996386

research-article2021
YASXXX10.1177/0044118X21996386Youth & SocietyLee et al.

Article
Youth & Society
1­–28
Who Will Become © The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
Productive Adults? sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0044118X21996386
https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X21996386
Longitudinal Patterns journals.sagepub.com/home/yas

of Gainful Activities
Among Serious
Adolescent Offenders

JoAnn S. Lee1 , Faye S. Taxman1,

Edward P. Mulvey2, and Carol A. Schubert2

Abstract
The juvenile justice system is charged with the welfare of the children
it serves, yet less is known about the prosocial behaviors of adolescent
youthful offenders. This study identifies patterns of prosocial behavior for
7 years among serious adolescent offenders, the correlates of each pattern,
and associated patterns of secure placement. Using 7 years of monthly
data from the Pathways to Desistance Study (N = 1,354), we used group-
based trajectory models to identify longitudinal patterns of positive youth
behaviors related to school and work among serious adolescent offenders
and a joint trajectory model to assess the relationship between trajectories
of institutional placement and positive youth behaviors. Four groups were
identified that demonstrated a high, low, medium, and dips-then-rises
likelihood of gainful activities throughout the study period. Gainful activities
were negatively associated with risk for delinquency across multiple domains.
Juvenile justice interventions should consider prosocial promise in addition
to risk for delinquency.

1George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

2University of Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:
JoAnn S. Lee, Department of Social Work, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive,
MSN 1F8, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA.
Email: jlee120@gmu.edu
2 Youth & Society 00(0)

Keywords
trajectories, life-course theory, incarceration, desistance from crime,
juvenile delinquency

In 2017, 43,580 youth were in residential placement in the United States

(Sickmund et al., 2019). In spite of this relatively high reliance on institu-
tional care in the United States (Hazel, 2008), juvenile justice intervention
does not clearly facilitate desistance, and instead, possibly has a harmful
effect (Barrick, 2014; Gilman et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2017; Murray et al.,
2014). Yet, beyond the impact of juvenile justice intervention on desistance,
there remains the developmental question as to how justice practices can best
be delivered to foster healthy adolescent development that contributes to
adult productivity. We lack systematic knowledge of how juvenile justice
secure placement may contribute to the later success for these young people.
For example, among serious adolescent offenders, around 80% eventually
desist (Piquero et al., 2013), but the impact of juvenile justice interventions
on outcomes is highly variable and equivocal (Mulvey et al., 2010). Improving
policies to promote positive youth behaviors and development is wise not
only from the “do no harm” perspective, but also from a practical standpoint
regarding policies that should reduce the burden of unproductive citizens to
taxpayers through loss of taxes from future wages and potential costs in terms
of public assistance (Apel & Sweeten, 2010; Gilman et al., 2015).
This study contributes to our understanding of which serious adolescent
offenders are most likely to become productive adults by identifying longitu-
dinal patterns of employment and school attendance (referred to as gainful
activities) during the transition to adulthood. Limited educational attainment
and uneven employment histories during the transition to adulthood period
are strong predictors of later offending (Aaltonen et al., 2011). This study
explores the factors in adolescence that may differ between our identified
trajectory groups and how longitudinal patterns of gainful activities com-
pares to contemporaneous longitudinal patterns of secure placement.

Theoretical Rationale
We take a developmental approach in order to identify how to best support
healthy development. Developmental criminology, which focuses on explain-
ing intra-individual differences, has garnered less overall attention (Sampson
& Laub, 1997). Criminologists have applied the life course perspective to
generate developmental theories of deviance (Moffitt, 1993; Sampson &
Lee et al. 3

Laub, 1990, 1997; Thornberry, 1987). This perspective acknowledges an

individual’s agency while recognizing that individuals are embedded within
social relationships (Elder, 1994). In the life course perspective, “trajectories
can be charted by linking states across successive years, the states of employ-
ment, for example” (Elder, 1985, p. 31). Within trajectories, “turning points
[are] a change in course” (Elder, 1985, p. 32). Thus, identifying both trajec-
tories and turning points of gainful activities can help identify factors that
distinguish between those who become productive adults, thereby identifying
potential targets for intervention.
Moffit’s (1993) classic work has posited a dual developmental taxonomy
which differentiates between individuals who engage in life-course persistent
and adolescence-limited antisocial behaviors. Moffit (1993) argues that indi-
viduals who engage in life-course-persistent antisocial behavior experience
cumulative and contemporary consequences that result from an individual’s
interactions with their environment, which maintain the antisocial behavior
throughout the life-course, although the behaviors change in each develop-
mental stage. In contrast, individuals who engage in adolescence-limited
antisocial behavior experience a maturity gap in adolescence, during which
they experience biological adulthood but are not socially recognized adults
(Moffitt, 1993). Thus, these individuals engage in mimicry of their life-
course-persistent peers that appear more adult-like (Moffitt, 1993). A recent
study that employed computer simulation to examine Moffit’s dual taxonomy
was able to generate the results predicted by Moffit, yet their intervention
analysis suggested that individuals can move between the two groups (Leaw
et al., 2015).
Other developmental criminologists have provided a unified theory about
the “dynamic processes that alter future outcomes” (Sampson & Laub, 1997,
p. 2). A developmental theory which focuses on the interactions between an
individual and their social environment to explain both continuity and
changes in delinquent behavior is Thornberry’s (1987; Thornberry & Krohn,
2005; Thornberry et al., 1991) interactional theory of delinquency. In addi-
tion to taking a life course perspective, a key premise of interactional theory
is bidirectional causality (Thornberry & Krohn, 2005). This is similar to other
theorists’ description of an individual’s interaction with others, such as
Moffit’s (1993) description of cumulative and contemporary consequences of
an individual’s behaviors and Sampson and Laub’s (1997) description of
cumulative and interactional continuity. Yet, in interactional theory, not only
do factors from an individual’s social context change the risk for youth delin-
quency, but the youth’s decision to engage in delinquent behavior has causal
implications for their lives by closing (or opening) opportunities (Thornberry
& Krohn, 2005). Thus, interactional theory points to the importance of
4 Youth & Society 00(0)

examining not only antisocial trajectories, but also prosocial trajectories

since these provide an indication of the opportunities the individual has been
able to maintain. In other words, antisocial and prosocial trajectories are
intertwined.

