon, 2011).
2.1. Females
Recent years have seen a considerable increase in female juvenile
offending, such that girls comprise of approximately one third of all
juvenile arrests in the United States (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).
Although the majority of research regarding juvenile offending has
focused on male youth, and female youth offenders have previously
been a neglected population both in terms of research and service deliv-
ery, there has been some recent research to suggest key differences
between boys and girls involved in juvenile justice (Odgers, Moretti, &
Reppucci, 2009). For example, rates of psychiatric disorders among
detained youth are higher for female youth offenders than they are for
male youth offenders, with nearly 75% of incarcerated female youth meet-
ing the diagnostic criteria for at least one psychiatric disorder (Cauffman,
2004; Russell & Marston, 2009). Research also suggests that psychiatric
disorders among youth offender populations are associated with signifi-
cantly poorer outcomes following release, including increased recidivism,
suicidality, substance use problems, hospitalization and use of psychiatric
services (Vermeiren, Jespers, & Moffitt, 2006). Additionally, many female
youth offenders present with more than one psychiatric disorder, which
is associated with even poorer outcomes following release (Russell &
Marston, 2009). Furthermore, in comparison to male youth offenders, fe-
male youth offenders experience a significantly greater amount of physi-
cal (e.g., abuse, chronic health problems, sexual assault) and sexual (e.g.,
sexually transmitted disease and engagement in high-risk sexual behav-
iors) health problems (Robins, Odgers, & Russell, 2009).
Research suggests that the association between antisocial behavior
and poor physical health is greater for female youth offenders following
a life-course persistent pathway of antisocial behavior (Moffitt, 1993).
This is a pathway characterized by high-risk family and social environ-
ments, and early neurodevelopmental difficulty (Robins et al., 2009). In
comparison to male youth offenders, female youth offenders are more
likely to have experienced trauma, often linked to multiple forms of
maltreatment including sexual abuse and neglect, and suffer from
post-traumatic stress disorder (Moretti, Jackson, & Obsuth, 2009). As a
special population, it seems rehabilitation for justice-involved female
youth may benefit from a particular focus on the appropriate assess-
ment and treatment of the mental health needs in conjunction with
assessing social welfare and ensuring stable community support follow-
ing release (Moretti et al., 2009).
3. Outcomes of transfer and incarceration
Little is known about the effects of transferring juveniles into the
justice system (Mears, 2003). However transfer to adult court increases
the potential for harsher punishments (including victimization by other
inmates) and long-term developmental costs (Mulvey & Schubert,
2012). There are inherent difficulties in studying the effects of transfer,
given the possible selection bias of higher-risk youth being transferred.
However, a number of studies based in the United States that control for
selection bias have found a null effect of transfer or indicate that youth
offenders transferred to the criminal justice system exhibit heightened
levels of recidivism (Lanza-Kaduce, Lane, Bishop, & Frazier, 2005;
Loughran et al., 2010; Myers, 2003). These findings suggest that the ju-
venile justice system is likely to be more rehabilitative or less damaging
than the adult system, and that all but the most serious juvenile of-
fenders should be kept out of the adult system (Myers, 2003).
The judicial transfer of youth offenders to adult court has resulted in
many juveniles being tried as adults in the criminal justice system.
Consequently, youth offenders become susceptible to more severe
sanctions by criminal court proceedings (Jordan & Myers, 2011;
Kupchik, Fagen, & Liberman, 2003), and as a result the likelihood that
a juvenile will be incarcerated increases (Myers, 2003).
Because youth incarceration is aimed at decreasing the incidence of
crime as well as recidivism, it is important to examine how effective it is
in achieving these aims. Between 70% and 80% of juveniles who have
been in residential correction programs are subsequently rearrested
within a three-year period (Mendel, 2011), and research indicates
that incarceration of juveniles generally is ineffective in reducing recid-
ivism and may maintain, or even increase, levels of engagement in anti-
social behavior and criminal activity (Gatti, Tremblay, & Vitaro, 2009;
Lane et al., 2002). Although some research suggests that longer stays
in juvenile institutions are ineffective in reducing recidivism
(Loughran et al., 2009; Mulvey, 2011), other research found that youths
who were incarcerated for longer periods of time, in either juvenile or
adult facilities, were less likely to be rearrested following disposition
than were offenders who were either not incarcerated or who were in-
carcerated for shorter time periods (Hjalmarsson, 2009; Myers 2003).
Due to the complexity of the issue, Myers comments that it is very
hard to determine what factors were operating in this study to bring
about this effect. However, the divergent findings here may be due to
 I. Lambie, I. Randell / Clinical Psychology Review 33 (2013) 448–459
differences in the follow-up period used. For example, Myers (2003)
measure of recidivism was taken after an 18 month follow-up period,
whereas Loughran et al. (2009) used a follow-up period of 48 months.
There is some indication, however, that there may be differential effects
of transfer for individuals, with research indicating that post-release
outcomes were significantly related to charge type and other legal and
risk-need factors (Loughran et al., 2010; Schubert et al., 2010). For ex-
ample, Loughran et al. (2010) found that transferred adolescents
charged with person crimes (e.g., assault) showed lower rates of
recidivism than transferred adolescents charged with property crimes
(e.g., burglary & theft). Schubert et al. (2010) found that adolescents
with fewer prior petitions to court and adolescents with less association
with antisocial peers showed lower rates of recidivism.
It seems important that youth offenders are not placed under higher
levels of security than is necessary. Low-level offenders appear to be par-
ticularly at risk for increased rates of recidivism following institutional
placement (Mulvey, 2011). Although it is unclear whether such findings
are able to be generalized to adolescents, research suggests that when
adult offenders are placed into higher than necessary levels of security,
they are more likely to have higher rates of recidivism than if they were
placed at the appropriate security level (Gaes & Camp, 2009). While
there are situations in which higher security levels are likely to be neces-
sary, there is some evidence that low security levels may result in better
outcomes than high-security placements even for higher-risk inmates
(Gaes & Camp, 2009). Gaes and Camp (2009) found that adult inmates
with level 3 security classification who were randomly assigned to level
3 placement (i.e., higher security placement) had a hazard rate of
returning to prison 31% higher than those assigned to a level 1 placement
(i.e., lower security placement). Johnson et al. (2011) found that, after
controlling for a number of variables, among repeat youth offenders, skip-
ping intermediate interventions into deep-end sanctions was related to
greater recidivism, whereas experience of graduated interventions was
associated with less recidivism. This finding suggests that negative effects
of transfer may be due to a lack of graduated sanctions, which allow for
appropriate intervention.
The existing literature concerning the outcomes of incarceration and
transfer in terms of recidivism is somewhat mixed. Differences in these
findings could most likely be explained by divergent experimental
methods used by the different studies. Nevertheless, a significant body
of literature supports the contention that incarceration and transfer
have null or negative effects on later offending and that a more punitive
approach is unlikely to be productive (Gatti et al., 2009; Lane et al.,
2002; Lanza-Kaduce et al., 2005; Loughran et al., 2010; Mulvey, 2011;
Myers, 2003).
Subjective outcome studies of incarceration have indicated similarly
problematic experiences of those incarcerated as youth. Incarcerated
adults have been found to perceive the juvenile system as not particu-
larly helpful and ineffective in deterring other juveniles (Veneziano,
Veneziano, & Gill, 2000). Lane et al. (2002) interviewed 71 youths
who were transferred to adult court. The majority of them reported
that incarceration with adults had no positive effect or a negative effect
on their attitudes and behavior. A number of youth attributed negative
outcomes to adult sanctions, maintaining that they learnt more crime
while incarcerated with adults. They found staff to be “mean” or apa-
thetic, hope to be diminished, and the prison environment to be ex-
tremely unsafe and inappropriate for adolescents (Lane et al., 2002).
3.1. Disruption of a natural “age out” of criminal behavior
As the sentence time progresses, adolescents become more deep-
ly immersed in the criminal justice system and move further from
prosocial involvement in society, thus limiting opportunity for the indi-
vidual to “age out” of their delinquent behavior. Research has demon-
strated that roughly a third of all juveniles will engage in some form of
serious delinquent behavior, but many will naturally grow out of this be-
havior as part of their maturation process (Elliot, 1994; Stouthamer-
451
Loeber, Wei, Loeber, & Masten, 2004). A study that gathered information
on 14–18-year-old juvenile offenders 7 years after their conviction
found that even the most serious adolescent offenders report a decrease
in offending over time (Mulvey, 2011). Only a small percentage of of-
fenders continued with high-level offending throughout the follow-up
period and a large percentage of the most severe offenders reported
dramatic reductions in their offending. Based on these findings, the Path-
ways to Desistance study (see Mulvey, 2011) concluded that even serious
youth offenders will not necessarily continue to offend into adulthood.
Incarceration may, therefore, interfere with the reestablishment of a
prosocial lifestyle and limit the likelihood of positive outcomes. Lane et
al. (2002) reported that many juveniles who were incarcerated felt that
their childhood and positive aspirations for the future had been taken
away from them. It was also found that the pain and loss experienced
during incarceration sometimes only increases the resentment and hostil-
ity towards “the system”, which results in further antisocial behavior
(Lane et al., 2002).
