Edward P. Mulvey, Ph.D.Edward P. Mulvey, Ph.D.Law and Psychiatry ProgramLaw and Psychiatry Program

Department of PsychiatryDepartment of PsychiatryUniversity of Pittsburgh School of MedicineUniversity of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

National Juvenile Justice NetworkNational Juvenile Justice NetworkTeleconferenceTeleconference

January 28, 2010January 28, 2010

Pathways to Desistance: Pathways to Desistance: A Longitudinal Study of A Longitudinal Study of

Serious Adolescent Serious Adolescent OffendersOffenders

Pathways to Desistance Pathways to Desistance StudyStudy

Supported bySupported by Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency

PreventionPrevention National Institute of JusticeNational Institute of Justice National Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute on Drug Abuse John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur FoundationJohn D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Pennsylvania Commission on Crime & Pennsylvania Commission on Crime &

DelinquencyDelinquency Arizona Governor’s Justice CommissionArizona Governor’s Justice Commission Robert Wood Johnson FoundationRobert Wood Johnson Foundation William Penn FoundationWilliam Penn Foundation William T. Grant FoundationWilliam T. Grant Foundation

Pathways to Desistance Pathways to Desistance StudyStudy Working Group Working Group

MembersMembers Edward MulveyEdward Mulvey Laurence SteinbergLaurence Steinberg Elizabeth Cauffman Elizabeth Cauffman Laurie ChassinLaurie Chassin George KnightGeorge Knight Carol SchubertCarol Schubert Sandra Losoya Sandra Losoya Robert BrameRobert Brame Jeffrey FaganJeffrey Fagan Alex PiqueroAlex Piquero

Clarion soldier to get Medal of Honor

19-year-old threw himself on grenade to save

comrades

Saturday, May 24, 2008By Milan Simonich, Pittsburgh Post-

Gazette

"My intent was to portray Ross as an average boy who made mistakes early in his life and then surprised everybody by doing an extraordinary thing after undergoing a transformation that started with his probation and continued with his Army discipline. It's important to me to tell people that they can't count a child out because of his mistakes," Tom McGinnis said.

Pathways to Desistance Pathways to Desistance StudyStudy Reasons for the Reasons for the

studystudy Richer information about serious Richer information about serious

adolescent offenders adolescent offenders Picture of the desistance processPicture of the desistance process

Individual maturation Individual maturation Life changes Life changes Systems involvementSystems involvement

Improved practice and policy in Improved practice and policy in juvenile justicejuvenile justice Risk assessmentRisk assessment Targeted interventions and Targeted interventions and

sanctionssanctions

Study DesignStudy Design Two sites: Philadelphia and PhoenixTwo sites: Philadelphia and Phoenix Enroll serious adolescent offendersEnroll serious adolescent offenders

1,354 felony offenders, aged 14 -181,354 felony offenders, aged 14 -18 Females and adult transfer cases Females and adult transfer cases

Regular interviews over eight yearsRegular interviews over eight years Initial interviewsInitial interviews Time point interviews Time point interviews Release interviewsRelease interviews

Other sources of informationOther sources of information Collateral interviewsCollateral interviews Official recordsOfficial records

Who are these Who are these adolescents?adolescents?

16 years old on average 16 years old on average 86% male 86% male Average of two prior court appearances Average of two prior court appearances About half appearing for a felony against About half appearing for a felony against

a persona person Ethnically diverseEthnically diverse

25%29%

2%

44%

Caucasian African American

Hispanic Other

What we look atWhat we look atBackground CharacteristicsBackground Characteristics

• Personal characteristics (e.g. family, marital relationships)Personal characteristics (e.g. family, marital relationships)• Academic achievement and commitmentAcademic achievement and commitment• Routine activitiesRoutine activities• Offense historyOffense history• Alcohol and drug use/abuseAlcohol and drug use/abuse• Exposure to violenceExposure to violence• PsychopathyPsychopathy• Emotional reactivityEmotional reactivity• AcculturationAcculturation• Personality Personality

