Delinquent Careers Behind Bars

• Author: Matt DeLisi,Jonathan W. Caudill,James W. Marquart,Scott Belshaw,Chad R. Trulson
• Date: 01 June 2010
• Published date: 01 June 2010
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016809360326
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Review
35(2) 200-219
Delinquent Careers
ª 2010 Georgia State University
Reprints and permission:
Behind Bars
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734016809360326
http://cjr.sagepub.com
Chad R. Trulson,1 Matt DeLisi,2
Jonathan W. Caudill,3 Scott Belshaw,1 and
James W. Marquart3
Abstract
There is an increasing recognition that incarceration time, instead of a period characterized by
intermittency or lulls in offending, is for many a period of continued involvement in misconduct and
other problematic behaviors. Yet, despite mounting evidence on the offending patterns of incarcerated
adults, little research attention has been paid to the institutional behavior of incarcerated delinquents.
The current research explored the institutional misconduct careers of 2,520 serious and violent
delinquent offenders incarcerated in a large southern juvenile correctional system. Analyses revealed
that the study cohort engaged in more than 200,000 instances of minor misconduct behaviors and
nearly 19,000 instances of major misconduct behaviors during their incarceration. Multivariate analyses
examining the incidence of major, minor, and assaultive institutional misconduct revealed that offenders
with more extensive delinquent backgrounds had an increased expected rate of misconduct, net the
effects of a number of variables. Implications for research and practice are explored.
Keywords
institutional misconduct, incarcerated delinquents, serious and violent offenders, prison violence,
rule infractions
Introduction
The last several years have witnessed an increasing amount of evidence on the recidivism outcomes of
state incarcerated delinquent offenders (e.g., Benda, Corwyn, & Toombs, 2001a, 2001b; Cottle, Lee, &
Heilbrun, 2001; Heilbrun et al., 2000; Lattimore, MacDonald, Piquero, Linster, & Visher, 2004; Parker,
Morton, Lingefelt, & Johnson, 2005; Ryan, Davis, & Yang, 2001; Trulson, Marquart, Mullings, & Caeti,
2005; Wiebush, Wagner, McNulty, Wang, & Le, 2005), including evidence on their long-term offending
outcomes in the transition from adolescence to young adulthood (e.g., Ezell & Cohen, 2005; Haapanen,
Britton, & Croisdale, 2007; Piquero, Brame, & Lynam, 2004; Piquero, Brame, Mazerolle, & Haapanen,
1University of North Texas, Denton, USA
2Iowa State University, Ames, USA
3University of Texas at Dallas, USA
Corresponding Author:
Department of Criminal Justice, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #305130, Denton, TX 76203, USA.
Email: ctrulson@unt.edu
200