Juvenile Justice and Education and Employment Outcomes

The evidence associating juvenile justice interventions with negative educa-
tional and employment outcomes is robust. Juvenile justice interventions are
associated with a higher likelihood of high school dropout and lower rates of
college enrollment (Aizer & Doyle, 2015; Hjalmarsson, 2008; Kirk &
Sampson, 2013; Sweeten, 2006; Tanner et al., 1999; Widdowson et al., 2016).
It is important to note, however, that these associations between juvenile jus-
tice involvement and educational and employment outcomes may be heavily
influenced by selection bias. Youth involved with the juvenile justice system
may have traits that would predispose them to poor educational or employ-
ment outcomes.
Studies have used advanced statistical techniques to address potential
selection bias, and have found evidence of a causal effect of secure juvenile
placement on reducing the likelihood of high school graduation (Hjalmarsson,
2008). One study used an instrumental variable approach by exploiting the
random assignment of judges, using the judge’s tendency for sentencing as an
instrumental variable (Aizer & Doyle, 2015). Using 10 years of administra-
tive data following 35,000 youth in Chicago, IL, Aizer and Doyle found that
secure juvenile placement reduced the likelihood of high school graduation
by 13 percentage points. This study suggests that youth are unlikely to return
to school after incarceration, or if they do, they are often placed into an alter-
native educational program.
Similarly, the evidence supports a negative association between secure
placement and employment outcomes (Apel & Sweeten, 2010; Bernburg &
Krohn, 2003; Huebner, 2005). One study used propensity score matching and
fixed-effects models to address potential selection bias. Apel and Sweeten
(2010) used the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY97) and found
that a youth’s first secure juvenile placement was associated with a reduction
in the likelihood of formal employment by 11 percentage points. These few
studies provide evidence that there is a causal relationship between juvenile
secure placement and negative education and employment outcomes. While
the association between secure placement and both education and employ-
ment outcomes is robust, less is known about education and employment
experiences during the transition to adulthood, and how these experiences
may be co-produced with experiences of secure placement.
Lee et al. 5

Given the importance of acquiring human capital during adolescence in

preparation for becoming independent adults, disruptions may have an espe-
cially deleterious effect on later outcomes. Juvenile justice interventions may
have a stronger negative effect on youth than criminal justice interventions
on adults (Barrick, 2014). For example, juvenile detention has a stronger
negative effect on later offending among 15 and 16 year olds (Aizer & Doyle,
2015). Longitudinal studies that follow youth over time can provide addi-
tional insight into how disruptions impact youth, moving beyond the mere
understanding that there is a negative impact. Rather, the emphasis can be on
the nature and type of the impact, and the factors that differentiate youth who
are likely to follow distinct trajectories of school and work over time.
Collectively these can assist with helping to target appropriate interventions.

Other Correlates of Education and Employment Outcomes

While juvenile justice interventions may have a negative effect on education
and employment income, other factors are also related to both juvenile jus-
tice involvement and education and employment outcomes. Race, neighbor-
hood, and socioeconomic status are highly correlated with each other and
with both juvenile justice involvement, education, and employment out-
comes (Sampson et al., 2002). This reflects Sampson et al. (2002) conclu-
sion that there is social inequality between neighborhoods, and that social
problems cluster within neighborhoods. Moreover, these findings have been
robust with variations in how neighborhoods have been defined and opera-
tionalized (Sampson et al., 2002).
There are several hypothesized mechanisms that operate in disadvan-
taged neighborhoods and contribute to individual outcomes, which include
neighborhood disorganization, both social and physical (Sampson et al.,
2002; Wodtke et al., 2011). One study found that concentrated disadvan-
taged was a predictor of secure detention (Rodriguez, 2013). In part, this
was because court officials preferred to remove youth from neighborhoods
that they perceived to provide few prosocial and many antisocial opportuni-
ties (Rodriguez, 2013). Thus, given the geographic isolation of African
Americans (Sampson et al., 2002), it is not surprising that race is also highly
correlated with juvenile justice involvement. Youth of color are more likely
to be placed in secure detention (Rodriguez, 2013), comprise the majority
(67%) of youth in residential placement, and were detained longer than
white youth (Hockenberry, 2020).
The high correlations between race and neighborhood with both education
and employment outcomes contribute to the difficulty in disentangling the
unique effect of each factor. There has been a racial gap in educational
6 Youth & Society 00(0)

attainment where fewer black young adults complete college than white
young adults (Aud et al., 2010; McDaniel et al., 2011). In turn, educational
attainment is associated with employment outcomes: among men with bach-
elor’s degrees, black men had lower employment rates than white men
(McDaniel et al., 2011). Furthermore, neighborhood disadvantage is also
associated with worse education and employment outcomes. Growing up in
a disadvantaged neighborhood was associated with a reduced likelihood of
high school graduation, ranging from 96 to 76% reduced probability of grad-
uation (Wodtke et al., 2011). Similarly, in the Moving to Opportunity study,
if children moved to a low-poverty neighborhood prior to turning 13, they
reported higher college attendance and increased earnings (31% higher)
(Chetty et al., 2015).
The concentration of neighborhood disadvantage results in the concentra-
tion of families of lower socioeconomic status (SES). Also related to both
neighborhood disadvantage and parental SES are an individual’s intelligence.
SES is correlated with brain functioning, specifically language and executive
functions (Hackman & Farah, 2009). These deficits may contribute to the
association between SES and academic achievemen—SES has been found to
have a medium effect on academic achievement (Sirin, 2005). Similarly, pov-
erty has been found to be related to lower IQ and poor academic achievement
(McLoyd, 1998), and intelligence is a promotive factor against offending and
violent behavior (Ttofi et al., 2016). Thus, race, socioeconomic status, neigh-
borhood context, and individual IQ are related to juvenile justice outcomes as
well as gainful activities.

The Current Study

In the current study, we used group-based trajectory modeling to identify lon-
gitudinal patterns of gainful activities among a sample of serious adolescent
offenders. These are the youth most likely to receive the most stringent sanc-
tions (e.g., secure placement); differentiating effects among these youths is
more useful than comparing them to a general population of youth who com-
mit minor offenses that might be considered “normative” adolescent behavior
(such as experimenting with alcohol). Next, we identified correlational differ-
ences in factors related to risk for offending, education, and employment out-
comes, including risk scores based on a standardized risk assessment. Finally,
we estimated joint trajectories to identify the association between these longi-
tudinal patterns of gainful activities and concurrent trajectories of institutional
placement identified in a prior study (Lee et al., 2018). Thus, we also sought
to develop a picture of how these prosocial and antisocial phenomena co-
develop during the transition to adulthood.
Lee et al. 7

Method
Data
The Pathways to Desistance study consists of 1,354 youth (654 in Maricopa
County, Arizona and 700 in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania) who were
between 14 and 18 years of age who had committed a serious offense and
were found guilty (Mulvey et al., 2004; Schubert et al., 2004). These youth
were first interviewed in 2000 to 2003 and followed for 7 years, when partici-
pants were 21 to 25 years old. An average of 90% of the sample was inter-
viewed at each follow-up interview.
The Pathways to Desistance study includes monthly calendar data about
gainful activities and time spent in secure placement, which enabled us to
estimate longitudinal patterns at a finely grained focus. The data used for the
current analyses were downloaded from the Inter-university Consortium for
Political and Social Research (Mulvey, 2013, 2017). The majority of the
study participants are male (86.4%), and the sample is diverse (20.2% white,
41.4% black, 33.5% Hispanic).

