Aggression and Academic Misconduct Among Justice-Involved Youth: The Roles of Facility Environment, Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Competency

• Published date: 01 October 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/15412040241232919
• Author: Lin Liu,Kristen M. Zgoba,Sabina Low
• Date: 01 October 2024
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

2024, Vol. 22(4) 277–295

© The Author(s) 2024

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/15412040241232919

journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

Aggression and Academic

Misconduct Among

Justice-Involved Youth: The

Roles of Facility Environment,

Adverse Childhood Experiences

and Social Competency

Lin Liu

1

, Kristen M. Zgoba

2

, and Sabina Low

3

Abstract

As compared to adult populations, there is a signif‌icant dearth of studies examining off‌icial mis-

conduct among juveniles, leaving important gaps in our knowledge. Utilizing a sample of youth

completing juvenile justice residential placement in Florida across four f‌iscal years (n=5739),the

current studyseeks to examine the joint effectsof facility environment and individual characteristics

on institutional misconduct, represented by aggression and academic misconduct in facilities.

Academic Youths’severity of criminal involvement, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs),

emotional and communication skills, and history of violence or drugs all contributed to explaining

their aggressionand academic misconduct in facilities.The level of institutional security consistently

emerged as a signif‌icant predictor for academic misconduct and aggression. Aggression in facilities

was more sensitive to the severity of ACEs. Policy implications and limitations are discussed.

Keywords

juvenile justice, misconduct, residential facilities, adverse childhood experiences, soc ial

competency

Introduction

While the vast majority of criminological studies focus on adolescents’antisocial behavior in the

academic setting and the community (Cochran et al., 2014;Liu & Miller, 2020), it is also

1

Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

2

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

3

T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Corresponding Author:

Lin Liu, Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, University of Florida, 3219 Turlington Hall,P.O. Box 117330,

Gainesville, FL 32611-7011, USA.

Email: lin.liu@uf‌l.edu

important to understand antisocial behavior that occurs inside correctional and rehabilitation

institutions. Typically referred to as institutional misconduct, these behaviors are documented

incidents or infractions, and are of primary concern for juvenile justice practitioners because of the

consequences to both the system and the individual. At the system level, not only do they create

more dangerous settings, but they also burden the system with administrative, logistical and legal

issues (Trulson et al., 2010). Involvement in institutional misconduct can also result in short-and

long-term negative consequences for youth. As Trulson and colleagues (2010) highlight, mis-

conduct can result in restricted housing and programming, as well as longer sentencing and

additional sanctions. Though understudied, misconduct among this population may also portend

poorly for longer-term outcomes, serving as an indicator of poor post-release reentry to the

community and heighted risk for post-release recidivism (Cochran et al., 2014;Huebner et al.,

2007;Trulson, 2007). Taken together, it is important to understand the conduct of youth in

juvenile justice residential programs (DeLisi et al., 2010;Trulson et al., 2010), especially given the

priority placed on rehabilitation of younger individuals (Nagin et al., 2006;Piquero & Steinberg,

2010).

Despite the importance of institutional misconduct, there is a signif‌icant dearth of studies

examining off‌icial misconduct among juveniles compared to adult populations, leaving nontrivial

gaps in our knowledge. The current study addresses contributors to misconduct utilizing a large,

diverse sample (i.e., race and gender) of juveniles over a multi-year period. Specif‌ically, we assess

of the role of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and social competency using person-centered

typologies, in concert with setting-type, in order to assess person and environment contributors to

the likelihood of aggression.

Explaining Institutional Misconduct Among Justice-Involved Youth

Adverse Childhood Experiences. Several theories and frameworks support the predicate that features

of the correctional experience and developmental histories both contribute to misconduct among

adjudicated youth, including the occurrence of adverse childhood experiences. There is an over-

representation of youth in the juvenile justice system with exposure to ACES. Empirical studies

f‌ind that anywhere from 70% to 97% of youth in the juvenile justice system have experienced a

traumatic event, including severe histories of physical and sexual abuse (Bagliovi et al., 2014;

CDC, 2021;Felitti et al., 1998;Kim et al., 2021;Ko et al., 2008). A substantial literature exists

documenting the link between adversity and subsequent juvenile offending, substance abuse,

mental health challenges and poor academic standing (see Delisi et al., 2010;Krischer & Sevecke,

2008), particularly for females (Blackburn & Trulson, 2010;Liu et al., 2021;Mullis et al., 2004).

While many individuals in the general population have a history of ACEs, they may be particularly

more consequential to youth who already lack a foundation of protective factors, such as a

supportive environment, positive relationships with role models and caregivers, and access to

mental health providers. These protective factors can often mitigate the impact of ACEs and help

reduce the likelihood of misconduct. Given the strong association between prior adversity and

offending, ACEs are negatively skewed within this population. Because of this, we departed from

a mean-level approach to a person-centered approach to see if there was heterogeneity in the

presence of ACEs and social competencies. This is particularly innovative given the paucity of

research that has examined individual characteristics functioning as protective factors.

Social Compentency. Social competencies refers to the general likability and the ability to get along

with peers and adults. A number of studies (Humber & Snow, 2001;Snow & Powell, 2004) have

shown that detained minors have diff‌iculties on a range of communication tasks. It is found that

some may struggle to put information together, articulate a plan, describe consequences, and

278 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 22(4)