Psychological MediatorsPsychological Mediators• Psychological developmentPsychological development• Mental health symptoms and threat-control overrideMental health symptoms and threat-control override• Head injuryHead injury• Use of social servicesUse of social services• Perceptions of opportunityPerceptions of opportunity• Perceptions of procedural justicePerceptions of procedural justice• Perceived thrill of doing crimePerceived thrill of doing crime• Moral disengagementMoral disengagement• Religious orientationReligious orientation• Costs and rewards of offendingCosts and rewards of offending

Family ContextFamily Context

Life ChangesMonthly data available regarding:

Living arrangementsLiving arrangementsSchool involvementSchool involvementLegal involvementLegal involvementWorkWorkRomantic relationshipsRomantic relationshipsSocial service involvement/sanctionsSocial service involvement/sanctions

• Parental MonitoringParental Monitoring• Parental RelationshipsParental Relationships• Parent orientationParent orientation

Personal Relationships• Relationships with romantic partner & friendsRelationships with romantic partner & friends• Peer delinquency and gang involvementPeer delinquency and gang involvement• Contact with caring adultContact with caring adult

Community Context• Neighborhood conditionsNeighborhood conditions• Community involvementCommunity involvement• Personal capital and social tiesPersonal capital and social ties

Living Situation Living Situation CalendarCalendar

Month 1Month 1 Month Month 22

Month 3Month 3 Month Month 44

Month 5Month 5 MontMonth 6h 6

SubjecSubject 1t 1

926 West 926 West HuntingtHuntington Ston St

St St Gabe’s Gabe’s HallHall

926 West 926 West HuntingtHuntington Ston St

St St Gabe’s Gabe’s HallHall

Vision Vision QuestQuest

Youth Youth ForestForestry ry CampCamp

SubjecSubject 2t 2

2829 W. 2829 W. AugustaAugusta

Madison Madison StreetStreet

JailJail

1008 S. 1008 S. WilmotWilmot

1008 S. 1008 S. WilmotWilmot

1008 S. 1008 S. WilmotWilmot

PO PO Box Box 34003400

SubjecSubject 3t 3

5003 5003 Master Master StSt

2nd and 2nd and NorrisNorris

2nd and 2nd and NorrisNorris

2nd and 2nd and NorrisNorris

House of House of CorrectioCorrectionsns

PO PO Box Box 10591059

Progress so farProgress so far

Entire sample past the 72 month Entire sample past the 72 month follow-up pointfollow-up point

About 90% of interviews completed at About 90% of interviews completed at each time pointeach time point

Over 24,000 interviews completedOver 24,000 interviews completed

Examples of topics being Examples of topics being investigatedinvestigated

Procedural justiceProcedural justice Perceptions of risk/benefit of crimePerceptions of risk/benefit of crime Psychosocial maturity and criminal Psychosocial maturity and criminal

offendingoffending Effects of substance use treatmentEffects of substance use treatment Acculturation/enculturationAcculturation/enculturation Family functioningFamily functioning Perceptions of opportunitiesPerceptions of opportunities Neighborhood effectsNeighborhood effects Service Provision/Institutional CareService Provision/Institutional Care

Self-Reported Self-Reported Offending over Offending over

TimeTime

Self Reported Offending over Self Reported Offending over Three YearsThree YearsMales onlyMales only

0

2

4

6

8

0 6 12 18 24 30 36

Months after Initial Interview

Se

lf R

ep

ort

Va

rie

ty

Sc

ore Group Group

4 4 (15.1%(15.1%

))

Group Group 5 5

(8.5%)(8.5%)

Group Group 2 2

(33.8%(33.8%))

Group Group 3 3

(18.3%(18.3%))

Group Group 1 1

(24.2%(24.2%))

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1 2 3 4 5

Mean Number of Re-arrests Through 36 Months for Each Group

Mean number of re-arrests

Self-reported offending group

54321

GROUP

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Me

an

pro

p_

loc

k

Error bars: 95.00% CI

Percent of time in Percent of time in institution institution

over three years for each over three years for each groupgroup

Percent time in

institution

Average Percent Average Percent in Each Setting at Each in Each Setting at Each

Time Point Time Point

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Jail/ Prison Detention YDC/ ADJC ContractedRes

Setting Type

Group 4

Group 5

ConclusionsConclusions In serious offenders, small group (8-In serious offenders, small group (8-