Measures
The key variable was the monthly measure of gainful activities: regular
school attendance or at least part-time employment. This is a prosocial mea-
sure of the youth’s acquisition of human capital. Regular school attendance
was defined as not missing more than 5 days for the month, and was con-
structed from a youth’s responses to questions about enrollment, suspensions
and expulsions, and whether they missed five or more days of school that
month for any reason. A youth was classified as having at least part-time
work if they worked two or more weeks of a month for at least 20 or more
hours per week. This was constructed from a youth’s responses to questions
about whether they had a job, and if so, how many weeks and how many
hours per week. If a youth met criteria for regular school attendance or at
least part-time employment, they were coded as having engaged in gainful
activities for the month (=1). If the youth was in an institution for more than
7 days of the month, they were coded as missing for that month.
The second key variable was the proportion of time the youth spent in a
secure residential facility, defined as a facility which does not permit the
youth to interact with the community (see Mulvey et al., 2007 for a more
detailed description and examples). This variable had values that ranged from
0 (no time spent in detention secure facility) to 1 (the whole time spent in a
secure facility) or any range of values between.
8 Youth & Society 00(0)

We looked at numerous potential predictors of group membership in the

school and employment gainful activities trajectories. These variables were
measured at baseline to gain a better understanding of what differentiated
these groups prior to their current episode with the juvenile justice system.
Descriptive statistics for these variables are presented in the first column of
Table 2.
Individual demographic characteristics included gender, age, and race/
ethnicity. Gender and race/ethnicity are correlated with education and
employment outcomes in early adulthood (Danziger & Ratner, 2010). Gender
was coded as male (=1) or female (=0). Age was coded based on how the
system was likely to respond to the youth, whether ages 14 to 15 (=1) or age
16 (=1) compared to older adolescents ages 17 to 19 (= 0). Race/ethnicity was
coded with several dichotomous indicators where white (=0) was the refer-
ence group, and the indictors were black (=1), Hispanic (=1), or other race
(=1).
Information on their involvement with the juvenile justice system was
examined. The grade of the most serious charge indicated whether the youth
was charged with a felony or misdemeanor, where the most serious offenses
had the lowest values. The number of petitions, including the current petition,
was based on court records and ranged from 1 to 15. These provide measures
of delinquency and potential disruptions that may impact the youth’s oppor-
tunities, and thus contribute to a lower likelihood of prosocial behaviors.
Although standardized risk assessments were not administered to the par-
ticipants in the study, risk scores created for a previous study were examined
(Mulvey et al., 2016). The risk scores were derived from multiple sources of
information collected in the Pathways interview, and approximated the Youth
Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS:CMI). In addition to a
total risk score, the subscales for eight domains were also examined: offense
history, family characteristics/parenting, education/employment, peer rela-
tions, substance abuse, leisure/recreation, personality/behavior, and attitudes/
orientation. Risk scores predict offending behavior and often inform deci-
sions at several points in the juvenile justice system. Thus, understanding
how these risk scores may be related to patterns of gainful activities has pol-
icy and program implications.
A measure of intelligence was based on the vocabulary and matrix reason-
ing subtests of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI;
Wechsler, 1999) with values ranging from 55 to 128. IQ is related to delin-
quent behaviors and success in schools, and thus likely would be related to
gainful activities.
We included measures of mental and behavioral health, since youth
involved in the juvenile justice system report high levels of unmet service
Lee et al. 9

needs (Maschi et al., 2008; Mulvey et al., 2007), and mental health disorders
have been found to be related to educational attainment (Schubert et al.,
2018). Untreated mental and behavioral health symptoms provide a measure
of individual functioning across multiple domains, and thus is likely to be
related to gainful activities. Two measures of mental health were taken from
the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI; (World Health
Organization, 1990): a count of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symp-
toms ever present (values ranged from 0 to 17) and a measure of major
depressive disorder (MDD) symptoms ever present (values ranged from 0 to
9). We used symptom counts to provide a measure of gradations of function-
ing rather than whether youth crossed a diagnostic threshold. Diagnosis of
PTSD and MDD were low (6.4% and 7.2%, respectively), thus symptom
counts provided more variability. Finally, we included a measure of the con-
sequences of substance use, which was a modified version of the Substance
Use/Abuse Inventory (Chassin et al., 1991). The lifetime total consequences
scale had values that ranged from 0 to 16.
Two measures were related to the adolescent’s school risk factors, which
would be correlated with gainful activities during the transition to adulthood.
Two dichotomous variables measured the youth’s involvement in school:
whether the youth was enrolled (=1) or had ever been expelled (=1) from
school. Two variables measured the youth’s attachment along two dimen-
sions: teachers (alpha = .65) and school orientation (alpha = .83). These two
bonding variables were based on 13 items rated on a scale from 1 to 5
(Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992).
There were three measures of the youth’s family risk factors. A measure of
maternal warmth (alpha = .92) indicated the youth’s attachment to this pri-
mary family figure, and was measured with the Quality of Parental
Relationships Inventory (Conger et al., 1994). Two measures provided an
indication of the family’s resources and structure, as families provide impor-
tant resources that can facilitate a successful transition to adulthood
(Waithaka, 2014). The parental index of social position was computed using
the Hollingshead (1975) formula, based on both parent education and occu-
pation. Higher values indicated lower socioeconomic status, and values
ranged from 11 to 77. A dichotomous variable also indicated whether the
youth was from a single parent household (=1).
There were two measures from the Neighborhood Conditions Measure
(Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999), ratings of both social (alpha = .87) and
physical (alpha = .91) conditions in the neighborhood. Neighborhoods pro-
vide employment opportunities for youth, and thus youth from more disorga-
nized neighborhoods are less likely to be engaged in gainful activities. The
scale of physical disorder consists of 12 questions, such as graffiti or
10 Youth & Society 00(0)

cigarettes on the street. The scale of social disorder consists of nine questions
about neighborhood activities, such as whether adults fight or there are peo-
ple using needles or syringes. Higher values indicated greater disorder.
Site was coded as a dichotomous variable: Philadelphia County = 1 and
Maricopa County = 0. Indicators for each of the four interview years (2000–
2003) were also included.

Analytic Approach
Using the monthly gainful activities dichotomous variable over the course of
87 months, we used GBTM to estimate trajectories of gainful activities.
Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) assumes clusters of developmen-
tal trajectories that may reflect distinct etiologies, in contrast to latent growth
analysis, which assumes a common process of growth with individual vari-
ability (Nagin, 2005). We estimated models based on study time, where
month 1 represented the first month the youth was in the study. We were
interested in whether there were common trajectories of prosocial behaviors
after becoming involved in the juvenile justice system for a serious offense.
The Bayesian Information Criterion and Akaike Information Criterion statis-
tics were used to evaluate model fit (Nagin, 2005). We used both model par-
simony and substantive considerations in order to select the best solution
(Nagin, 2005). Once we selected the best solution, we examined other fit
indicators to evaluate the suitability of the selected solution. These other indi-
cators included comparing the group probability and proportion assigned, as
well as examining the average posterior probability, where an average poste-
rior probability over 0.70 is considered good (Nagin, 2005). We then tested
bivariate associations (chi-square and ANOVA) between the trajectory group
membership and individual, family, and neighborhood characteristics, as
well as risk scores. We also conducted poc hoc tests (e.g., Bonferroni and
Scheffes for robustness) for significant bivariate associations to identify the
groups that differed significantly (Castaneda et al., 1993; Wilcox, 1987).
Finally, we estimated a joint trajectory model, where we simultaneously
estimated patterns of gainful activities and patterns of secure institutional
placement. A joint trajectory model allowed us to model two distinct but
related developmental processes that evolve simultaneously (Nagin, 2005).
We used a previously estimated four-group solution of institutional place-
ments (Lee et al., 2018). The four trajectories of secure institutional place-
ment included youth who spent: the whole study period in the community
(34.2%); the first few years in secure institutional placement followed by
declining time in placement (24.4%); varying time in placement throughout
the study period (22.5%); and consistent time in institutional placement
Lee et al. 11

throughout the study period (18.8%). The joint trajectory model allowed us
to observe associations between prosocial behaviors and the most extreme
juvenile justice sanction, thus enabling us to explore potential bidirectional
causality. We report on the conditional probabilities estimated in the joint
trajectory model.