The effect of incarceration inhibiting the ability to “age out” is espe-
cially the case following treatment in a secure setting, where the envi-
ronment is highly structured and predictable and thus not reflective
of the realities of independent living. Research investigating percep-
tions of boys in boot camp correctional facilities found that, due to the
extremely structured nature of the program, boys felt unprepared for
avoiding incarceration in the future and were uncertain to what extent
they had acquired skills as a result of their inability to test and practice
them (Kilgore & Meade, 2004). The authors concluded that, although
one aim of boot camp-type programs is to teach self-discipline and
the ability to make wise choices, the extremely structured environment
(which removes all decision-making opportunity) is likely to be coun-
terproductive to such a goal. In structured confinement settings, few
opportunities exist for youth to learn new ways of forming and
maintaining appropriate social and sexual relationships. It is only possi-
ble for a young person to reliably “grow out” of deviance if he or she de-
velops alternative, more adaptive coping resources and strategies (Lane
et al., 2002). Such adaptive resources are not reliably or effectively
taught to juvenile inmates and the acquisition of such skills is limited
by the nature of the environment.
3.2. Behavior and iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice
There is much suggestion in the literature that increased contact with
antisocial peers in a prison environment, as well as decreased contact
with prosocial or less delinquent peers, is a contributing factor in negative
outcomes for incarcerated adolescents (Gatti et al., 2009). In an attempt to
acculturate into the criminal environment and be accepted by older and
more intimidating peers, juveniles spend time talking with more skilled
and experienced adult offenders (Woolard, Odgers, Lanza-Kaduce, &
Daglis, 2005). While it may be assumed that offenders with prior expo-
sure to antisocial peers are more likely to mingle with antisocial peers
while incarcerated, Little (2006) found that youth offenders incarcerated
in out-of-home placements (adult or juvenile facilities) exhibited a much
faster rate of exposure to antisocial peers than non-incarcerated youth of-
fenders regardless of baseline exposure to antisocial peers.
As well as providing exposure to antisocial behaviors and peers,
incarceration disrupts community contact (Little, 2006). Thus, it se-
verely limits reinforcement of societal norms and expectations, as
well as opportunities for youth to model adaptive interpersonal inter-
actions, such as conflict resolution, or practice of interpersonal skills
and relationship management (Steinberg, Chung, & Little, 2004). It
is difficult to practice prosocial forms of behavior while incarcerated
(Lane et al., 2002); consequently, incarcerated juveniles become in-
creasingly detached from adaptive law-abiding society.
It has been hypothesized that the effect of peer contagion is stron-
gest among those youths who are only moderately deviant or are still
developing deviant behavior patterns (Dishion & Dodge, 2005). Mis-
conduct is most common among young inmates, with age being the
452 I. Lambie, I. Randell / Clinical Psychology Review 33 (2013) 448–459
strongest predictor of prison misconduct, including violent misconduct
(Kuanliang, Sorensen, & Cunningham, 2008). Given that, over time, ju-
veniles have been found to exhibit shifts in levels of delinquency that
are influenced by the relative deviance of their immediate peers
(McGloin, 2009), it is not surprising that juveniles in the adult system
are more likely to exhibit a developed set of offending behavior when
they leave the facilities.
An increase in aggressive behavior has also been shown to be a re-
sult of incarceration among confined youths. Prisons are dangerous
places: they contain inmates with a propensity to behave aggressive-
ly, and inmate norms frequently support violent behavior (Anderson
& Ranckin, 2007). Exposure to violence and male-modeled antisocial
behavior is a risk factor for the development of sexual and non-
sexual aggression and delinquency in juvenile offenders (Hunter,
2004; Shahinfar, Kupersmidt, & Matza, 2001), and a review of a num-
ber of studies found that this contact with other aggressive inmates
increases an individual's aggressive behavior (Anderson & Ranckin,
2007). However, Little (2006) found that contact with antisocial peers
did not solely predict increased aggression upon release, suggesting
that other variables are also likely to be involved in such a relationship.
A study by Gatti et al. (2009), which examined a community sample
of boys in disadvantaged areas of Montreal, Canada, found that inter-
vention by the juvenile court had an overall iatrogenic effect on youth,
greatly increasing the likelihood of adult criminality. This study found
that disadvantaged youths are more likely, for the same degree of
antisocial behavior, to undergo intervention by the juvenile court and
that this then facilitates their initiation into a criminal career. Gatti
and colleagues found that programs that place deviant youth together
and confine them to facilities separate from the rest of society are
most likely to have a negative effect. In a meta-analysis, Lipsey (2006)
found that treatments that placed deviant peers together were 30%
less effective than individual programs and that 42% of group programs
had adverse effects, with behavior of participants worsening after
intervention. This could be explained by the peer contagion theory,
which suggests that, given the important role that a peer group plays
in orienting adolescent behavior, any intervention that places youths
within a deviant group consolidates their antisocial behavior (Dodge,
Dishion, & Lansford, 2006; Warr, 2002). Although peer contagion can
occur in both residential and non-residential programs, it has been
argued that it is more likely and more intense in a residential regime,
such as when young people are incarcerated (Osgood & Briddell, 2006).
However, this notion of iatrogenic effects was challenged by Weiss
et al. (2005), who questioned both empirical and conceptual bases for
this theory. The authors reviewed the empirical evidence of 18 recent
meta-analytic studies and concluded that 17 of them did not, in fact,
support iatrogenic effects. They also questioned the ideas that group
treatments are iatrogenic and that deviancy-training effects underlie
these iatrogenic effects. They argued that, given that negative peer
associations are a strong predictor of delinquency, adolescents who
are chosen to participate in group treatment are likely to be already
associating with delinquent youth outside of treatment and that the
amount of time in therapy is a small portion of their waking hours,
thus limiting the impact of the peers within the treatment group.
They argued that consideration of potential negative aspects must be
balanced with consideration of potential positive aspects, such as
economy and convenience. However, these findings are limited by a
key gap in the literature on this topic, that is, the extent to which
group therapy may magnify the effects of deviancy training or other iat-
rogenic processes (Weiss et al., 2005).
4. Rehabilitative limitations and negative effects of
juvenile incarceration
Youth offenders are a high-risk population and an extensive range of
environmental and individual factors interact to contribute to their
maladaptive behavior (see Loeber, Burke, & Pardini, 2009, for a review).
Although it is possible that positive rehabilitative effects can be achieved
in a confinement setting, the nature of confinement, as well as the
negative impacts that it may have, can greatly limit the rehabilitative
potential of such placements. Incarceration environments are often
characterized by victimization, social isolation, and unaddressed or
exacerbated mental health, educational, and health needs. These factors
may limit rehabilitation and have damaging effects that contribute to
recidivism and other unfavorable outcomes (Ashkar & Kenny, 2008).
Overcrowding is a concerning reality in facilities housing youth
offenders, with 15% of facilities in the United States being over stan-
dard bed capacity, according to Snyder and Sickmund (2006). The
same study found that 20% of youth offenders housed in such facili-
ties were in facilities at capacity and an additional 14% were in facil-
ities over capacity (2006). This indicates that resources supporting
rehabilitation are likely to be severely limited in such institutions.
Additionally, removing youth from their community removes them
from the environment in which their offending behavior occurs
and the contextual factors that contribute to and maintain this be-
havior. As a result, incarceration limits the potential for the use of re-
habilitative options that directly address these factors, and youth are
less likely to receive intervention that targets their criminogenic
needs. Accordingly, research suggests that longer stays in institu-
tions for youth offenders does not reduce recidivism, while more in-
volvement with community-based supervision is more effective in
reducing re-offending, particularly for youth who have committed
serious offenses (Mulvey, 2011). Given the stark contrast between
the environment of a secure facility and that of a community setting,
the transition of youth back into the community after a period of
incarceration can be extremely difficult (Anthony et al., 2010).
4.1. Victimization within the criminal justice system
Abuse is prevalent within adult prisons and both youth and adult
offenders experience significant levels of victimization, involving ver-
bal, physical, sexual, and emotional abuse (Tie & Waugh, 2001; Wolff,
Shi, & Siegel, 2009). Wolff et al. (2009) found that nearly 40% of male
and female inmates reported physical or sexual victimization over a
6-month period. Female inmates experienced lower rates of physical
victimization by staff or other inmates than males (24% vs. 35%), but
higher rates of sexual victimization (24% vs. 10%).
Juvenile offenders incarcerated in adult prisons may be at particu-
lar risk of victimization (Tie & Waugh, 2001). When juveniles are
incarcerated with adult prisoners, their age and developmental level
place them at high risk (Fagen & Kupchik, 2011). It is likely that
adult inmates in the system may have greater physical strength, a
longer criminal history, and more experience of incarceration than ju-
venile offenders, suggesting some inherent risk to youth within adult
correctional facilities.
Youths who are younger and from minority racial groups have
been shown to be at particular risk of victimization within the prison
system. A study concerning juveniles in a South African prison found
that, the younger respondents were, the more likely they were to ex-
perience victimization (Kiessl & Wurger, 2002). Youths belonging to
minority racial groups in society were also found to be at greater risk
of victimization within the adult prison setting (Kiessl & Wurger,
2002).
It is important to note, however, that victimization of juvenile
offenders is not limited to adult facilities. It is also a significant problem
within juvenile custody facilities. A recent nationwide survey of youth
in juvenile facilities in the United States (Beck, Harrison, & Guerino,
2010) found that 12% had experienced one or more incidents of sexual
victimization by another youth or facility staff in the previous
12 months. Just over 10% of youth reported an incident of victimization
involving facility staff, with 4.3% reporting having had sexual contact
with staff as a result of some type of force. In facilities with the highest
rates of sexual victimization, youth reported very high rates of
 I. Lambie, I. Randell / Clinical Psychology Review 33 (2013) 448–459
victimization (20%–36%), even when limited to the most serious non-
consensual acts. Youth with a sexual orientation other than heterosex-
ual reported significantly higher rates of sexual victimization by other
youth inmates (12.5%), compared to heterosexual youth (1.5%). Addi-
tionally, individuals who had previously been victims of assault were
at greater risk for experience of victimization in the current facility
(Beck et al., 2010).
