Risk for Disciplinary Infractions Among Incarcerated Male Youths

• Author: Gail A. Wasserman,Larkin S. Mcreynolds
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854808319936
• Published date: 01 September 2008
• Date: 01 September 2008
• Subject Matter: Articles

RISK FOR DISCIPLINARY INFRACTIONS
AMONG INCARCERATED MALE YOUTHS
Influence of Psychiatric Disorder
LARKIN S. MCREYNOLDS
GAIL A. WASSERMAN
Columbia University
Center for the Promotion of Mental Health in Juvenile Justice
The authors examine the contribution of disorder to disciplinary infractions among incarcerated male youths. In all, 176
youths recently admitted to a secure assessment center self-administered the Voice Diagnostic Interview Schedule for
Children–IV. Demographic and justice-related data were abstracted from official records. Younger boys, minority youths, and
those who stayed longer were found to infract more. Controlling for these factors, infraction risk was significantly lowered by
anxiety, affective disorder, disruptive behavior, or substance use disorder (vs. no disorder), as well as more or more types of
disorder. Youths with mental health concerns were less likely to infract. Results highlight the importance of employing systematic
and universal screening rather than relying on observable management problems to identify mental health needs.
Keywords:
juveniles; assessment; disciplinary infractions; Voice Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children
Juvenile justice agencies dedicate a considerable amount of financial and human resources
to maintain institutional safety. Youths who commit disciplinary infractions while incar-
cerated pose management problems and constitute a threat to self and others. Most standards
for management of youths in secure care include consideration of youth misconduct (e.g.,
American Correctional Association, 1991); current practices commonly include formal
documentation of misconduct and application of graduated sanctions. Despite management
concerns and existing procedures to discipline those who commit infractions, however, the
contribution of mental health status to juveniles’ risk for institutional misconduct is typically
not addressed in practice.
Justice practitioners who work with adults have long been aware of both the management
and mental health concerns associated with disciplinary infractions (Coe, 1961; Fox, 1958;
Goetting & Howsen, 1986; Myers & Levy, 1978; Toch & Adams, 1986; Wooldredge, 1991;
Wright, 1991). A meta-analysis of 39 studies of adult prisoners (Gendreau, Goggin, & Law,
1997) found that the strongest predictors of disciplinary infractions were offense history
AUTHORS’ NOTE: This work was supported by grants from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention to Dr. Wasserman. We would like to thank Michael Aloisi and Jennifer LaBaron at New Jersey
Training School for Boys (NJTSB) for assisting with data collection and retrieval and providing helpful infor-
mation about the New Jersey juvenile justice system. We would also like to acknowledge and thank Laura Katz
for her assistance with data preparation and initial analyses, and Reni John for her careful review of earlier
drafts of this publication. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Larkin S.
McReynolds, 1051 Riverside Drive, Unit 78, New York, NY 10032; e-mail: LSM34@columbia.edu.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 35 No. 9, September 2008 1174-1185
DOI: 10.1177/0093854808319936
© 2008 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
1174