Results
The final model we selected included four group-based trajectories. The
model fit indicators (AIC and BIC) are presented in Table 1; both indicators
steadily decreased in absolute value. Thus, as recommended by Nagin (2005),
we selected the four-group model based on uniqueness of trajectories and
ease of interpretation. The three-group solution included groups with consis-
tently (1) high, (2) low, and (3) moderate levels of gainful activities, none of
which reflected any turning points and was thus of limited usefulness. The
four-group solution indicated divergence in the trajectory that started with a
moderate level of engagement in gainful activities, and thus provided a bal-
ance between concerns for parsimony and useful new information. The addi-
tional fit indicators, presented in the bottom of Table 1, show that the
four-group solution was appropriate: the estimated probability of group
membership was comparable to the proportion assigned, and the average pos-
terior probability for all four groups was above 0.85, well above the recom-
mended 0.7 (Nagin, 2005).

The Four Trajectory Groups

The four groups are presented in Figure 1, and the confidence intervals for
these trajectories are indicated by the dotted lines. The low group (26.8%)
reflected the lowest levels of gainful activities, with declining levels through-
out the study period. The high group (22.8%) indicated high levels of engage-
ment in gainful activities throughout the study period. There are two groups
that start with a medium-high level of gainful activities. One group dips ini-
tially and then ends the study period with the highest levels of gainful activi-
ties, which we call dips-then-rises (17.3%). The other group is the largest
group with 33.0% of the sample, and reports an overall medium level of
engagement in gainful activities with a steady and slow decline until month
60 (5 years after the index offense) followed by a slight increase at the end.
There were significant bivariate associations between the four trajectory
groups and various characteristics, which are reported in Table 2. We high-
light the significant differences based on post-hoc tests. There were signifi-
cant differences in race/ethnicity by group, where the low group was differed
12
Table 1. Model Fit Statistics.
Number of groups BIC (N = 82,876) BIC (N = 1,093) AIC LL

1 Group −40,507 −40,499 −40,489 −40,485

2 Groups −34,099 −34,081 −34,058 −34,049
3 Groups −32,791 −32,763 −32,728 −32,714
4 Groups −32,094 −32,056 −32,009 −31,990
5 Groups −31,394 −31,346 −31,286 −31,262
6 Groups −30,923 −30,865 −30,792 −30,763
7 Groups −30,553 −30,485 −30,400 −30,366
8 Groups −30,231 −30,153 −30,056 −30,017

π Estimated probability of Pi proportion assigned Average posterior

Group number Group name N group membership (%) to group (%) probability

Group 1 Low gainful activities 293 26.8 26.40 0.954

Group 2 Medium gainful activities 388 33.0 34.95 0.878
Group 3 Dips-then-rises gainful activities 175 17.3 15.77 0.930
Group 4 High gainful activities 254 22.8 22.88 0.940
Lee et al. 13

Figure 1. Trajectories of gainful activities.

from the dips-then-rises and high groups, and included more black and fewer
white youth. This is consonant with the racial characteristics of the
Philadelphia data collection site, from which a higher percentage of youth in
this trajectory group originated. Additionally, this group differed significantly
from the dips-then-rises and high groups in reporting higher average number
of prior petitions, lower average IQ score, and higher scores on both social
and physical neighborhood disorganization. Additionally, this group differed
significantly from the high group in family factors, reporting higher maternal
warmth, lower parental socioeconomic status, and higher rates of being from
a single parent household. This group also differed significantly from the
high group in school factors, reporting lower rates of being enrolled in school,
average teacher bonding, and school orientation scores. These youth also
report the highest rates of ever being expelled, which was significantly differ-
ent from all three of the other groups. In terms of risk scores, these youth
reported significantly different total, offenses, and education risk scores in
comparison to the low group, and reported significantly different attitudes
scores compared to the medium group.
When there were statistically significant differences, the medium trajec-
tory group was significantly different from the high and/or the dips-then-rises
group. Similar to the low group, the medium group was significantly differ-
ent from the dips-then-rises and high groups in terms of race/ethnicity, and
included more black and fewer white youth. Again, a higher percentage of
youth in this trajectory group also originated in Philadelphia. Similar to the
 Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Gainful Activities Group Differences.

14
Group 1: Group 3: Group 4:
Overall low Group 2: medium dips-then-rises high

(n = 1,110) (n = 293) (n = 388) (n = 175) (n = 254)

N (%) χ2 N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Male 941 (.85) 1.03 247 (.84) 325 (.84) 152 (.87) 217 (.85)
Female 169 (.15) 46 (.16) 63 (.16) 23 (.13) 37 (.15)
Age
14–15 388 (.35) 6.64 95 (.32) 152 (.39) 60 (.34) 81 (.32)
16 339 (.31) 93 (.32) 113 (.29) 48 (.27) 85 (.34)
17–19 383 (.35) 105 (.36) 123 (.32) 67 (.38) 88 (.35)
Race/ethnicity
White (ref) 233 (.21) 79.04*** 34 (.12)a 68 (.18)a 55 (.31) 76 (.30)
Black 495 (.45) 172 (.59) 192 (.49) 64 (.37) 67 (.26)
Hispanic 335 (.30) 76 (.26) 114 (.29) 49 (.28) 96 (.38)
Other race 47 (.04) 11 (.04) 14 (.04) 7 (.04) 15 (.06)

Mean SD F Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Charge grade 4.53 2.14 2.85* 4.45 2.21 4.34 2.22 4.80 2.06 4.73 1.97
Prior petitions 3.06 2.09 5.03** 3.43 2.23a 3.03 2.03 2.83 1.98 2.82 2.02
Risk assessment scores
Total 8.59 4.98 3.64* 9.40 4.95b 8.48 4.87 8.28 5.15 8.06 5.00
Offenses 1.17 1.07 3.62* 1.35 1.13b 1.12 1.01 1.13 1.08 1.06 1.08

(continued)
 Table 2. (continued)
Mean SD F Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Family 0.66 0.88 1.02 0.70 0.92 0.68 0.90 0.56 0.82 0.65 0.83
Education 1.72 0.88 4.99** 1.78 0.83b 1.79 0.91b 1.72 0.90 1.53 0.86
Peers 0.68 0.94 1.31 0.76 0.98 0.70 0.95 0.62 0.90 0.61 0.91
Substance abuse 2.08 1.54 0.53 2.18 1.62 2.04 1.51 2.02 1.45 2.09 1.56
Leisure 0.31 0.46 0.55 0.34 0.47 0.31 0.46 0.30 0.46 0.29 0.45
Personality 1.11 1.45 1.83 1.28 1.53 1.07 1.44 1.00 1.37 1.03 1.43
Attitudes 0.87 1.19 3.01* 1.03 1.27c 0.77 1.15 0.93 1.20 0.80 1.11