9%) with high and continued offending, 9%) with high and continued offending, and larger group with high and and larger group with high and declining offending (15%)declining offending (15%)

Largest group (about 58%) reports low Largest group (about 58%) reports low levels of offending, but still spends levels of offending, but still spends about 30% of follow up period in about 30% of follow up period in institutional careinstitutional care

Can’t predict the high end persisters Can’t predict the high end persisters from desisters very well from baseline from desisters very well from baseline characteristicscharacteristics

Placement history is very similar for Placement history is very similar for these groupsthese groups

Placement in a Placement in a Juvenile InstitutionJuvenile Institution

DataData Juvenile Court cases in both sites Juvenile Court cases in both sites N = 921N = 921

probation = 502probation = 502 institutional placement = 419institutional placement = 419

Outcomes are:Outcomes are: rate of re-arrest (by year)rate of re-arrest (by year) level of reported antisocial activitylevel of reported antisocial activity

66 variables measured at baseline, including 66 variables measured at baseline, including demographic, familial, peer, legal, demographic, familial, peer, legal, psychological, mental health related, substance psychological, mental health related, substance abuse, psycho-social maturity and prior abuse, psycho-social maturity and prior adjustmentadjustment

Research Question #1Research Question #1

Is there a treatment effect of Is there a treatment effect of placement vs. probation on placement vs. probation on subsequent rate of re-arrest subsequent rate of re-arrest or self-reported antisocial or self-reported antisocial activity?activity?

Placement vs. ProbationPlacement vs. ProbationNaïve Comparison Naïve Comparison

Mean Yearly Rate of Re-Arrest, by Placement Status

0.63

1.20

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

probation placement

rate

Propensity Score MatchingPropensity Score Matching Two step process: Two step process:

A propensity score is calculated for each A propensity score is calculated for each case. It is the predicted probability that you case. It is the predicted probability that you get placed given all of the background get placed given all of the background characteristics consideredcharacteristics considered

Take each placed case and match it to one or Take each placed case and match it to one or more probation case with similar propensity more probation case with similar propensity scorescore

We then can look to see if the placed We then can look to see if the placed group looks similar to the matched group looks similar to the matched probation group on a variety of probation group on a variety of characteristics that might affect the characteristics that might affect the outcome outcome

If the groups look alike, we can attribute If the groups look alike, we can attribute any difference in the outcomes to the fact any difference in the outcomes to the fact that they were placedthat they were placed

Getting Balanced Groups Getting Balanced Groups using Propensity Scoresusing Propensity Scores

Overall, 42 of 66 baseline variables were significantly different between the placed and probation groups

After matching, 64 out of 66 variables After matching, 64 out of 66 variables were NOT significantly different were NOT significantly different between the placed and probation groups

In other words, we have ruled out these In other words, we have ruled out these 64 variables as potential causes of group 64 variables as potential causes of group differences in the outcomesdifferences in the outcomes

Treatment Effect of Treatment Effect of PlacementPlacement

Matched GroupsMatched GroupsMean Yearly Rate of Re-Arrest,

by Placement Status After Matching

1.061.20

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

probation placement

rate

No significant differences between groups in rate of re-arrest

Research Question #2Research Question #2

Is there a community safety Is there a community safety benefit for a longer length of benefit for a longer length of stay in a juvenile institution? stay in a juvenile institution?

Methodology for Length Methodology for Length of Stayof Stay

Length of stay is broken up into Length of stay is broken up into discrete “doses”discrete “doses”

Methods to get similar cases across Methods to get similar cases across different levels of the “dose” different levels of the “dose”

65 of 66 variables show no difference 65 of 66 variables show no difference among the groups, meaning we can among the groups, meaning we can rule them out as causes of rule them out as causes of differences in outcomesdifferences in outcomes

Response CurveResponse Curve is estimated is estimated

Dosage CategoriesDosage Categories

Doses roughly correspond to quartiles: 1) 0-6 mo., 2) Doses roughly correspond to quartiles: 1) 0-6 mo., 2) 6-10 mo., 3) 10-13 mo., 4) > 13 mo.6-10 mo., 3) 10-13 mo., 4) > 13 mo.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8

