This longitudinal study of the community adjustment of 531 youth exiting Oregon's juvenile justice system focused on youth categorized as being in either low or high socioeconomic status (SES) groups. The team gathered data before participants exited the corrections system and afterwards by telephone interviews. The study found no statistical difference between the 2 groups in terms of rate of return to the correctional system. Engagement in school and/or work at 6 months postexit was statistically related to similar engagement at 12 months, especially for the high SES group. Receiving community services at 6 months postexit was associated with a lower rate of return for youth from the high SES group, but not for youth from the low SES.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeyersJ. M., LoeberR., WikstromP. H., & Stouthamer-LoeberM. (2001). What predicts adolescent violence in better-off neighborhoods?Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 369–381.
2.
BlackorbyJ., & WagnerM. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study.Exceptional Children, 62, 399–414.
3.
BullisM., BullB., JohnsonP., & JohnsonB. (1994). Identifying and assessing the community-based social behaviors of adolescents and young adults with emotional and behavioral disorders.Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2, 173–189.
4.
BullisM., & DavisC. (1997). Further examination of community-based social skills measures for adolescents and young adults with emotional and behavioral disorders.Behavioral Disorders, 23, 29–39.
5.
BullisM., YovanoffP., & HavelE. (2004). The importance of getting started right: Further examination of the community engagement of formerly incarcerated youth.The Journal of Special Education, 38, 80–94.
6.
BullisM., YovanoffP., HavelM. E., & MuellerG. (2001). Transition research on adjudicated adolescents in community settings: Final report on the TRACS project.Eugene: Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior, University of Oregon.
7.
DeStefanoL., & WagnerM. (1992). Outcome assessment in special education: What lessons have we learned? In RuschF., DeStefanoL., Chadsey-RuschJ., PhelpsL., & SzymanskiE. (Eds.), Transition from school to adult life (pp. 173–207). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
8.
FultonS., & SabornieE. (1994). Evidence of employment inequality among females with disabilities.The Journal of Special Education, 28, 149–165.
9.
GallagherC. A. (1999, March), Juvenile offenders in residential placement, 1997. OJJDP Fact Sheet.Washington, DC: U.S. Deptartment of Justice, Office of Juvenile Delinquency Prevention.
10.
HollingsheadA. (1975). Four factor index of social status.New Haven, CT: Yale University, Department of Sociology.
11.
HosmerD., & LemeshowS. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
12.
JessorR., DonovanJ., & CostaF. (1991). Beyond adolescence: Problem behavior and young adult development.New York: Cambridge University Press.
13.
LeoneP. E., MeiselS. M., & DrakefordW. (2002). Special education programs for youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections.Journal of Correctional Education, 53, 46–50.
14.
LoeberR., & WikstromP. O. (1993). Individual pathways to crime in different types of neighborhoods. In FarringtonD. P., SampsonR. J., & WilkstromP. O. (Eds.), Integrating individual and ecological aspects of crime (pp. 169–204). Stockholm: National Council for Crime Prevention.
15.
LudwigJ., DuncanG. J., & HirschfieldP. (2001). Urban poverty and juvenile crime: Evidence from a housing-mobility experiment.The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 655–679.
16.
MacMillianD., & ReschlyD. (1998). Overrepresentation of minority students: The case for greater specificity or reconsideration of the variables examined.The Journal of Special Education, 32, 15–24.
17.
MenhardS. (1990). Longitudinal research.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
PampelF. (2000). Logistic regression: A primer (Sage University papers series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, series no. 07–132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
PeeplesF., & LoeberR. (1994). Do individual factors and neighborhood context explain ethnic differences in juvenile delinquency?Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 141–157.
21.
QuayH. (1986). Conduct disorders. In QuayH., & WerryJ. (Eds.), Psychopathological disorders of childhood (3rd ed., pp. 35–72). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
22.
ReimanJ. (1998). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class, and criminal justice (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
23.
RudasT. (1998). Odds ratios in the analysis of contingency tables. (Sage University papers series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, series no. 07–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
SampsonR. J., RaudenbushS. W., & EarlsF. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy.Science, 277, 918–924.
ThompsonB. (1999). Improving research clarity and usefulness with effect size indices as supplements to statistical significance tests.Exceptional Children, 65, 329–338.
27.
Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations.American Psychologist, 54, 594–604.