Mean SD F Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Individual factors
WASI full scale IQ 84.00 13.15 23.35*** 80.22 12.77a 82.83 12.88b 85.57 13.12b 89.01 12.36
PTSD symptoms 1.52 3.96 0.41 1.51 3.92 1.61 4.15 1.23 3.36 1.60 4.10
MDD symptoms 0.84 2.37 0.38 0.96 2.48 0.82 2.37 0.78 2.32 0.77 2.28
Substance use 3.95 4.24 0.46 4.06 4.13 3.77 4.22 3.93 4.34 4.12 4.34
Family factors
Maternal warmth 3.21 0.69 2.80* 3.29 0.67b 3.22 0.70 3.16 0.74 3.13 0.67
Parent index of social position 51.23 11.87 3.97** 52.89 11.95b 51.40 11.19 50.66 12.17 49.46 12.36

N (%) χ2 N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Single parent household 373 (.34) 7.64 116 (.40)b 126 (.32) 58 (.33) 73 (.29)
School factors
Enrolled in school 828 (.75) 8.79* 203 (.69)b 291 (.75) 130 (.74) 204 (.80)
Ever expelled 430 (.39) 9.18* 135 (.46)d 141 (.36) 61 (.35) 93 (.37)

(continued)

15
16
Table 2. (continued)
Mean SD F Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Teacher bonding 3.33 0.84 3.70* 3.23 0.82b 3.31 0.88 3.33 0.84 3.47 0.81
School orientation 3.58 0.74 2.54 3.53 0.71 3.57 0.76 3.51 0.73 3.69 0.72
Neighborhood factors
Socially disorganized 2.31 0.80 21.76*** 2.54 0.78a 2.39 0.78a 2.16 0.78 2.05 0.76
Physically disorganized 2.38 0.77 15.62*** 2.54 0.79a 2.45 0.74b 2.28 0.74 2.13 0.75

N (%) χ2 N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Study site
Philadelphia 649 (.58) 80.63*** 211 (.72)a 257 (.66)a 81 (.46) 100 (.39)
Maricopa county 461 (.42) 82 (.28) 131 (.34) 94 (.54) 154 (.61)
Year of interview
2000 49 (.04) 9.67 19 (.07) 15 (.04) 4 (.02) 11 (.04)
2001 620 (.56) 153 (.52) 222 (.57) 103 (.59) 142 (.56)
2002 440 (.40) 454 (.41) 151 (.39) 68 (.39) 100 (.39)
2003 1 (.00) 0 (.00) 0 (.00) 0 (.00) 1 (.00)
aSignificantly different from groups 3 and 4.
bSignificantly different from group 4.
cSignificantly different from group 2.
dSignificantly different from groups 2, 3, and 4.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Lee et al. 17

low group, this group also reported statistically significant differences in IQ

compared to the high group, reporting lower average IQ scores. This group
differed from the low group in terms of reporting a lower rate of ever been
expelled. This group also differed from the high group, reporting higher lev-
els of neighborhood physical disorganization, and higher levels of neighbor-
hood social disorganization than both the dips-then-rises and high groups.
Finally, in terms of risk scores, this group differed from the high group report-
ing higher average education risk, and differed from the low group reporting
lower average attitudes risk.
The dips-then-rises group differed from the low and medium groups in
race/ethnicity, reporting a higher percentage of white youth and lower per-
cent of black youth. This reflects that fewer of these youth are from
Philadelphia. This group reported lower average number of prior petitions
than the low group. This group also reported higher average IQ scores than
the low group and lower average IQ scores than the high group. Additionally,
this group reported lower rates of ever expelled than the low group. This
group reported lower scores on both measures of social disorganization
(social and physical) than the low group, and also differed from the medium
group in terms of social disorganization. As far as risk scores, this group
scored in the middle and was not statistically different from any of the other
groups on any of the scales.
Finally, the high gainful activities group generally reported the most posi-
tive scores and values. This group consisted of a highest percentage of white
and Hispanic youth and lowest percentage of black youth in comparison to
the low and medium groups. Again, this group reported a lower percent of
youth from Philadelphia than the low and medium groups. Youth in this
group reported lower average prior number of petitions compared to the low
group. They reported higher average IQ score than the other three groups.
This group reported significant differences in family characteristics than the
low group: lower maternal warmth, higher parental socioeconomic status,
and lower rate of being from a single parent household. This group also
reported significant differences in school characteristics than the low group:
higher rates of being enrolled in school; lower rates of ever expelled; and
higher teacher bonding. This group reported lower social disorganization
scores than the low group, and lower physical disorganization scores than
the low and medium groups. They also reported the lowest average scores on
the risk scales, and were significantly different from the low group in total
score and offenses subscale, and the low and medium groups in the educa-
tion subscale.
18 Youth & Society 00(0)

Table 3. Joint Trajectory Conditional Probabilities.

Low Medium Dips-then- High

Gainful activities conditional on gainful gainful rises gainful gainful
institutional placement activity activity activity activity
Steady in community 0.134 0.201 0.158 0.508
Declining time in placement 0.236 0.246 0.253 0.266
Varying time in placement 0.369 0.257 0.221 0.154
Steady high in institutional placement 0.478 0.202 0.165 0.155

The Joint Trajectory Model

Table 3 presents the conditional probabilities from the joint trajectory model,
which is the probability a youth will be in each of the four gainful activities
groups conditioned on their assignment to a specific institutional placement
trajectory. Although we report conditional probabilities, where secure place-
ment precedes gainful activities, our interactional theory approach does not
assume a linear causality model where placement leads to gainful activities.
Rather, these are concurrent developmental processes. We report probabili-
ties conditioned on the patterns of secure placement because policy implica-
tions for the juvenile justice system can be derived from understanding how
patterns of secure placement are related to gainful activities.
Youth assigned to the steady in community trajectory had about a .51
probability of being in the high levels of gainful activities trajectory and a .16
probability of being in the dips-then-rises gainful activity group. Youth
assigned to the declining time in placement had approximately one-fourth
probability of being in each of the four gainful activities group. Youth
assigned to the varying time in placement had the highest probability (.37) of
being in the low levels of gainful activity trajectory, and the lowest probabil-
ity (.15) of being in the high gainful activities trajectory. Finally, youth
assigned to the steady high in institutional placement group had the highest
probability (.48) of being in the low gainful activity trajectory and the lowest
probabilities of being in the high and dips-then-rises gainful activities trajec-
tory groups (.16 and .17, respectively).