4.2. Mental health
A large proportion of incarcerated youth suffer from mental health
problems such as depression, suicide attempts and ideation, as well as
drug and alcohol abuse (Domalanta, Risser, Roberts, & Risser, 2003;
Kiriakidis, 2008; Lader et al., 2003; Robertson et al., 2004), and the
prevalence of emotional and behavioral problems among incarcerated
youth is greater than that within the general population (Thomas &
Penn, 2002). It is likely that these problems are exacerbated by the
adverse conditions experienced during incarceration; however, there
is a lack of research investigating the factors that affect adolescents' psy-
chological adaptation to the prison environment.
During incarceration, isolation, boredom, bullying, and victimiza-
tion are pervasive stressors (Greve, 2001) and, given the permeable
and transitory nature of adolescent identity and self-esteem, incarcer-
ation can have a negative long-term effect on a young person's sense
of self and self-worth (Lane et al., 2002). In addition to existing diffi-
culties and stressors associated with an incarceration environment,
these youth also lose their lives outside of the facility, which adds to
their distress and deteriorating mental health (Ng et al., 2011). Men-
tal health problems are often not identified or addressed during pe-
riods of incarceration (Altschuler & Brash, 2004; Soler, 2002), and
mental health services and juvenile justice systems are often not
well integrated (Rapp-Paglicci, 2007). This suggests that in many
cases services are not equipped to cope with preexisting mental
health problems, nor those that may worsen or develop during
incarceration.
Despite high rates of substance abuse among youth offender
populations, drug and alcohol treatment is only available in 36% of ju-
venile correctional facilities in the United States, and of those incar-
cerated individuals who would benefit from treatment, only 16%
receive it (National Center on Addiction & Substance Abuse, 2004).
A study investigating needs and utilization of adolescents in the Illi-
nois corrections system found that two-thirds of youth were in
need of treatment; yet under half of those in need reported receiving
treatment (Johnson et al., 2004). Research suggests that there are 11
key elements involved in effective substance abuse programs includ-
ing integrating treatment across multiple systems of care; matching
assessment and treatment; recognizing co-occurring disorders; a
comprehensive treatment approach; having qualified staff; develop-
mentally appropriate treatment; family involvement in treatment;
engagement and retention of teens in treatment; continuing care;
assessment of treatment outcomes; and gender and cultural compe-
tence (Drug Strategies, 2005).
Although Henderson et al. (2007) found that there is variable imple-
mentation of a number of these elements in treatment programs,
community-based services on average were using a greater number of
elements that institutional services. Some differences may be explained
by differences in treatment environment, for example, logistical limita-
tions make it difficult to involve youth's families in treatment within an
institutional setting compared to a community setting. However, sub-
stance abuse treatment programs within institutional settings were
also less likely to involve qualified staff and assessment of treatment
outcomes compared to community settings likely indicating the accred-
itation of evidence-based practices needed by third-party organizations
in community settings. Additionally, the findings suggest that there
seems to be a disconnection between corrections and community-
based treatment services likely leading to a lack in the continuation of
453
treatment following release, resulting in youth often returning to the
substance use problems and re-offending at higher rates (Henderson
et al., 2007).
There is evidence that juveniles who are confined in an adult pris-
on environment may have particular difficulty in adjusting and that
they may require specially targeted care (Kuanliang et al., 2008).
Staff within the adult justice system lack knowledge and training in
child and adolescent development and, therefore, are ill equipped to
understand the needs of the youth (Soler, 2002).
A study by Murrie et al. (2009) of youths housed in Texas adult
correction facilities found that juveniles in adult facilities reported
higher rates of mental health symptoms than those in juvenile correc-
tion facilities. Although this research indicates that the mental health
needs of youth incarcerated in adult prisons may be greater than
the needs of those in juvenile prisons, it is unclear whether such
differences reflect difficulties that existed prior to incarceration or
those that developed during the period of incarceration (Murrie,
Henderson, Vincent, Rockett, & Mundt, 2009). However, a more re-
cent study, after controlling for other risk factors, found that youth of-
fenders in Michigan who were placed in adult incarceration facilities
were 37 times more likely to be depressed than were serious youth
offenders in juvenile placements, despite having less severe psycho-
social or offending backgrounds (Ng et al., 2011). This suggests that
placing youths in adult prisons is likely to have significant negative
consequences in terms of creating or aggravating mental health prob-
lems (Ng et al., 2011).
There is some research to suggest that mental problems experi-
enced by incarcerated youth may not be long-lasting and decrease
over time. Brown and Ireland (2006), in a study of male adolescent
prisoners in the United Kingdom, found significant decreases in
both anxiety and depression during the six weeks following incarcer-
ation. The authors explain that this could be a result of acculturation,
as incarcerated youth develop more adaptive strategies to incarcera-
tion over time (2006). Similar findings were reported by Shulman
and Cauffman (2011), who found that symptoms of psychopathology
declined over the first month of incarceration among male juvenile
offenders held in the California Department of Juvenile Justice correc-
tional reception facility. However, both samples of youth offenders
involved in the research of Brown and Ireland (2006), and Shulman
and Cauffman (2011) were confined to Juvenile Justice Facilities in
the England and the United States, which house juvenile offenders
alone. In contrast, the sample of youth offenders involved in the
study conducted by Ng et al. (2011) were confined in adult prisons.
It may be likely that for youth offenders confined in adult prisons,
particularly if juvenile inmates are integrated with prison population,
there is a heightened degree of stress and potential threat in compar-
ison to offenders imprisoned in juvenile justice settings. Juvenile
offenders may find it more difficult to adapt to life inside an adult
prison, which may explain the negative effects of incarceration on
juvenile mental health found by Ng et al. (2011).
4.3. Suicidal behaviors and ideation within the criminal system
The rates of suicide, suicide ideation, and suicide attempts among
incarcerated youths are particularly concerning. Although suicide
mortality rates in custody are typically lower than population rates,
attempted suicides may be much higher (Kiriakidis, 2008). Research on
the Scottish juvenile population in custody reported that suicide
attempts among incarcerated youth are higher than are those in the
general population, with 14.5% of the sample having reported suicide
attempts in comparison 8.8% of youth in the community (Kiriakidis,
2008). Another study of youths incarcerated in the United States found
that 52% of incarcerated youth self-reported suicide ideation (Esposito
& Clum, 2002). Additionally, incarcerated youths reported high rates of
lifetime suicide attempts and ideation (Penn, Esposito, Schaeffer, Fritz,
& Spirito, 2003). This suggests that, while prisons report low suicide-
454 I. Lambie, I. Randell / Clinical Psychology Review 33 (2013) 448–459
mortality rates, this is largely due to security, suicide screening, and
monitoring measures in incarceration environments. Therefore, rates of
completed suicide, suicide attempts, and self-harming behaviors should
still be of concern.
Research has identified a number of factors associated with high
levels of suicidal behavior in incarcerated juveniles. One of the key influ-
ences is likely to be the stressful conditions of confinement, suggesting
that youths attempt suicide when they are unable to cope with these
conditions (Bonner, 2006). It has also been hypothesized that imprisoned
youth are particularly vulnerable, as they experience increased expo-
sure to suicidal behavior by others (Hales, Davison, Misch, & Taylor,
2003). Victimization has also been identified as a key driver, with
those who experienced being bullied in custody being over nine times
more likely to attempt suicide than those who were not (Kiriakidis,
2008).
In an attempt to address the incidence of both victimization and
suicide within prison settings, Tie and Waugh (2001) have devel-
oped a Prison Youth Vulnerability Scale (PYVS) in New Zealand to
detect those youth offenders between the ages of 17–19 years who
are vulnerable to harm from themselves and/or harm from others.
This instrument can help minimize risk to vulnerable youth by
assessing whether placement in a specialized youth unit may be
more suitable rather than being held in an adult prison facility. The
PYVS is comprised of three primary subscales: “Vulnerability to Victim-
ization” (Criminal history, social skills, perception of risk, history of vic-
timization, offense type, and intellectual impairment), “Wellbeing”
(Alcohol and drug use, social support, and psychological distress) and
“Vulnerability to Suicide/Self Harm” (Suicidal ideation, previous attempts,
family history). The PYVS has been found to have good internal consisten-
cy and a strong factorial structure with juvenile offenders in New Zealand
suggesting that it is both a valid and a reliable measure of youth vulnera-
bility to victimization and self-harm. For example, the PYVS items togeth-
er explain 67.1% of the variance, and the Cronbach coefficient alpha scores
of .68 (Victimization sub-scale), .66 (Wellbeing sub-scale), and .69
(Suicidality sub-scale) suggest a moderate level of internal consistency
(Tie & Waugh, 2001).
4.4. Social relationships
Incarceration has also been found to have a considerable negative
effect on social relationships, and this can be particularly damaging
for adolescents who are still developing socially (Hartwell, Fisher,
& Davis, 2010; Little, 2006). Among incarcerated youth, social rela-
tionships and disconnectedness between significant people in their
lives emerge as key concerns (Biggam & Power, 2002). Even after
accounting for individual differences, incarcerated adolescents
have been found to lose access to adult support and contact with
friends more rapidly than do their non-incarcerated counterparts
(Little, 2006). Although it is developmentally normal for access to
adult guidance and support to decline over time, incarceration
severely hastens this decline (Little, 2006). This is particularly
concerning as adult support is associated with decreased aggressive
offending (Little, 2006) and family contact while incarcerated is
associated with decline in depressive symptoms (Monahan, Goldweber,
& Cauffman, 2011).
