View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Services for Juveniles with Emotional Disturbances in Secure-Care Settings: An Exploratory Analysis of Racial Disparities and Recidivism

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Services for Juveniles with Emotional Disturbances in Secure-Care Settings: An Exploratory Analysis of Racial Disparities and Recidivism
Language: English
Authors: Strassfeld, Natasha M. (ORCID 0000-0002-8522-2272), Cherng, Hua-Yu Sebastian
Source: Behavioral Disorders. Aug 2022 47(4):257-269.
Availability: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Juvenile Justice, Emotional Disturbances, Recidivism, Correctional Institutions, Institutionalized Persons, Delinquency, Delinquent Rehabilitation, Delinquency Prevention, Racial Differences, Placement, Transitional Programs, Risk
Geographic Terms: Minnesota
DOI: 10.1177/01987429211046552
ISSN: 0198-7429
Abstract: This study examines associations between recidivism rates and groups/programs for legally mandated education, behavioral, and mental health services that court-ordered juvenile youth ("juveniles") with identified emotional disturbance or related conditions receive in secure-care juvenile facilities. Using statewide agency data in Minnesota, this exploratory analysis investigates whether there are racial/ethnic and county disparities in residential placements or secure-care settings via programs and groups for court-ordered juveniles (N = 1,092). The study also considers whether program and group placements contribute to racial/ethnic patterns of recidivism. This study finds that recidivism rate differences by program/group level are largely attributed to differences in racial/ethnic compositions. Findings suggest placements lack strong effects on recidivism, and assignments may perpetuate inequalities. In addition, from this exploratory analysis examination, this article offers considerations for future research-to-practice partnerships to strengthen legally and policy-mandated program and service delivery with practices that increase training to juvenile justice system professionals, access to secure-care setting services, and transition services for juveniles.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1343408
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEeKEVYiWL14NniAbl4yQ6eAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCnuojMC8UjLyv05awIBEICBm5k8WbKD1WFuQg5W_6BRYiue_M5Jysc8MduO94ofzx0qQulfSNbxMw3CMUlMEXmEqHQf2AT9DcB3H82cnuvlVsuDp9q26EeiAc-TXM503XLDIslQ6U-6w99-koz3L-0NPz5ts03PQYw8R1_b8H2HK3UWAumGOJ-dNN16pZidjFWXFFd08ENPF7V8q8dstaxytq1Zy3vmObuSEhNX
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0157637380;bhd01aug.22;2022Jun28.05:10;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0157637380-1">Services for Juveniles With Emotional Disturbances in Secure-Care Settings: An Exploratory Analysis of Racial Disparities and Recidivism </title> <p>This study examines associations between recidivism rates and groups/programs for legally mandated education, behavioral, and mental health services that court-ordered juvenile youth ("juveniles") with identified emotional disturbance or related conditions receive in secure-care juvenile facilities. Using statewide agency data in Minnesota, this exploratory analysis investigates whether there are racial/ethnic and county disparities in residential placements or secure-care settings via programs and groups for court-ordered juveniles (N = 1,092). The study also considers whether program and group placements contribute to racial/ethnic patterns of recidivism. This study finds that recidivism rate differences by program/group level are largely attributed to differences in racial/ethnic compositions. Findings suggest placements lack strong effects on recidivism, and assignments may perpetuate inequalities. In addition, from this exploratory analysis examination, this article offers considerations for future research-to-practice partnerships to strengthen legally and policy-mandated program and service delivery with practices that increase training to juvenile justice system professionals, access to secure-care setting services, and transition services for juveniles.</p> <p>Keywords: juvenile justice; disability; service delivery; policy; recidivism</p> <p>Students with disabilities who are detained or incarcerated within the juvenile justice system as juvenile youth ("juveniles") are consistently overrepresented relative to their counterparts without disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref1">53</reflink>]). Moreover, for detained or incarcerated youth with emotional disturbance (ED), which can comprise such related behavioral conditions as aggression, self-injurious behavior, or anxiety disorders ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref2">12</reflink>]), there are particular disadvantages as juvenile justice systems across the United States struggle to provide access to high-quality special education services ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref3">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref4">32</reflink>]; Leone & Weinberg, 2012). Inadequate mental health services and behavioral treatment for juveniles are additional concerns ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref5">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref6">49</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref7">50</reflink>]). Juveniles within the juvenile justice system are also about 10 times more likely than their counterparts outside the system to have ED or related conditions ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref8">17</reflink>]). Also, approximately 65% to 70% of juveniles within the juvenile justice system have a diagnosable mental health condition, emotional disturbance, or behavioral disorder ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref9">40</reflink>]). Most strikingly, in the U.S. juvenile justice system that detains approximately 48,000 minor youth on any given day ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref10">42</reflink>]), there is a missing link as to which types of correctional services, programs, and individual-level risk factors are most strongly associated with reduced recidivism for juvenile justice system-involved youth ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref11">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given the overrepresentation of racial or ethnic