Discussion
While studies have identified trajectories of delinquency or offending over
time, much less attention has been paid to identifying trajectories of gainful
activities among youth found guilty for a serious offense. To our knowledge,
Lee et al. 19

this is the first study to identify four groups with distinct trajectories of pro-
social activities. While it is clear that youth involved with the juvenile jus-
tice system report poor educational and employment outcomes, this study
advances our knowledge of outcomes by providing insight into which of
these youths developed those outcomes. Overall, about 40% of the sample
ended the study period very likely to be engaged in gainful activities—and
thus poised to successfully transition into adulthood. About one-third appear
to be somewhat involved in gainful activities, while a little more than one-
fourth was very unlikely to be engaged in gainful activities at the end of the
study period. In comparison, about 80% of youth from this sample eventu-
ally desist from self-reported offending (Piquero et al., 2013). Although we
do not know the overlap, even if we assumed that the 20% who do not desist
are among those who report low gainful activities throughout the study
period, that leaves about 40% of the sample that does not reflect clearly
prosocial trajectories of gainful activities (i.e., some from the low and
medium gainful activities groups). This could be a missed opportunity for
intervention if these youth who desist are not adequately prepared for the
transition to adulthood.
The differences between those in the low gainful activities and high gain-
ful activities groups are not surprising—those in the low gainful activities
group reported more disadvantages across multiple domains, especially com-
pared to those in the high gainful activities group. Not unexpectedly, the low
gainful activities group reported the highest average number of petitions and
this may indicate that the youth’s cumulative risk has not been addressed
adequately through their system involvement. The youth may not be receiv-
ing needed services that address factors related to recidivism, and conse-
quently have not been engaging in gainful activities during a period when
their crucial task is to acquire human capital. This suggests that ongoing juve-
nile justice involvement may only compound their struggles.
From an interactional theory perspective, for these youth in the low gain-
ful activities group, structural adversity has been “intensely coupled” with
multiple factors across multiple domains. For example, these youth report the
most disorganized neighborhoods, which may provide few employment and
prosocial opportunities and prosocial adult models. Additionally, these youth
report higher rates of school expulsion than the other three groups which
indicates that exclusionary school policies do not redirect trajectories, but
rather reinforce trajectories. Notably, this group differs from the high gainful
activities group on the total risk score, which appears to be driven by differ-
ences in offenses and education. These findings support Thornberry and
Krohn’s (2005) premise of bidirectional causality and the mutually reinforc-
ing nature of interactions between the youth and their social environment,
20 Youth & Society 00(0)

especially with respect to their schools. More specifically, this suggests that
school expulsions are a maintaining response to the individual, which con-
tributes to interactional continuity (Sampson & Laub, 1997). As Aizer and
Doyle (2015) found, youth who were incarcerated were unlikely to return to
school with their peers. This suggests that developing programs to return
these youths to their schools may be an important aspect of facilitating their
prosocial development.
At the same time, this group surprisingly reported higher maternal warmth
than the high gainful activities group and no differences in their school orien-
tation. These youth appear to have positive attachments to their families. Yet,
this attachment does not appear to be able to compensate for the other chal-
lenges in their lives. This suggests that interventions that target parenting
practices may be inadequate. Rather, interventions should be targeted at some
of the other sources of disadvantage within the youth’s social context, includ-
ing providing resources to schools so that there are resources to enable
schools to minimize or avoid the use of expulsion as a disciplinary response,
and neighborhoods to reduce both social and physical disorganization.
The more interesting contrast is between the two groups with diverging
trajectories, since this may suggest points of intervention. Yet, there were few
statistical differences between these two groups. Other than differences in
racial composition and locale, these two groups differed in their reported
neighborhood social disorganization score, but not physical disorganization
score. Social disorganization refers to the activities of other adults in the
youth’s neighborhoods, and reinforces Elder’s (1994) principle of linked
lives. This serves as a reminder that these youth do not exist in isolation, and
are impacted by the relationships and interactions between the adults in their
lives—parents, aunts and uncles, neighbors, etc. This suggests that investing
in communities, including the adults in their communities, may have collat-
eral benefits for these youth. Given that social problems cluster by neighbor-
hood (Sampson et al., 2002), targeting neighborhoods for intervention may
be more efficient than providing individualized services for specific youth.
Yet, less is known about how these neighborhood factors can be addressed—
more research should explore how best to intervene at the neighborhood level
in order to improve youth outcomes.
Findings from this study suggest that, in addition to measuring risk for
recidivism, efforts should be made to consider promise for prosocial out-
comes among youth involved in the juvenile justice system. We previously
found that the family, education, and leisure risk scores were not related to
longitudinal patterns of secure placement (Lee et al., 2018). In this study,
peer relationships, substance abuse, and personality risk scores additionally
were not related to gainful activities while the education risk score was
Lee et al. 21

related to gainful activities. While it may not be surprising that some of the
risk scales that predict recidivism do not also predict positive outcomes, this
warrants further examination and consideration. Risk scales are used to
inform sanctions. While the sanction may be a consequence of the youth’s
past actions, it also contributes to the youth’s future outcomes. Incarcerating
a youth during this critical developmental period may have additional long-
term costs if youth who would otherwise engage in prosocial behaviors
receive sanctions that interfere with their ability to adequately prepare for
adulthood.
Attending to a youth’s prosocial promise aligns with the movement to
incorporate Positive Youth Development (PYD) strategies into the juvenile
justice system (Butts et al., 2005). The PYD movement encourages a shift
toward building skills and competencies across multiple domains (Butts
et al., 2005). These domains are: work, education, relationships, community,
health, and creativity (Butts et al., 2010). PYD is a developmental approach,
and views the youth as a resource to be cultivated with an emphasis on the
individual’s future (Butts et al., 2010). Since many of these youth have not
received needed services elsewhere, the juvenile justice system has an oppor-
tunity to meet these needs and facilitate the development of these youths.
This may require greater collaboration with the other systems involved in the
youth’s lives, which may look like a case management approach that coordi-
nates the youth’s ongoing involvement in school, work, rehabilitation and
treatment services, and other prosocial activities, rather than disconnecting
the youth from their environments completely such as when youth are placed
in secure placement.
The conditional probabilities we estimated in the joint trajectory model
are not surprising, yet showed that membership in certain trajectories of
secure placement do not determine membership in gainful activities trajecto-
ries. For example, youth who were assigned to the steady high in placement
trajectory were most likely to be assigned to the low gainful activities trajec-
tory group (47.8%), but they still had was a small probability of being
assigned to the high gainful activities group (15.5%) while they were in the
community.
The joint trajectory model also suggests that the pattern of placement mat-
ters. Youth who spent varying amounts of time in the community had a com-
parable likelihood of engaging in a high level of gainful activities throughout
the study period to youth who spent a majority of the 7 years in institutional
placement. Moreover, they were most likely to have spent the 7 years engaged
in low levels of gainful activities. In contrast, youth who spent declining time
in placement had equal probabilities of being assigned to each of the four
gainful activities trajectory groups. Thus, youth who cycle in and out of
22 Youth & Society 00(0)

institutional placements have a smaller chance of prosocial trajectories than

those who spend declining time in institutional placement and a comparable
chance to those who spend most of their time in placement. This probably
reflects how difficult it is to maintain a job and progress educationally when
experiencing repeated removals from the community. With additional remov-
als, it may become more and more difficult to find a new job, and missing an
assignment or two in school may quickly snowball into falling behind by a
semester or a year—and getting caught up may become increasingly daunt-
ing. Future studies should continue to examine and unpack these associations
between patterns of institutional placement and gainful activities during the
transition to adulthood.