4.5. Physical health
Incarcerated juvenile offenders also have a higher rate of physical
health problems than their counterparts in the general population
(Griel & Loeb, 2009). In many cases, this may be the result of the in-
creased risk-taking behavior that is often a feature of incarceration,
such as violence, substance abuse and sexual activity (American
Academy of Pediatrics, 2011). These behaviors increase their chance
of contracting HIV, hepatitis and other sexually transmitted infec-
tions. Obesity has also been identified as a growing issue among
incarcerated youth as a result of the sedentary lifestyle, which is likely
to be continued upon release back into the community (Griel & Loeb,
2009).
Research also suggests that youth in adult prisons are at particular
risk of negative health outcomes (Braverman & Murray, 2011; Griel &
Loeb, 2009). This is primarily because they are vulnerable to both
physical and sexual assault, are more likely to be placed in “protec-
tive” isolation for long periods, which has serious effects on health,
and little is offered in the way of health services, education, or recre-
ation programs for juveniles (Soler, 2002).
4.6. Education
It is largely accepted that educational success can lead to a decreased
likelihood of delinquency (Foley, 2001). A recent study by Blomberg et
al. (2011) of incarcerated youth in Florida, found that youths who
achieved educational success during incarceration were significantly
more likely to return to school following release and to make a transi-
tion from delinquency. This is largely because education provides reha-
bilitation in a number of ways including through benefits such as formal
certifications and concrete skills, as well as other skills such as improved
decision making (Brazzell, Crayton, Mukamal, Solomon, & Lindahl,
2009). When youth return to their communities without the necessary
literacy, vocational, and social skills, the risk of recidivism increases
(Leone, Krezmien, Mason, & Meisel, 2005).
Despite this clear evidence of the importance of quality education
during incarceration, research suggests that incarcerated youth often
receive a more fragmented and inferior education than that of their
peers in the community (Blomberg, Bales, Mann, Piquero, & Berk,
2011; Leone et al., 2005). Correctional programs fail to provide the
specialist education services that are often necessary for incarcerated
youths, who are characterized by significant learning, behavioral, and
cognitive problems (Blomberg et al., 2011).
4.7. Reentry into the community and impact on adulthood wellbeing
The effects of incarceration continue to impact on juvenile of-
fenders after they are released from prison, as time excluded from
the community as well as the criminal convictions that the individual
has acquired result in challenges with reintegration. Any gains made
in treatment programs in confined settings are likely to be challenged
by the difficulties of reentering an antisocial peer group (Hartwell,
McMackin, Tansi, & Bartlett, 2010), and the potentially damaging
effects of incarceration on mental health, attitudes, and behavior as
mentioned may decrease the likelihood of successful outcomes.
The stigma associated with criminal convictions may limit access
to conventional social networks, employment, and responsible re-
engagement with the community (Mears & Travis, 2004). Experi-
ences of exclusion from educational or work placements as a result
of a criminal history can make it difficult for youth newly released
into the community to meet requirements of probation (Gardner,
2010). As well as these external factors, this social stigma also serves
to reinforce their own negative self-worth. Having a criminal record
can lead to internal strain and cause formerly incarcerated youths to
doubt their own ability to experience success in their lives back in
the community (Mears & Travis, 2004).
The transition from incarceration back to the community is partic-
ularly complex and difficult for youth, as this transition often happens
concurrently with the transition from adolescence to adulthood, put-
ting such youth at increased risk for a number of negative outcomes,
including recidivism (Altschuler & Brash, 2004). Adolescents at the
end of their prison sentence are dealing, not only with the usual chal-
lenges associated with community reentry, but also often with added
developmental tasks and first experiences (Anthony et al., 2010),
such as living alone, employment, relationships, and parenthood.
Steinberg et al. (2004) argue that psychosocial maturation is
 I. Lambie, I. Randell / Clinical Psychology Review 33 (2013) 448–459
necessary for adolescents to successfully transition into adulthood
and that incarceration limits opportunity for experiences conducive
to development, fails to address existing barriers to development,
and exposes youth to harmful experiences that worsen existing
problems.
In a qualitative study examining youth experiences of community
reentry following juvenile justice placements, Hartwell, Fisher, et al.
(2010) and Hartwell, McMackin, et al. (2010) found that the primary
factors that were experienced by youth as barriers to avoiding in-
volvement with crime were drugs, familial environment, lack of fi-
nancial resources, and antisocial peers. Often, incarceration fails to
address these issues. In many cases, mental health and substance
problems have not been sufficiently addressed during incarceration
(Altschuler & Brash, 2004; National Center on Addiction &
Substance Abuse, 2004; Soler, 2002). Education has also often been
disrupted, and this makes returning to school or finding work diffi-
cult, which subsequently affects the extent to which formerly incar-
cerated youths can become financially independent (Anthony et al.,
2010; Brazzell et al., 2009). This is especially true if learning difficul-
ties have not been addressed. Altschuler and Brash (2004) comment
that reentry is also made difficult when opportunities for developing
skills to navigate prosocial relationships have not been provided. It is
critical that incarcerated youth develop these skills, as it has been
found that moving back into old peer networks is one of the greatest
challenges youths face upon their transition back into the communi-
ty and a primary obstacle to avoiding delinquency (Abrams, 2006).
The high special education and mental health needs of youth
offending samples pose challenges to a successful community reinte-
gration including educational engagement (Cruise et al., 2011). While
engagement in education or employment is associated with desistance
of severe delinquent behaviors (Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 2004), only
around 30%–40% of incarcerated youth offenders gain employment
within one year following their release (Bullis & Yovanoff, 2006;
Chung, Schubert, & Mulvey, 2007). Furthermore, the likelihood of
being employed is significantly less for those with special education
needs (Bullis & Yovanoff, 2006).
In order to overcome these challenges, aftercare programs in the
months following release, including engagement with community
services and community supervision, are keys to successful transition
and decreased risk for further contact with juvenile justice (Mulvey,
2011). Based on a comprehensive review of literature, Abrams et al.
(2008) emphasized that, in order to achieve successful reintegration,
it is critical that not just surveillance-orientated probation services
are provided, but also programs that help youth to practice and main-
tain prosocial behaviors. Altschuler (2007) argues that bridging is
also necessary to ensure that this aftercare is effective, and it should
include integration of residential and aftercare services, continuity
of care, involvement of family, and community support planning.
This is particularly important, given that requirements for success in
secure residential settings and in a community context can be vastly
different and present differing environmental factors that shape be-
havior in different ways (Altschuler, 2007). However, although bridg-
ing is crucial, it is difficult to achieve because residential and
community services are often largely independent of one another
(Altschuler, 2007; Soler, 2002).
The negative impacts of incarceration during adolescence have
been found to have, not just a short-term effect, but also one that re-
sults in negative outcomes in multiple domains during adulthood.
Drawing data from the Ohio life-course study, Lanctôt et al. (2007)
found that, even after controlling for self-reported delinquency, insti-
tutionalization was associated with several negative outcomes in
early adulthood. Such negative outcomes included socio-economic
disadvantage, premature transitions into cohabitation and parent-
hood, instability (involving shorter job tenures, conjugal instability,
and unintended pregnancies), and a perceived lack of caring and
trust from both parents and peers.
455
5. What are the alternatives?
Factors that place juveniles at risk for offending and reoffending are
broad and multisystemic in nature, involving complex interactions
between individual, family, community, school, work, and peer group
systems (see Loeber et al., 2009, for a review). For any intervention to
be effective, it must address all risk factors or criminogenic needs, and
thus be tailored to the specific aspects of an individual's “social ecology”
that are key to their offending behaviors (Henggeler & Schoenwald,
2011).
Empirical research also shows that effective treatments are focused
on the principles of risk, need, and responsivity (Andrews et al., 1990;
Dowden & Andrews, 1999). This approach posits that the level of risk
posed by an individual should match the intensity of treatment, that
criminogenic needs must be directly addressed, and that style of treat-
ment must be matched to the client's learning style and be capable of
addressing treatment targets. Interventions should be rehabilitative in
nature, draw on behavioral techniques, maintain high-quality imple-
mentation, and be multi-systemic focusing particularly on the environ-
ment in which the young person lives (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011;
Lipsey, 2009).
Increasingly, authors are advocating the use of evidence-based
practice in the treatment of youth offenders (Henggeler & Schoenwald,
2011). Community-based programs that use cognitive behavioral and
social learning approaches are typically understood to incorporate these
principles most effectively. Not surprisingly, research indicates that inter-
ventions with philosophies of deterrence or discipline, such as boot
camps or “scared straight” programs, tend to have no effect or an adverse
effect on recidivism rates (Lipsey, 2009) and should therefore be avoided.
The empirically supported treatments that are predominantly advocated
include Multisystemic Therapy (MST) (Henggeler, Schoenwald, Borduin,
Rowland, & Cunningham, 2009), Functional Family Therapy (FFT)
(Alexander, Pugh, Parsons, & Sexton, 2000) and Multidimensional
Treatment Fostercare (MTFC) (Chamberlain, 2003) (see Henggeler &
Sheidow, 2012, for a review of all three treatment approaches).