---

McReynolds, Wasserman / PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER AND INFRACTIONS
1175
(e.g., substance-related or violent; number of priors), antisocial attitudes and psychopathic
traits, and institutional factors, such as overcrowding. Although studies with incarcerated
populations provide some empirical support for a relationship between adult antisocial behav-
ior and institutional misconduct (Hare, Hart, & Harpur, 1991; Hare & McPherson, 1984;
Hobson, Shine, & Roberts, 2000), the relationship between mental health status, particularly
psychiatric disorder, and institutional misconduct has been less explored.
Juvenile offenders and their adult counterparts share several risk factors related to mental
health that have been associated with institutional misconduct. Adjustment to confinement
can evoke feelings of anxiety and anger in juveniles, as it can for adults (Boothby &
Durham, 1999; Gibbs, 1987; Silverman & Vega, 1990); justice-involved youths who lack
effective coping skills or who are aggressive or anxious are more prone to act out behav-
iorally (Davis, Bean, Schumacher, & Stringer, 1991; McShane & Williams, 1989). Similar to
adults, youths with extensive and serious arrest histories (Cottle, Lee, & Heilbrun, 2001),
those affiliated with gangs (Esbensen & Huizinga, 2005; Thornberry, Krohn, & Lizotte, 1993),
those who have been victimized (Falshaw & Browne, 1997; Lake, 1993; Lauritsen,
Sampson, & Laub, 1991), and those with recent substance use (Smith, Wish, & Jarjoura,
1989) are at increased risk for misconduct.
Among incarcerated juveniles, rates of psychiatric disorder have been found to be as high
as 65% (Wasserman, McReynolds, Lucas, Fisher, & Santos, 2002). Although externalizing
disorders (e.g., conduct or substance abuse) are known to be common among youths in the
juvenile justice system, there is an increasing awareness of elevated rates of internalizing
disorders (e.g., anxiety or depression) as well (Teplin, Abram, McClelland, & Dulcan, 2002;
Wasserman et al., 2002). Surprisingly, mental health diagnostic status, above and beyond
the contribution of other factors, has received little attention as an independent contributor
to disciplinary infractions among these youths.
Investigations of the contribution of adolescent mental health concerns to disciplinary
infractions have not considered disorder per se, but some have focused on psychopathy
or psychopathic traits. Some of those who have investigated psychopathy in incarcerated
adolescents report associations with increased aggression and misconduct (Brandt, Kennedy,
Patrick, & Curtin, 1997; Falshaw & Browne, 1997; Forth, Hart, & Hare, 1990), although
others have failed to replicate these findings (e.g., Serin, 1991). There are limitations to the
assessment and management of psychopathy in juveniles. Although instruments that mea-
sure psychopathy identify certain prominent features of Antisocial Personality Disorder
(American Psychiatric Association, 1994) that may relate to misconduct, some have cau-
tioned against applying to youths the psychopathy construct from adults (Edens, Skeem,
Cruise, & Cauffman, 2000; Grisso, 1998) because, in recognition of their developmental
fluidity, children and adolescents cannot obtain a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality
Disorder. This means that it is important to extend the examination of associations between
mental health concerns and institutional misconduct beyond consideration of psychopathy
and into a study of Axis I disorders. In the same light, adolescent psychopathy has been
negatively associated with internalizing or emotional problems (e.g., anxiety, depression;
Brandt et al., 1997; Frick, Lilienfeld, Ellis, Loney, & Silverthorn, 1999; Frick, O’Brien,
Wootton, & McBurnett, 1994; Toupin, Mercier, Dery, Cote, & Hodgins, 1996). By inference,
then, we might expect that adolescents with internalizing disorders would show lower levels
of institutional misconduct. In other work, institutional misconduct has been found to relate
to some, but not all, nondiagnostic symptom scales (Butler, Loney, & Kistner, 2007).

---

1176
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
To better understand risks for juveniles’ institutional misconduct, we examined the inde-
pendent relationships between the nature and complexity of disorder and disciplinary
infractions among male youths in a postadjudicatory secure facility.
METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
We secured the support of the director of the New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission,
who provided access to youths at the New Jersey Training School for Boys (NJTSB).
NJTSB is a secure orientation and assessment center where male youths who have been
committed to state custody are initially admitted, assessed, and later placed.
Participation was voluntary; participating youths signed assent. Incarcerated youths are
in the custody of their state’s juvenile justice commissioner, and there are well-documented
practical difficulties in obtaining parental consent for these procedures (Ko, Wasserman,
McReynolds, & Katz, 2004). Accordingly, after assessment, in lieu of active parental consent,
legal caretakers of participating youths received a project information sheet describing the
study and were offered an opportunity to withdraw their son’s data.
During a 2-month data collection period, 217 boys were asked to participate; all but 7
agreed. In addition, seven assessments were not included for technical or logistical reasons
(e.g., power outage). Five parents withdrew their son’s data. One youth’s data were excluded
from analysis after systematic review detected implausible completion times coupled with
inappropriate responses to open-ended questions. Diagnostic data were available, then, for
197 boys, reflecting a response rate higher than 90%. Data on infractions while in the facil-
ity were not available for 9 youths, and 12 youths were missing information on number...