Limitations
These findings should be interpreted with caution for several reasons. First,
the juvenile justice system is operated locally, and this study used data from
two locales. Thus, findings may not be generalizable to all locales. Future
studies should identify longitudinal patterns in other jurisdictions. Second,
this is a correlational study. Group-based modeling technique is a descriptive
approach that can provide useful insights, but does not identify causal rela-
tionships. Moreover, our analyses examined contemporaneous trajectories,
so without a time-lag, there is no causal ordering in our analyses. Finally, our
analyses may seem to verify that youth who spend more time in the commu-
nity simply have more opportunity to be engaged in gainful activities.
Although there are more rigorous techniques for controlling for exposure
time, we viewed secure placement as a consequence of the youth’s activities.
Thus, we only considered a youth’s gainful activities if they were in the com-
munity, and thus capture this interaction, or bidirectional causality, between
individual agency and social context. Many of these youths may reside in
contexts where their opportunities are limited, and thus there may be differ-
ences in the amount of agency a youth has to make prosocial choices. Future
research should continue to identify patterns of gainful activities among ado-
lescent offenders with other samples and integrate such findings with data on
more localized effects of changes.

Conclusions
This study advances our understanding of positive youth behaviors as a con-
sequence of being involved in the justice system, even for individuals with a
serious offense. The associations between longitudinal patterns of institu-
tional placement and gainful activities are unsurprising; yet, this is the first
Lee et al. 23

study to provide these estimates. While research often focuses on predicting

recidivism, such a focus obscures the potential that these youth have for
becoming productive adults, especially since correlates of productivity are
rarely reported. Without attention to prosocial outcomes, juvenile justice
interventions may not only interfere with emotional and social development,
but may also miss opportunities to positively impact youth involved with the
juvenile justice system. Given that nearly half of the youth who were serious
offenders benefited from gainful activities, and these were useful in reducing
recidivism, the current emphasis on support reforms in the juvenile justice
system to emphasize positive development is warranted.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding to support this study was
received from the National Institute of Justice, award number 2015-JF-FX-0144.

ORCID iD
JoAnn S. Lee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5405-910X

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

This study received approval by the George Mason University Institutional Review
Board, project 722899-6.

Availability of Data and Material

The datasets (Research on Pathways to Desistance) analyzed during the current study
are available in the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
(ICPSR) repository. The subject measures are available here: https://www.icpsr.
umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/29961/summary. The calendar data are restricted
data, which were used under license for the current study, and are available upon
reasonable request and with permission here: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/
ICPSR/studies/32282.

References
Aaltonen, M., Kivivuori, J., & Martikainen, P. (2011). Social determinants of crime
in a welfare state: Do they still matter? Acta Sociologica, 54(2), 161–181. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0001699311402228
24 Youth & Society 00(0)

Aizer, A., & Doyle, J. J. (2015). Juvenile incarceration, human capital, and future
crime: Evidence from randomly assigned judges. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 130(2), 759–803. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv003
Apel, R., & Sweeten, G. (2010). The impact of incarceration on employment dur-
ing the transition to adulthood. Social Problems, 57(3), 448–479. https://doi.
org/10.1525/sp.2010.57.3.448
Aud, S., Fox, M., & KewalRamani, A. (2010). Status and trends in the education
of racial and ethnic groups (NCES 2010-015). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
Barrick, K. (2014). A review of prior tests of labeling theory. In Labeling theory:
Empirical tests (Vol. 18, pp. 89–112). Transaction Publishers.
Bernburg, J. G., & Krohn, M. D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime:
The direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on
crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41(4), 1287–1318. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb01020.x
Butts, J. A., Bazemore, G., & Meroe, A. S. (2010). Positive youth justice. In Framing
justice interventions using the concepts of positive youth development. Coalition
for Juvenile Justice.
Butts, J., Mayer, S., & Ruth, G. (2005). Focusing juvenile justice on positive youth
development. Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.
Castaneda, M. B., Levin, J. R., & Dunham, R. B. (1993). Using planned compari-
sons in management research: A case for the Bonferroni procedure. Journal of
Management, 19(3), 707–724.
Cernkovich, S., & Giordano, P. (1992). School bonding, race and delinquency.
Criminology, 30(2), 261–291.
Chassin, L., Rogosch, F., & Barrera, M. (1991). Substance use and symptomatol-
ogy among adolescent children of alcoholics. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
100(4), 449–463.
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., & Katz, L. F. (2015). The effects of exposure to better neigh-
borhoods on children: New evidence from the Moving to Opportunity experiment
(Working Paper No. 21156). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic
stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents.
Child Development, 65(2), 541–561.
Danziger, S., & Ratner, D. (2010). Labor market outcomes and the transition to adult-
hood. The Future of Children, 20(1), 133–158.
Elder, G. H. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspective on the life
course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 4.
Elder, G. H., Jr. (1985). Perspectives on the life course. In Life course dynamics:
Trajectories and transitions, 1968-1980 (pp. 23–49). Cornell University Press.
Gilman, A. B., Hill, K. G., & Hawkins, J. D. (2015). When is a youth’s debt to soci-
ety paid? Examining the long-term consequences of juvenile incarceration for
adult functioning. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 1(1),
33–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-015-0002-5
Lee et al. 25

Hackman, D. A., & Farah, M. J. (2009). Socioeconomic status and the developing
brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(2), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tics.2008.11.003
Hazel, N. (2008). Cross-national comparison of youth justice. Youth Justice Board
for England and Wales.
Hjalmarsson, R. (2008). Criminal justice involvement and high school comple-
tion. Journal of Urban Economics, 63(2), 613–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jue.2007.04.003
Hockenberry, S. (2020). Juveniles in residential placement, 2017. US Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status [Unpublished manu-
script].
Huebner, B. M. (2005). The effect of incarceration on marriage and work
over the life course. Justice Quarterly, 22(3), 281–303. https://doi.org/
10.1080/07418820500089141
Kirk, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (2013). Juvenile arrest and collateral educational dam-
age in the transition to adulthood. Sociology of Education, 86(1), 36–62. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0038040712448862
Leaw, J. N., Ang, R. P., Huan, V. S., Chan, W. T., & Cheong, S. A. (2015).
Re-examining of Moffitt’s theory of delinquency through agent based modeling.
PLoS One, 10(6), e0126752. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126752
Lee, J. S., Tajima, E. A., Herrenkohl, T. I., & Hong, S. (2017). Effects of formal
and informal deviant labels in adolescence on crime in adulthood. Social Work
Research, 41(2), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svx003
Lee, J. S., Taxman, F. S., Mulvey, E. P., & Schubert, C. S. (2018). Longitudinal
patterns of secure institutional placement among serious adolescent offenders.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45, 762–782.
Maschi, T., Hatcher, S. S., Schwalbe, C. S., & Rosato, N. S. (2008). Mapping the
social service pathways of youth to and through the juvenile justice system: A
comprehensive review. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(12), 1376–
1385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.04.006
McDaniel, A., DiPrete, T. A., Buchmann, C., & Shwed, U. (2011). The Black gen-
der gap in educational attainment: Historical trends and racial comparisons.
Demography, 48(3), 889–914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-011-0037-0
McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development.
American Psychologist, 53(2), 185–204.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial
behavior: A developmental taxonomy. 100(4), 674–701.
Mulvey, E. P. (2013). Research on pathways to desistance [Maricopa County, AZ
and Philadelphia County, PA]: Subject measures, 2000-2010 (ICPSR29961-v2).
Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR29961.v2
26 Youth & Society 00(0)