The underlying concept of these interventions is that they are family
centered and community based, and they provide a comprehensive
approach with collaboration between juvenile justice, mental health,
and other services. Consequently these programs often involve family
systems approaches, as well as principles of cognitive behavior therapy
and social learning, and assist adolescents and their families in develop-
ing the skills, competencies, and motivation to succeed in functioning
adaptively and prosocially within their natural environment. Interven-
tions that effectively reduce the incidence of offending behaviors
among youth are not only positive for the at-risk individual, but also
the community (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011). Henggeler (2003)
notes that, in addition to decreased crime and treatment costs, as well
as increased functioning, there are a number of other advantages of
evidence-based treatments, such as accountability through the rigorous
quality assurance systems, and the inclusion of clear operationalized
goals that are benchmarks for progress. Additionally, evidence-based
treatments explicitly target key risk factors by helping to build prosocial
contexts in real-world settings, thus addressing the issue of treatment
generalization (Henggeler, 2003).
A number of recent studies have indicated the efficacy of MST on
post-treatment measures of serious antisocial behavior (Curtis, Heiblum,
Ronan, & Crellin, 2009) and in comparison to usual community services
(Borduin, Schaeffer, & Heiblum, 2009; Henggeler, Clingempeel, Brondino,
& Pickrel, 2002; Henggeler et al., 2009; Letourneau et al., 2009; Ogden &
Halliday-Boykins, 2004; Schaeffer & Borduin, 2005) over both short-
and long-term follow-up periods (Sawyer & Borduin, 2011). For example,
in a meta-analysis of treatment studies, Curtis et al. (2004) found MST to
have an average effect size of .55 mostly over short-term follow-up
periods (i.e., up to 24 months), and that youths and their families who
received MST were functioning better than 70% of youths and families
treated alternatively. Similarly, Sawyer and Borduin (2011) investigating
456 I. Lambie, I. Randell / Clinical Psychology Review 33 (2013) 448–459
long-term treatment efficacy found recidivism rates were significantly
lower for participants receiving MST (34.8%) in comparison to individual
therapy (54.8%) at 21.9 year follow-up. One particular strength of MST is
that it has an average completion rate of 86% (Curtis, Ronan, & Borduin,
2004), in comparison to the 50% dropout rate of other child and family
treatments (Nock & Ferriter, 2005). Such positive effects have also been
found in randomized trials in a real-world rather than clinical setting
(Ogden & Hagen, 2006; Timmons-Mitchell, Bender, Kishna, & Mitchell,
2006). MST has been found to have a positive effect, not only on behavior
and offending outcomes, but also on other measures of functioning,
specifically in the home, at school, and in the community, and concerning
moods and emotions (Timmons-Mitchell et al., 2006).
Similarly, studies that have compared MTFC with services such as
usual group care have found MTFC to be associated with less contact
with delinquent peers (Leve & Chamberlain, 2005), less violent offending
(Eddy, Whaley, & Chamberlain, 2004) fewer criminal referrals and fewer
number of days in locked settings (Van Ryzin & Leve, 2012), lower anti-
social behavior scores, more positive family management scores, and
lower deviant peer association scores (Eddy & Chamberlain, 2000). Addi-
tionally, one MTFC to residential group care found youth involved with
MTFC (50%) had significantly lower rates of incarceration than youth
placed in residential group care (94%) during a 2 year follow-up period
(Chamberlain, 1990).
Interestingly, a number of studies have found that the positive
effects of evidence-based treatments on problem behaviors are mediat-
ed by a lack of improvement in factors such as family cohesion and func-
tioning, caregiver supervision and discipline, adult–youth relationships
and association with delinquent peers (Eddy & Chamberlain, 2000;
Henggeler et al., 2009; Huey, Henggeler, Brondino, & Pickrel, 2000;
Van Ryzin & Leve, 2012). Changes in family factors and delinquent
peer association are therefore key mechanisms in program efficacy
and are likely to be hindered by group residential confinement settings,
given the previously discussed family dislocation and negative peer
association that are likely to result from incarceration of adolescents.
In response to the high cost of incarceration, and the negative out-
comes it produces, there is a need to examine the cost-effectiveness of
incarcerating youth in comparison to alternatives for offending behavior.
One study from the United States compared the cost-effectiveness of
incarcerating youths to that of alternate programs, such as diversion
and mentoring, FFT, aggression replacement training, and MST (Aos,
2002). This study found that MST was the most cost-effective and that
detention was found to be the least cost-effective. Additionally, a
cost-benefit analysis of MST (Klietz, Borduin, & Schaeffer, 2010) found
that, in a sample of serious juvenile offenders in the state of Missouri,
because of lowered justice system expenses and fewer victims,
every dollar spent on MST provided taxpayers with approximately
$9.50–$23.50 USD in savings.
Although a large body of psychological literature tends to agree on
evidence-based treatments as the most effective options for the rehabil-
itation of youth offenders, governmental policies and justice decisions
have yet to reflect such findings. Henggeler and Schoenwald (2011)
argue that despite the existence of evidence-based treatments, fewer
than 5% of those high-risk offenders in the United States who are eligi-
ble for engagement with such interventions actually receive them.
Aspects of MST such as its intensive and individualized nature, systemic
and strengths focus, use of a single therapist, focus on prosocial peers,
and onus on the program to engage with the family and individual repre-
sent a striking departure from more traditional models (Ashmore & Fox,
2011). In addition, the consequent change in clinical and administrative
practice as well as program accountability that are required may be met
with resistance from practitioners and administrators (Henggeler,
2003). Much of the research concerning evidence-based interventions
has been conducted by those connected with its development, and
there is a need for a greater body of literature to be replicated by indepen-
dent groups of researchers (Scott, 2008). Differences between the effect
sizes found in efficacy and effectiveness studies (Curtis et al., 2004;
Huey et al., 2000; Ogden & Hagen, 2006; Timmons-Mitchell et al., 2006)
suggest that there can be difficulties in optimizing effectiveness in real-
life community situations and indicate that there is a need to investigate
influences on outcomes in real-life settings (Henggeler, 2004).
There is a need, and a demand, for a balance between public safety
and rehabilitation to be reached and, in some cases, for particularly
dangerous offenders, secure residential options are likely to be necessary.
Obviously, in the case of some serious offending, punishment by law is
also necessary. In such circumstances, incarceration maybe required.
However, given that research points to community-based, empirically
supported treatments as being the most effective option for youth
offenders, where possible, the retention of offenders in the community
and provision of such interventions is likely to result in the most desirable
outcomes for both the offender and the community. Community-based
treatment with a focus on rehabilitation and principles of reparation are
not necessarily mutually exclusive. A restorative justice approach involv-
ing family group conferencing processes may provide a means of process-
ing juvenile criminal behavior whereby the needs and wishes of the
victim are apparent, the rehabilitative needs of the offender considered,
and an acceptable outcome is settled that considers values of both repara-
tion and rehabilitation (Goren, 2001).
6. Conclusion
Prisons are notoriously inadequate, even for adult inmates. For
juveniles, incarceration, particularly with adult offenders, has been
shown to be more damaging than rehabilitative. This vulnerable popu-
lation suffers negative consequences when placed in an environment
that fails to address, and often heightens, existing mental health, learn-
ing, and behavioral problems. Not only are juveniles more at risk of
suicide, victimization, and assaults in adult facilities, there is also a
lack of health and mental health services, as well as education and
recreation programs, for them. Incarceration impairs positive psychoso-
cial development and transition into adulthood, resulting in an impaired
ability to reintegrate successfully into the community post-incarceration,
and a number of negative adult outcomes. In an adult prison, to be accept-
ed and escape the brutality and victimization, juveniles adopt the social
rules and norms of the more seasoned adult offenders. Rather than
being deterred from crime, they receive instruction on how to commit
crimes and evade detection. Exposure to the adult inmate subculture,
lack of rehabilitative support services that cater to their needs, and loss
of their normal life outside prison invariably lead juveniles to reoffend
on release. Incarcerated youth are removed from the environment in
which the vast and complex factors that act to elicit and maintain behav-
ior exist. Therefore, the incarceration environment is highly limited in its
rehabilitative potential. The evidence clearly points to the need to keep
juveniles out of adult prisons and ensure that they undergo effective
rehabilitation, which takes their developmental status and complex
criminogenic needs into account.
References
Aarons, G. A., Brown, S. A., Hough, R. L., Garland, A. F., & Wood, P. A. (2001). Prevalence of
adolescent substance use disorders across five sectors of care. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(4), 419–426. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1097/00004583-200104000-00010.
Abrams, L. S. (2006). From corrections to community: Youth offenders' perceptions of
the challenges of transition. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 44(2/3), 31–53.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J076v44n02_02.
Abrams, L. S., Shannon, S. K. S., & Sangalang, C. (2008). Transition services for incarcer-
ated youth: A mixed methods evaluation study. Children and Youth Services Review,
30(5), 522–535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.11.003.
Alexander, J. F., Pugh, C., Parsons, B. V., & Sexton, T. L. (2000). Functional family therapy.
In D. S. Elliott (Ed.), Blueprints for violence prevention, book three (2nd ed.). Center
for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University
of ColoradoBoulder, CO.
Altschuler, D. M. (2007). Rehabilitating and reintegrating youth offenders: Are residential
and community aftercare colliding worlds and what can be done about it? Paper
presented at the Conference on the Rehabilitation of Youth Offenders. Singapore: Minis-
try of Community Development, Youth and Sports.
 I. Lambie, I. Randell / Clinical Psychology Review 33 (2013) 448–459
Altschuler, D. M., & Brash, R. (2004). Adolescent and teenage offenders confronting the
challenges and opportunities of reentry. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(1),
72–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1541204003260048.
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Adolescence (2011). Health care for youth
in the juvenile justice system. Pediatrics, 128(6), 1219–1235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/
peds.2011-1757.