Den

sity

0 10 20 30 40 50length of stay, in months

Histogram of LOS in months

Dose-Response Curve Dose-Response Curve Quartiles as DosesQuartiles as Doses

Expected Rate of Re-Arrest, by Quartile Dose Category

1.121.181.26

0.92

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0-6 6-10 10-13 > 13

rate

Dose-Response Curve Dose-Response Curve 3 Month Intervals as Doses3 Month Intervals as Doses

Expected Rate of Re-Arrest, by 3 mo. Dose Category

1.11

2.55

1.081.35

1.04

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12 > 12

rate

ConclusionsConclusions For intermediate lengths of stay (i.e., 3-13 For intermediate lengths of stay (i.e., 3-13

months), there appears to be months), there appears to be little or no marginal little or no marginal benefitbenefit for longer lengths of stay in a juvenile for longer lengths of stay in a juvenile institutioninstitution

Inferences about the impact of shorter and longer Inferences about the impact of shorter and longer stays are less certainstays are less certain < 3 mo. – too little power< 3 mo. – too little power > 13 mo. – too much variability> 13 mo. – too much variability

Caution about need to account for treatment in Caution about need to account for treatment in these settingsthese settings

Substance Use Substance Use TreatmentTreatment

High Rates of Substance Use Disorders (Past Year

Diagnoses)

0

10

20

30

40

50

A-A C H - A-A C H

Alcohol Drug

Males

Females Some substance use diagnosis: 37%

35%

A-A = African-American C= Caucasian, non-Hispanic H = Hispanic

There is Variability in There is Variability in Substance Use Over Time Substance Use Over Time

(Males)(Males)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

base 6mo 12mo 18mo 24mo 30mo 36mo

Months after Initial Interview

Su

m o

f S

ub

stan

ce U

se

Fre

qu

ency

Sco

res

AbstainAbstainers ers

(13.4%)(13.4%)

Low Low (34.6%)(34.6%)

ModeratModerate e

(33.4%)(33.4%)

High High Declining Declining

(7.6%)(7.6%)

High High Stable Stable

(11.0%)(11.0%)

Treatment EffectsTreatment Effects With family involvement, significant short With family involvement, significant short

term (6-month) effects of treatment on term (6-month) effects of treatment on Alcohol useAlcohol use Marijuana useMarijuana use OffendingOffending

Strengths of the analysesStrengths of the analyses Test of treatment as actually providedTest of treatment as actually provided Controlling for “street time” Controlling for “street time” Above and beyond drug testingAbove and beyond drug testing

Not a one-shot “Inoculation”Not a one-shot “Inoculation” Chronic, relapsing, remitting disorderChronic, relapsing, remitting disorder 68% of males with an initial disorder got 68% of males with an initial disorder got

treatment in the first yeartreatment in the first year

Summary and Implications

Substance use is a prevalent, strong predictor of offending

There is variability in substance use over time (not very predictable from initial factors)

Treatment had short term (but not long-term) effects on substance use and offending

Justice system involvement can be anopportunity for treatment

Themes so farThemes so far These adolescents are not uniformly “bad” These adolescents are not uniformly “bad”

kids on the road to adult criminal careers. kids on the road to adult criminal careers. Instead, a large proportion report low levels Instead, a large proportion report low levels of offending after court involvement. of offending after court involvement.

Longer institutional stays do not appear to Longer institutional stays do not appear to reduce offending.reduce offending.

Substance use is a major factor related to Substance use is a major factor related to continued criminal activity in serious continued criminal activity in serious adolescent offenders. Fortunately, treatment adolescent offenders. Fortunately, treatment for substance use seems to work to reduce for substance use seems to work to reduce offending. offending.

“Be of use”

Contact InformationContact Information

Principal InvestigatorPrincipal InvestigatorEdward P. Mulvey, Ph.D.Edward P. Mulvey, Ph.D.

mulveyep@upmc.edumulveyep@upmc.edu

Study CoordinatorStudy CoordinatorCarol A. Schubert, M.P.H.Carol A. Schubert, M.P.H.

schubertca@upmc.eduschubertca@upmc.edu