Mulvey, E. P. (2017). Research on pathways to desistance [Maricopa County, AZ

and Philadelphia County, PA]: Calendar data, 2000-2010 [Restricted] (ICPSR
32282-v3). Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [dis-
tributor]. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR32282.v3
Mulvey, E. P., Schubert, C. A., & Chung, H. L. (2007). Service use after court involve-
ment in a sample of serious adolescent offenders. Children and Youth Services
Review, 29(4), 518–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.10.006
Mulvey, E. P., Schubert, C. A., Pitzer, L., Hawes, S., Piquero, A., & Cardwell, S.
(2016). An examination of change in dynamic risk of offending over time among
serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 48–53. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.02.008
Mulvey, E. P., Steinberg, L., Fagan, J., Cauffman, E., Piquero, A. R., Chassin, L.,
Knight, G. P., Brame, R., Schubert, C. A., Hecker, T., & Losoya, S. H. (2004).
Theory and research on desistance from antisocial activity among serious adoles-
cent offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(3), 213–236. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1541204004265864
Mulvey, E. P., Steinberg, L., Piquero, A. R., Besana, M., Fagan, J., Schubert, C., &
Cauffman, E. (2010). Trajectories of desistance and continuity in antisocial
behavior following court adjudication among serious adolescent offend-
ers. Development and Psychopathology, 22(2), 453. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0954579410000179
Murray, J., Blokland, A., Farrington, D. P., & Theobald, D. (2014). Long-term effects
of conviction and incarceration on men in the Cambridge Study in Delinquent
Development. In Labeling theory: Empirical tests (Vol. 18, pp. 209–236).
Transaction Publishers.
Nagin, D. S. (2005). Group-based modeling of development. Harvard University
Press.
Piquero, A. R., Monahan, K. C., Glasheen, C., Schubert, C. A., & Mulvey, E. P.
(2013). Does time matter? Comparing trajectory concordance and covariate
association using time-based and age-based assessments. Crime & Delinquency,
59(5), 738–763.
Rodriguez, N. (2013). Concentrated disadvantage and the incarceration of youth:
Examining how context affects juvenile justice. Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 50(2), 189–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427811425538
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1990). Crime and deviance over the life course: The
salience of adult social bonds. American Sociological Review, 55(5), 609–627.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2095859
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvan-
tage and the stability of delinquency. Developmental Theories of Crime and
Delinquency, 7, 133–161.
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Asessing “neigh-
borhood effects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual
Review of Sociology, 28(1), 443–478. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.
110601.141114
Lee et al. 27

Sampson, R., & Raudenbush, S. (1999). Systematic social observation on public

spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of
Sociology, 105(3), 603–651.
Schubert, C. A., Mulvey, E. P., Hawes, S. W., & Davis, M. (2018). Educational and
employment patterns in serious adolescent offenders with mental health disor-
ders: The importance of educational attainment. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
45(11), 1660–1687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818784330
Schubert, C. A., Mulvey, E. P., Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., Losoya, S. H., Hecker, T.,
Chassin, L., & Knight, G. P. (2004). Operational lessons from the pathways to
desistance project. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(3), 237–255. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1541204004265875
Sickmund, M., Sladky, T. J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2019). Easy access to the
census of juveniles in residential placement. OJJDP.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic
review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00346543075003417
Sweeten, G. (2006). Who will graduate? Disruption of high school education by
arrest and court involvement. Justice Quarterly, 23(4), 462–480. https://doi.
org/10.1080/07418820600985313
Tanner, J., Davies, S., & O’Grady, B. (1999). Whatever happened to yesterday’s reb-
els? Longitudinal effects of youth delinquency on education and employment.
Social Problems, 46(2), 250–274.
Thornberry, T. P. (1987). Toward an interactional theory of delinquency. Criminology,
25(4), 863–892. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00823.x
Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2005). Applying interactional theory to the expla-
nation of continuity and change in antisocial behavior. In Integrated developmen-
tal and life-course theories of offending (pp. 183–210). Transaction Publishers.
Thornberry, T. P., Lizotte, A. J., Krohn, M. D., Farnworth, M., & Jang, S. J. (1991).
Testing interactional theory: An examination of reciprocal causal relationships
among family, school, and delinquency. The Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 82(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.2307/1143788
Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Piquero, A. R., Lösel, F., DeLisi, M., & Murray, J.
(2016). Intelligence as a protective factor against offending: A meta-analytic
review of prospective longitudinal studies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 4–
18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.02.003
Waithaka, E. N. (2014). Family capital: Conceptual model to unpack the intergenera-
tional transfer of advantage in transitions to adulthood. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 24(3), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12119
Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence. The Psychological
Corporation, Harcourt Brace & Company.
Widdowson, A. O., Siennick, S. E., & Hay, C. (2016). The implications of arrest for
college enrollment: An analysis of long-term effects and mediating mechanisms.
Criminology, 54(4), 621–652.
28 Youth & Society 00(0)

Wilcox, R. R. (1987). New designs in analysis of variance. Annual Review of

Psychology, 38(1), 29–60.
Wodtke, G. T., Harding, D. J., & Elwert, F. (2011). Neighborhood effects in temporal
perspective: The impact of long-term exposure to concentrated disadvantage on
high school graduation. American Sociological Review, 76(5), 713–736. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0003122411420816
World Health Organization. (1990). Composite international diagnostic interview.
World Health Organization.

Author Biographies
JoAnn S. Lee, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Social Work at
George Mason University. Her research seeks to improve outcomes during the transi-
tion to adulthood for marginalized youth with a focus on the child welfare and juve-
nile justice systems. She frames her work within the life course perspective, recogniz-
ing the interplay between human agency and larger social contexts throughout an
individual’s life.
Faye S. Taxman, PhD, is a university professor at George Mason University and
Director of Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!). Her expertise is in
organizational change, systems of care, and implementation of evidence-based prac-
tices. She has received numerous awards for her contributions to the field including
the 2017 Joan McCord Award from the Division of Experimental Criminology and
the 2015 Rita Warren and Ted Palmer Differential Association Award from the
Division of Corrections and Sentencing from the American Society of Criminology.
Edward P. Mulvey, PhD, is professor of Psychiatry Emeritus at the University of
Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Dr. Mulvey has directed numerous funded research
studies on the link between mental illness and violence, the development of juveniles
in the justice system, and the impact of sanctions and interventions for young people
who have committed serious crimes. He received his Ph.D. in Psychology from the
University of Virginia, and post-doctoral training at Carnegie-Mellon University.
Carol A. Schubert, M.P.H., is a researcher for the Law and Psychiatry Program at the
University of Pittsburgh. She has coordinated several large-scale projects regarding
the assessment of violence risk among mentally ill individuals as well as factors
related to desistance from crime as serious adolescent offenders make the transition to
adulthood. Her recent focus has been on the provision of services to and experiences
of youth in the juvenile justice system.