Anderson, C. M., & Ranckin, A. S. (2007). The relation between argumentativeness, ver-
bal aggressiveness, and communication satisfaction in incarcerated male youth.
The Prison Journal, 87(3), 328–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032885507304433.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990).
Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically in-
formed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1745-9125.1990.tb01330.x.
Anthony, E. K., Samples, M. D., de Kervor, D. N., Ituarte, S., Lee, C., & Austin, M. J.
(2010). Coming back home: The reintegration of formerly incarcerated youth
with service implications. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(10), 1271–1277.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.04.018.
Aos, S. (2002). The juvenile justice system in Washington State: Recommendations to im-
prove cost-effectiveness. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Ashkar, P. J., & Kenny, D. T. (2008). Young offenders' subjective experiences of incarcer-
ation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52(5),
584–597.
Ashmore, Z., & Fox, S. (2011). How does the delivery of multisystemic therapy to adolescents
and their families challenge practice in traditional services in the Criminal Justice
System? British Journal of Forensic Practice, 13(1), 25–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.5042/bjfp.
2011.0047.
Austin, J., Johnson, K. D., & Gregoriou, M. (2000). Juveniles in adult prisons and jails: A national
assessment. Rockville, MD: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Institute on
Crime, Justice and Corrections.
Barry, M. (2011). Explaining youth custody in Scotland: The new crisis of containment and
convergence. The Howard Journal, 50(2), 153–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2311.2010.00656.x.
Beck, A. J., Harrison, P. M., & Guerino, P. (2010). Special report: Sexual victimization in
juvenile facilities reported by youth, 2008–09. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Biggam, F. H., & Power, K. G. (2002). A controlled, problem-solving, group based interven-
tion with vulnerable incarcerated young offenders. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(6), 678–698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0306624X02238162.
Bishop, D. M. (2000). Juvenile offenders in the adult criminal system. Crime and Justice,
27, 81–167.
Blomberg, T. G., Bales, W. D., Mann, K., Piquero, A. R., & Berk, R. A. (2011). Incarceration,
education and transition from delinquency. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(4),
355–365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.04.003.
Bonner, R. L. (2006). Stressful segregation housing and psychosocial vulnerability in
prison suicide ideators. Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior, 36(2), 250–254.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/suli.2006.36.2.250.
Borduin, C. M., Schaeffer, C. M., & Heiblum, N. (2009). A randomized clinical trial of
multisystemic therapy with juvenile sexual offenders: Effects on youth social ecol-
ogy and criminal activity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(1),
26–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013035.
Braverman, P. K., & Murray, P. J. (2011). Health care for youth in the juvenile justice
system. Pediatrics, 128(6), 1219–1235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-
1757.
Brazzell, D., Crayton, A., Mukamal, D. A., Solomon, A. L., & Lindahl, N. (2009). From the
classroom to the community: Exploring the role of education during incarceration and
reentry. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Brown, S. L., & Ireland, C. A. (2006). Coping style and distress in newly incarcerated male
adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38(6), 656–661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jadohealth.2005.09.005.
Bullis, M., & Yovanoff, P. (2006). Idle hands: Examination of the community em-
ployment experiences of formerly incarcerated adolescents. Journal of Emo-
tional and Behavioral Disorders, 14(2), 71–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
10634266060140020401.
Carmichael, J. T. (2010). Sentencing disparities for juvenile offenders sentenced to adult
prisons: An individual and contextual analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 747–757.
Cauffman, E. (2004). A statewide screening of mental health symptoms among
juvenile offenders in detention. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 43(4), 430–439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004583-
200404000-00009.
Cauffman, E., Piquero, A. R., Kimonis, E., Steinberg, L., Chassin, L., & Fagan, J. (2007). Legal, in-
dividual, and environmental predictors of court disposition in a sample of serious adoles-
cent offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 31(6), 519–535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10979-006-9076-2.
Chamberlain, P. (1990). Comparative evaluation of specialized foster care for seriously
delinquent youths: A first step. Community Alternatives: International Journal of
Family Care, 2, 21–36.
Chamberlain, P. (2003). Treating chronic juvenile offenders: Advances made through the
Oregon Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care Model. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854807307170.
Chung, H. L., Schubert, C. A., & Mulvey, E. P. (2007). An empirical portrait of com-
munity reentry among serious juvenile offenders in two metropolitan cities.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(11), 1402–1426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0093854807307170.
Cruise, K. R., Evans, L. J., & Pickens, I. B. (2011). Integrating mental health and special
education needs into comprehensive service planning for juvenile offenders in
457
long-term custody settings. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(1), 30–40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.004.
Curtis, N. M., Heiblum, N., Ronan, K. R., & Crellin, K. (2009). Dissemination and effec-
tiveness of multisystemic treatment in New Zealand: A benchmarking study. Jour-
nal of Family Psychology, 23(2), 119–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014974.
Curtis, N. M., Ronan, K. R., & Borduin, C. M. (2004). Multisystemic treatment: A
meta-analysis of outcome studies. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(3), 411–419.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.3.411.
Dishion, T. J., & Dodge, K. A. (2005). Peer contagion in interventions for children and adoles-
cents: Moving towards an understanding of the ecology and dynamics of change. Jour-
nal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(3), 395–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-
005-3579-z.
Dmitrieva, J., Monahan, K. C., Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2012). Arrested development: The
effects of incarceration on the development of psychosocial maturity. Development and
Psychopathology, 24, 1073–1090. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579412000545.
Dodge, K. A., Dishion, T. J., & Lansford, J. E. (Eds.). (2006). Deviant peer influences in
programs for youth. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Domalanta, D. D., Risser, W. L., Roberts, R. E., & Risser, J. M. H. (2003). Prevalence of depression
and other psychiatric disorders among incarcerated youths. Journal of the American Acad-
emy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(4), 477–484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/
01.CHI.0000046819.95464.0B.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999). What works in young offender treatment: A
meta-analysis. Forum on Corrections Research, 11(2), 21–24.
Drug Strategies (2005). Bridging the gap: A guide to drug treatment in the juvenile justice
system. Washington, DC: Author.
Eddy, J. M., & Chamberlain, P. (2000). Family management and deviant peer associa-
tion as mediators of the impact of treatment on youth antisocial behavior. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(5), 857–863. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-006X.68.5.857.
Eddy, J. M., Whaley, R. B., & Chamberlain, P. (2004). The prevention of violent behavior by
chronic and serious male juvenile offenders: A 2-year follow-up of a randomized clinical
trial. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12(1), 2–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
10634266040120010101.
Elliot, D. S. (1994). Serious violent offenders: Onset, developmental course, and termina-
tion—The American Society of Criminology 1993 presidential address. Criminology,
32(1), 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1994.tb01144.x.
Esposito, C. L., & Clum, G. A. (2002). Social support and problem-solving as moderators of the
relationship between childhood abuse and suicidality: Applications to a delinquent
population. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15(2), 137–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:
1014860024980.
Fagan, J. (2008). Juvenile crime and criminal justice: Resolving border disputes. The Fu-
ture of Children, 18(2), 81–118.
Fagan, J. (2010). The contradictions of juvenile crime and punishment. Daedalus — American
Academy of Arts & Sciences, 139(3), 43–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00022.
Fagen, J., & Kupchik, A. (2011). Juvenile incarceration and the pains of imprisonment.
Duke Forum for Law and Social Change, 3, 29–61.
Fazel, S., & Baillargeon, J. (2011). The health of prisoners. The Lancet, 377(9769),
956–965. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61053-7.
Foley, R. M. (2001). Academic characteristics of incarcerated youths and correctional
education programs: A literature review. Journal of Emotional and Behavior Disor-
ders, 9(4), 248–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106342660100900405.
Gaes, G., & Camp, S. D. (2009). Unintended consequences: Experimental evidence for the
criminogenic effect of prison security level placement on post-release recidivism. Journal
of Experimental Criminology, 5(2), 139–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11292-009-
9070-z.
Gardner, J. (2010). Democracy's orphans: Rights, responsibility, and the role of the state in
the lives of incarcerated youth. Youth & Society, 42(1), 81–103. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0044118X09336268.
Gatti, U., Tremblay, R. E., & Vitaro, F. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice. Jour-
nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(8), 991–998. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0044118X09336268.
Giedd, J. N. (2008). The teen brain: Insights from neuroimaging. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 42, 335–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.01.007.
Goren, S. (2001). Healing the victim, the young offender, and the community via restor-
ative justice: An international perspective. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 22(2),
137–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01612840121244.
Greve, W. (2001). Imprisonment of juveniles and adolescents: Deficits and demands for de-
velopmental research. Applied Developmental Science, 5(1), 21–36. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1207/S1532480XADS0501_3.
Griel, L. C., & Loeb, S. J. (2009). Health issues faced by adolescents incarcerated in the juvenile
justice system. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 5(3), 162–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1939-3938.2009.01049.x.
Hales, H., Davison, S., Misch, P., & Taylor, P. J. (2003). Young male prisoners in a Young
Offenders' Institution: Their contact with suicidal behavior by others. Journal
of Adolescence, 26(6), 667–685. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1971(03)
00063-0.
Hartwell, S., Fisher, W. H., & Davis, M. (2010). Emerging adults with psychiatric dis-
abilities involved with the criminal justice system. International Journal of Offend-
er Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(5), 756–768. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0306624X09338018.
Hartwell, S., McMackin, R., Tansi, R., & Bartlett, N. (2010). “I grew up too fast for my age:”
Post discharge issues and experiences of male juvenile offenders. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 49(7), 495–515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2010.510772.