---

Trulson et al.
201
2002; Sampson & Laub, 2003; Trulson, Marquart, Mullings, et al., 2005). Yet, despite a growing body of
evidence on delinquent offending outside of institutions, scant empirical attention has been paid to the
behavior of state delinquents while they are incarcerated (Trulson, 2007).
The lack of inquiry into the conduct of institutionalized delinquents is not altogether surprising
considering that only recently has institutional misconduct caught the attention of criminal career
researchers (DeLisi, 2003). This is evidenced by a growing empirical literature on the offending
or misconduct careers of adults behind prison walls (e.g., Cao, Zhao, & Van Dine, 1997; DeLisi,
2003; DeLisi, Berg, & Hochstetler, 2004; Drury & DeLisi, in press; Gaes, Wallace, Gilman,
Klein-Saffran, & Suppa, 2002; Huebner, Varano, & Bynum, 2007; Jiang, 2004; Jiang &
Fisher-Giorlando, 2002; Sorensen, Wrinkle, & Gutierrez, 1998; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008;
Wooldredge, 1991, 1994; Wooldredge, Griffin, & Pratt, 2001). This surge in the literature on adult
offending during periods of institutionalization was spurred by the recognition that incarceration
time itself can be viewed as a distinct offending period, rather than a period characterized by inter-
mittency or lulls in offending. As DeLisi (2003, p. 655) noted, for some offenders ‘‘ . . . prison is not
an exceptional event but instead a normal and episodic occurrence during a lengthy offending
career.’’ This research attention was also prompted by obvious consequences that institutional mis-
conduct has for inmates, staff, and institutions (Daggett & Camp, 2009) and the deleterious link that
institutional misconduct has been found to have on post-release recidivism outcomes for adult offen-
ders (French & Gendreau, 2006; Harer, 1994; Spivak & Damphousse, 2006).
Despite a growing understanding of the causes and consequences of misconduct among adult prison
inmates, there exists a large gap in the literature on the misconduct of state committed juvenile offen-
ders. The gap is particularly notable given the recognition that juveniles may have a greater potential
for rehabilitation than adults (Moffitt, 1993; Zimring, 2005). This gap is also significant considering
that involvement in institutional misconduct restricts rehabilitation efforts and can lead to a number of
other negative and far reaching consequences for institutionalized delinquent offenders: longer lengths
of confinement, heightened security housing such as administrative segregation, decreased access to
institutional rehabilitation programs, disruption of continuity in the offender’s rehabilitation program,
and prosecution for offenses committed while institutionalized which can lead to escalating delinquent
or criminal sanctions even before release from juvenile confinement (see, generally, Daggett & Camp,
2009). Increasingly, it is also the case for certain institutionalized populations, such as blended sen-
tenced offenders, that involvement in institutional misconduct may lead to adult prison transfer to con-
tinue what would have otherwise been a suspended and lengthy adult prison sentence under some
states’ blended sentencing schemes (Trulson, Marquart, Haerle, & DeLisi, 2008).
Beyond these consequences, a burgeoning body of empirical research has revealed that involve-
ment in misconduct while incarcerated has important ramifications on postrelease recidivism for
delinquent commitments. This line of research has indicated, with few exceptions, that involvement
in institutional misconduct is associated with heightened chances of recidivism upon release
(Huebner et al., 2007; Lattimore et al., 2004; Trulson, 2007; Trulson, DeLisi, & Marquart, in press;
Trulson, Marquart, Haerle, et al., 2008; Trulson, Marquart, Mullings, et al., 2005). For example,
Huebner and colleagues (2007) found that commitments rated ‘‘high’’ on misconduct frequency
while incarcerated were reconvicted significantly sooner than those with ‘‘low’’ misconduct
frequency. Trulson, Marquart, Mullings, et al. (2005) found that state delinquents considered ‘‘insti-
tutional dangers’’ had significantly higher odds of rearrest for any offense and a felony offense in their
postrelease follow-up of more than 2,000 state committed delinquent offenders. Lattimore and col-
leagues (2004) revealed that California Youth Authority (CYA) wards who engaged in gang-related
activity and institutional violence while confined, and those with a greater rate of total misconduct
infractions, were significantly more likely to experience a heightened rearrest rate postrelease.
These and other research efforts have revealed that involvement in institutional misconduct,
particularly serious and/or chronic misconduct behavior, may be an important early warning sign
201

---

202
Criminal Justice Review 35(2)
of the need for further or different or more focused intervention and programming efforts during the
institutionalization period so as to promote positive institutional adjustment, postrelease success,
and ultimately, public safety. In short, a greater understanding of the determinants of misconduct
behavior while institutionalized, including those offenders most likely to engage in misconduct
behavior, has important practical implications for the management and treatment of state committed
delinquent offenders. Such knowledge also has important implications that affect directly on public
safety as these offenders make the transition from incarceration to freedom.
The Current Study
The current study fills some of the gap in knowledge on the misconduct careers of state committed
delinquent offenders during their institutionalization. It examines the incidence and prevalence of
major and minor misconduct behaviors perpetrated by a population of 2,520 serious and violent male
delinquents. All the offenders of focus in this study were sentenced as serious and violent offenders
under a unique blended sentencing statute and incarcerated in a large southern state juvenile correc-
tional system between the years of 1987 and 2004. Therefore, we explore the misconduct careers of
the cohort during their entire juvenile incarceration period.
This study then explores determinants of the frequency of various forms of institutional miscon-
duct, accounting for a battery of demographic, delinquent history, and social history variables.
Importantly, uncovering the factors related to the frequency of institutional offending among the
most serious and violent institutionalized delinquents may provide important practical information
related to potential areas of intervention and prevention of delinquent offending behind bars. Such
information might also be useful in crafting reentry initiatives for such risky delinquent offenders to
improve their chances of success upon release from juvenile institutionalization (Kuanliang,
Sorensen, & Cunningham, 2008; Lattimore et al., 2004; Trulson et al., in press).
Review of Relevant Literature
The empirical literature on delinquent offending or misconduct...