Henderson, C. E., Young, D. W., Jainchill, N., Hawke, J., Farkas, S., & Davis, R. M. (2007). Pro-
gram use of effective drug abuse treatment practices for juvenile offenders. Journal of
Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 279–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2006.12.021.
458 I. Lambie, I. Randell / Clinical Psychology Review 33 (2013) 448–459
Henggeler, S. W. (2003). Advantages and disadvantages of multisystemic therapy and
other evidence-based practices for treating juvenile offenders. Journal of Forensic
Psychology Practice, 3(4), 53–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J158v03n04_04.
Henggeler, S. W. (2004). Decreasing effect sizes for effectiveness studies—Implications
for the transport of evidence-based treatments: Comment on Curtis, Ronan,
and Borduin. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(3), 420–423. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0893-3200.18.3.420.
Henggeler, S. W., Clingempeel, W. G., Brondino, M. J., & Pickrel, S. G. (2002). Four-year
follow-up of multisystemic therapy with substance-abusing and substance-dependent
juvenile offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
41(7), 868–874. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200207000-00021.
Henggeler, S. W., & Schoenwald, S. K. (2011). Social policy report: Evidence-based inter-
ventions for juvenile offenders and juvenile justice policies that support them. Sharing
Child and Youth Development Knowledge, 25(1), 1–16.
Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Borduin, C. M., Rowland, M. D., & Cunningham, P. B.
(2009). Multisystemic therapy for antisocial behavior in children and adolescents
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Henggeler, S. W., & Sheidow, A. J. (2012). Empirically supported family-based treatments
for conduct disorder and delinquency in adolescents. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 38(1), 30–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00244.x.
Hjalmarsson, R. (2009). Juvenile jails: A path to the straight and narrow or to hardened crim-
inality. Journal of Law and Economics, 52(4), 779–810. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/596039.
Holman, B., & Ziedenberg, J. (2006). The dangers of detention: The impact of incarcerat-
ing youth in detention and other secure facilities. Washington, DC: Justice Policy
Institute.
Huey, S. J., Henggeler, S. W., Brondino, M. J., & Pickrel, S. G. (2000). Mechanisms of change
in multisystemic therapy: Reducing delinquent behavior through therapist adherence
and improved family and peer functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psycholo-
gy, 68(3), 451–467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-006X.68.3.451.
Hunter, J. A. (2004). Developmental pathways in youth sexual aggression and delin-
quency: Risk factors and mediators. Journal of Family Violence, 19(4), 233–242.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JOFV.0000032633.37269.1d.
Independent Police Conduct Authority (2012). Joint thematic review of young persons in
police detention. Wellington, NZ: IPCA.
Johnson, T. P., Cho, Y. I., Fendrich, M., Graf, I., Kelly-Wilson, L., & Pickup, L. (2004). Treatment
need and utilization among youth entering the juvenile corrections system. Journal of
Substance Abuse Treatment, 26(2), 117–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0740-5472(03)
00164-8.
Johnson, K., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Woolard, J. (2011). Disregarding graduated treat-
ment: Why transfer aggravates recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 57(5), 756–777.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128708328867.
Jordan, K. L., & Myers, D. L. (2011). Juvenile transfer and deterrence: Reexamining
the effectiveness of a “get-tough” policy. Crime and Delinquency, 57(2), 247–270.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128708319111.
Kiessl, H., & Wurger, M. (2002). Victimization of incarcerated children and juveniles in South
Africa. International Review of Victimology, 9(3), 299–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
026975800200900305.
Kilgore, D., & Meade, S. (2004). “Look what bootcamp's done for me:” Teaching and
learning at Lakeview Academy. Journal of Correctional Education, 55(2), 170–185.
Kiriakidis, S. P. (2008). Bullying and suicide attempts among adolescents kept in custody.
Crisis, 29(4), 216–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910.29.4.216.
Klietz, S. J., Borduin, C. M., & Schaeffer, C. M. (2010). Cost–benefit analysis of multisystemic
therapy with serious and violent juvenile offenders. Journal of Family Psychology,
24(5), 657–666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020838.
Kroll, L., Rothwell, J., Bradley, D., Shah, P., Bailey, S., & Harrington, R. (2002). Mental health
needs of boys in secure care for serious or persistent offending: A prospective, longitudi-
nal study. The Lancet, 359(9322), 1975–1979. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)
08829-3.
Kuanliang, A., Sorensen, J. R., & Cunningham, M. D. (2008). Juvenile inmates in an
adult prison system. Rates of disciplinary misconduct and violence. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 35(9), 1186–1201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854808322744.
Kupchik, A., Fagen, J., & Liberman, A. (2003). Punishment, proportionality, and jurisdic-
tional transfer of adolescent offenders: A test of the leniency gap hypothesis. Stanford
Law and Policy Review, 14, 57.
Lader, D., Singleton, N., & Meltzer, H. (2003). Psychiatric morbidity among young of-
fenders in England and Wales. International Review of Psychiatry, 15(1/2), 144–147.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0954026021000046074.
Lanctôt, N., Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2007). Delinquent behavior, official delin-
quency and gender: Consequences for adult functioning and wellbeing. Criminology,
45(1), 131–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2007.00074.x.
Lane, J., Lanza-Kaduce, L., Frazier, C. E., & Bishop, D. M. (2002). Adult versus juvenile
sanctions: Voices of incarcerated youths. Crime & Delinquency, 48(3), 431–455.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128702048003004.
Lanza-Kaduce, L., Lane, J., Bishop, D. M., & Frazier, C. E. (2005). Juvenile offenders and
adult felony recidivism: The impact of transfer. Journal of Crime & Justice, 28(1),
59–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2005.9721207.
Leone, P. E., Krezmien, M., Mason, L., & Meisel, S. M. (2005). Organizing and delivering
empirically based literacy instruction to incarcerated youth. Exceptionality, 13(2),
89–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex1302_3.
Letourneau, E., Henggeler, S., Borduin, C., Schewe, P., McCart, M., Chapman, J., et al.
(2009). Multisystemic therapy for juvenile sexual offenders: 1-Year results
from a randomized effectiveness trial. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(1), 89–102.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014352.
Leve, L. D., & Chamberlain, P. (2005). Association with delinquent peers: Intervention
effects for youth in the juvenile justice system. Journal of Abnormal Child Psycholo-
gy, 33(3), 339–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-005-3571-7.
Levitt, L. (2010). The comparative risk of mistreatment for juveniles in detention facil-
ities and state prisons. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 9(1), 44–54.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2010.483344.
Lipsey, M. W. (2006). The effects of community-based group treatment for delinquency: A
meta-analytic search for cross-study generalizations. In K. A. Dodge, T. J. Dishion, & J. E.
Lansford (Eds.), Deviant peer influences in programs for youth (pp. 162–184) New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with
juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4(1), 24–147.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564880802612573.
Little, M. (2006) A social development model of incarceration on juvenile offenders' social
network support, exposure to antisocial peers, aggressive offending and psychological
adjustment. (Doctoral Dissertation). Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
Loeber, R., Burke, J. D., & Pardini, D. A. (2009). Development and etiology of disrup-
tive and delinquent behavior. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 291–310.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153631.
Loughran, T. A., Mulvey, E. P., Schubert, C. A., Chassin, L. A., Steinberg, L., Piquero, A. R.,
et al. (2010). Differential effects of adult court transfer on juvenile offender recidi-
vism. Law and Human Behavior, 34(6), 476–488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-
009-9210-z.
Loughran, T. A., Mulvey, E. P., Schulbert, C. A., Fagan, J., Piquero, A. R., & Losoya, S. H. (2009).
Estimating a dose-response relationship between length of stay and future recidivism
in serious juvenile offenders. Criminology, 47(3), 699–740. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1745-9125.2009.00165.x.
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 and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 43(10), 1215–1224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000134489.58054.9c.
McGloin, J. M. (2009). Delinquency balance: Revisiting peer influence. Criminology,
47(2), 439–477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00146.x.
Mears, D. P. (2003). A critique of waiver research: Critical next steps in assessing the im-
pacts of laws for transferring juveniles to the criminal justice system. Youth Violence
and Juvenile Justice, 1(2), 156–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1541204002250876.
Mears, D. P., & Travis, J. (2004). Youth development and reentry. Youth Violence and Ju-
venile Justice, 2(1), 3–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1541204003260044.
Mendel, R. A. (2011). No place for kids: The case for reducing juvenile incarceration. Balti-
more, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation (Retrieved from www.aecf.org/
noplaceforkids/)
Mildred, J., & Plummer, C. A. (2009). Responding to child sexual abuse in the United
States and Kenya: Child protection and children's rights. Children and Youth Ser-
vices Review, 31(6), 601–608.
Miller, G. (2012). Supreme Court cites science in limiting punishments for juveniles.
Science, 337, 25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.337.6090.25.
Minor, K. I., Wells, J. B., & Angel, E. (2008). Recidivism among juvenile offenders following
release from residential placements: Multivariate predictors and gender differences.
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 46(3/4), 171–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10509670802143474.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behav-
iour: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701.
Monahan, K. C., Goldweber, A., & Cauffman, E. (2011). The effects of visitation on incarcerated
juvenile offenders: How contact with the outside impacts adjustment on the inside. Law
and Human Behavior, 35(2), 143–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9220-x.
Moretti, M. M., Jackson, M., & Obsuth, I. (2009). Translating research into intervention:
Lessons learned and new directions. Court Review, 46, 58–63.
Mulvey, E. P. (2011). Highlights from pathways to desistance: A longitudinal study of se-
rious adolescent offenders. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice.
Mulvey, E. P., & Schubert, C. A. (2012). Transfer of juveniles to adult court: Effects of a
broad policy in one court. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juve-
nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U. S. Department of Justice.
Muncie, J. (2009). The United Nations, children's rights and juvenile justice. In W. Taylor,
R. Earle, & R. Hester (Eds.), Youth justice handbook: Theory, policy and practice
(pp. 20–21) Cullompton: Willan.
Murrie, D. C., Henderson, C. E., Vincent, G. M., Rockett, J. L., & Mundt, C. (2009). Psychiatric
symptoms among juveniles incarcerated in adult prison. Psychiatric Services, 60(8),
1092–1097.
Myers, D. L. (2003). The recidivism of violent youths in juvenile and adult court: A
consideration of selection bias. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1(1),
79–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1541204002238365.
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (2004). Criminal neglect: Substance
abuse, juvenile justice and the children left behind. New York, NY: Columbia
University.
Ng, I., Shen, X., Sim, H., Sarri, R., Stoffregen, E., & Shook, J. J. (2011). Incarcerating juve-
niles in adult prisons as a factor in depression. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health,
21(1), 21–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cbm.783.
Nock, M. K., & Ferriter, C. (2005). Parent management of attendance and adherence in
child and adolescent therapy: A conceptual and empirical review. Clinical Child and
Family Psychology Review, 8, 149–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10567-005-4753-0.
Odgers, C. L., Moretti, M. M., & Reppucci, N. D. (2009). A review of findings from the
“gender and aggression project” informing juvenile justice policy and practice
through gender-sensitive research. Court Review, 46, 6–8.
Ogden, T., & Hagen, K. A. (2006). Multisystemic treatment of serious behavior problems in
youth: Sustainability of effectiveness two years after intake. Child and Adolescent Men-
tal Health, 11(3), 142–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2006.00396.x.
Ogden, T., & Halliday-Boykins, C. A. (2004). Multisystemic treatment of antisocial adoles-
cents in Norway: Replication of clinical outcomes outside of the US. Child and Adoles-
cent Mental Health, 9(2), 77–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2004.00085.x.
 I. Lambie, I. Randell / Clinical Psychology Review 33 (2013) 448–459
Osgood, D. W., & Briddell, L. (2006). Peer effects in juvenile justice. In K. A. Dodge, T. J.
Dishion, & J. E. Lansford (Eds.), Deviant peer influences in programs for youth
(pp. 141–161) New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Ou, S., & Reynolds, A. J. (2010). Childhood predictors of young adult male crime. Chil-
dren and Youth Services Review, 32(8), 1097–1107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.childyouth.2010.02.009.
Penn, J. V., Esposito, C. L., Schaeffer, L. E., Fritz, G. K., & Spirito, A. (2003). Suicide attempts
and self-mutilative behavior in a juvenile correctional facility. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(7), 762–769. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1097/01.CHI.0000046869.56865.46.
Puzzanchera, C., Adams, B., & Sickmund, M. (2010). Juvenile court statistics, 2006–2007.
Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
Puzzanchera, C., & Kang, W. (2011). Easy access to juvenile court statistics: 1985–2009.
Online, Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/
Rapp-Paglicci, L. A. (2007). Treatment of mentally ill juvenile offenders. In D. Springer,
& A. Roberts (Eds.), Handbook of forensic mental health with victims and offenders
(pp. 347–362) New York, NY: Springer.
Redding, R. E. (2003). The effects of adjudicating and sentencing juveniles as adults:
Research and policy implications. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1(2), 128–
155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1541204002250875.
Robertson, A. A., Dill, P. L., Husain, J., & Undesser, C. (2004). Prevalence of mental illness
and substance abuse disorders among incarcerated juvenile offenders in Mississippi.
Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 35(1), 55–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:
CHUD.0000039320.40382.91.
Robins, S. J., Odgers, C. L., & Russell, M. A. (2009). Incarcerated girls' physical health: Can the
juvenile justice system help to reduce long-term health costs? Court Review, 46, 30–35.
Russell, M. A., & Marston, E. G. (2009). Profiles of mental disorder among incarcerated
adolescent females. Court Review, 46, 16–23.
Sabol, W. J., West, H. C., & Cooper, M. (2009). Prisoners in 2008. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bul-
letin (Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1763)
Sawyer, A. M., & Borduin, C. M. (2011). Effects of multisystemic therapy through mid-
life: A 21.9-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial with serious and violent
juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(5), 643–652.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024862.
Schaeffer, C. M., & Borduin, C. M. (2005). Long-term follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of
multisystemic therapy with serious and violent juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 445–453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.445.
Schubert, C. A., Mulvey, E. P., Loughran, T. A., Fagan, J., Chassin, L. A., Piquero, A. R., et al.
(2010). Predicting outcomes for youth transferred to adult court. Law and Human
Behavior, 34(6), 460–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9209-5.
Scott, S. (2008). An update on interventions for conduct disorder. Advances in Psychiat-
ric Treatment, 14, 61–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/apt.bp. 106.002626.
Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2008). Adolescent development and the regulation of youth
crime. The Future of Children, 18(2), 15–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0011.
Shahinfar, A., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Matza, L. S. (2001). The relation between exposure to vio-
lence and social information processing among incarcerated adolescents. Journal of Ab-
normal Psychology, 110(1), 136–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.110.1.136.
Shulman, E. P., & Cauffman, E. (2011). Coping while incarcerated: A study of male juvenile
offenders. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(4), 818–826. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00740.x.
Sickmund, M. (2004). Juveniles in corrections. Juvenile offenders and victims national report
seriesWashington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Sickmund, M. (2010). Juveniles in residential placement, 1997–2008. OJJDP Fact Sheet.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juve-
nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/
ojstatbb/publications)
Siegel, L. J., & Welsh, B. C. (2008). Juvenile delinquency: The core (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Thompson Higher Education.
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 National Re-
port. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preventions.
Soler, M. (2002). Health issues for adolescents in the justice system. Journal of Adoles-
cent Health, 31(6), 321–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00494-9.
459
Spear, P. (2000). The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations. Neurosci-
ence and Biobehavioral Reviews, 24(4), 417–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-
7634(00)00014-2.
Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking.
Developmental Review, 28, 78–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002.
Steinberg, L. (2009). Should the science of adolescent brain development inform public
policy? American Psychologist, 64(8), 739–750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.64.8.739.
Steinberg, L. (2010). A behavioral scientist looks at the science of adolescent brain de-
velopment. Brain and Cognition, 72(1), 160–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.bandc.2009.11.003.
Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., Woolard, J., Graham, S., & Banich, M. (2009). Are adoles-
cents less mature than adults? Minors' access to abortion, the juvenile death
penalty, and the alleged APA “flip-flop”. American Psychologist, 64(7),
583–594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014763.
Steinberg, L., Chung, H., & Little, M. (2004). Reentry of young offenders from the jus-
tice system: A developmental perspective. Youth Violence and Justice, 2(1), 21–38.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1541204003260045.
Steinberg, L., Graham, S., O'Brien, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., & Banich, M. (2009). Age
differences in future orientation and delay discounting. Child Development, 80(1),
28–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01244.x.
Steinberg, L., & Scott, E. S. (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence: Developmental imma-
turity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. American Psychologist,
58(12), 1009–1018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.12.1009.
Storm, K. J. (2000). Profile of state prisoners under age 18, 1985–97. Bureau of Justice Statis-
tics Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Wei, E., Loeber, R., & Masten, A. (2004). Desistance from per-
sistent serious delinquency in the transition to adulthood. Development and Psy-
chopathology, 16, 897–918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579404040064.
Thomas, C. R., & Penn, J. V. (2002). Juvenile justice mental health services. Child and Ad-
olescent Psychiatric Clinics, 11(4), 731–748.
Tie, D., & Waugh, E. (2001). Prison youth vulnerability scale: Administration and technical
manual. New Zealand: Department of Corrections Psychological Service.
Timmons-Mitchell, J., Bender, M. B., Kishna, M. A., & Mitchell, C. C. (2006). An inde-
pendent effectiveness trial of multisystemic therapy with juvenile justice
youth. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35(2), 227–236.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3502_6.
United Nations (1989). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. NY:
United Nations.
Van Ryzin, M. J., & Leve, L. D. (2012). Affiliation with delinquent peers as a mediator of
the effects of multidimensional treatment foster care for delinquent girls. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027336 (Advance
online publication).
Veneziano, C., Veneziano, L., & Gill, A. (2000). Perceptions of the juvenile justice sys-
tem among adult prison inmates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 32(3), 53–61.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J076v32n03_04.
Vermeiren, R., Jespers, I., & Moffit, T. (2006). Mental health problems in juvenile jus-
tice populations. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 333.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2005.11.008.
Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Weiss, B., Caron, A., Ball, S., Tapp, J., Johnson, M., & Weisz, J. R. (2005). Iatrogenic effects
of group treatment for antisocial youth. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psycholo-
gy, 73(6), 1036–1044. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1036.
Wolff, N., Shi, J., & Siegel, J. A. (2009). Patterns of victimization among male and female
inmates: Evidence of an enduring legacy. Violence and Victims, 24(4), 469–484.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.24.4.469.
Woolard, J. L., Odgers, C., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Daglis (2005). Juveniles within adult correc-
tional settings: Legal pathways and developmental considerations. International Jour-
nal of Forensic Mental Health, 4(1), 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2005.
10471209.
Workman, K. (2011). Walking into the future backwards: Reflections on youth
institutionalisation. Rethinking Crime and Punishment, 85, 2.