minorities within the juvenile justice system, there is also a greater need to understand more about the types of programs and services they receive, particularly as they are overrepresented within the juvenile justice system population. Specifically, Black youth are approximately 14% of the overall U.S. youth population but approximately 77% of the juvenile justice system population ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref12">42</reflink>]). Similarly, Indigenous youth make up less than 1% of the overall U.S. youth population but approximately 5% of youth within the juvenile justice system ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref13">42</reflink>]). Yet, for racial and ethnic minority juveniles, there are further concerns about the association, if any, with recidivism after community reentry. Juvenile recidivism—which can occur as a <emph>conviction</emph> for a new offense, an <emph>arrest</emph> for a new offense, or as a <emph>probation</emph> or <emph>supervision revocation</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref14">37</reflink>])—remains an area of emerging research ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref15">3</reflink>]). However, studies do suggest that racial or ethnic minority juveniles have less access to correctional services or programs most strongly associated with reduced recidivism ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref16">56</reflink>]). This is particularly true for racial or ethnic minority juveniles with an ED classification ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref17">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>Moreover, the lack of access to services for juveniles with disabilities, racial disparities, and recidivism challenges for youth remain even after four decades of juvenile justice and education policy reforms within federal law ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref19">46</reflink>]). These relevant laws include the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act [JJDPA], the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEA], and the Every Student Succeeds Act [ESSA]) that address outcome disparities for one of the most vulnerable populations within the juvenile justice system. For example, all IDEA-eligible juveniles must receive a free, appropriate public education (FAPE), outlined via an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and/or an Individualized Transition Program (ITP). These mechanisms outline services, accommodations, supports (e.g., employment or transition supports post-release), and individualized measurable academic goals (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 <emph>et seq</emph>.). In addition, each eligible juvenile must receive the full extent of his or her due process protections under IDEA ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref20">25</reflink>]). The JJDPA further requires that states invest federal funds to address juvenile justice and future delinquency prevention, meet education needs of juveniles, and provide for gender-specific programs and mental health services ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref21">27</reflink>]). Finally, the recent reauthorization of ESSA now includes a larger focus on the transition of students from public schools to juvenile justice placements and back to appropriate educational settings upon reentry to the community ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref22">16</reflink>]). It requires prompt credit transfer and mandates assistance with high school diploma acquisition ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref23">16</reflink>]). As evident here, these pieces of legislation are important not only because they outline federal guidance and mandates to states, State Education Agencies (SEAs), and Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) but also provide critical insight regarding what constitutes the wide range of services offered to juveniles to address transition, community re-entry, and recidivism ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref24">48</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0157637380-2">Factors Associated With Recidivism for Juvenile Youth With Emotional Disturbances</hd> <p>Although law and policy serve as important mechanisms to guide service delivery within the juvenile justice system and aid in the reduction and prevention of recidivism, they are not the only factors that have associations with juvenile recidivism. While juvenile recidivism rates and associated reporting requirements vary widely from state to state, the limited research in this area finds that juveniles with identified ED or related conditions are most likely to recidivate ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref25">3</reflink>]). Moreover, the emerging research suggests that there is an array of recidivism risk factors, particularly for youth with ED including individual, system, and placement-related factors.</p> <hd id="AN0157637380-3">Individual-level risk factors</hd> <p>At the individual level, studies have found that a strong predictor for recidivism is age at first arrest for any juvenile ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref26">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref27">5</reflink>]). In a multi-cohort replication study of predictors of recidivism and offense severity, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref28">4</reflink>] found that those arrested at a younger age are more likely to recidivate. Furthermore, other studies have found that girls with a history of ED or related conditions during elementary school were more likely to be arrested by middle or high school ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref29">19</reflink>]). Relatedly, within the limited research on neighborhood and community effects on juvenile recidivism, studies have found that proxy variables such as neighborhood unemployment and poverty levels can have an association with recidivism ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref30">23</reflink>]). However, studies have noted that neighborhood and/or county variables often serve as suboptimal proxies for more specific, individual-level variables (e.g., household income, family history of recidivism) due to data collection restrictions within the juvenile justice system ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref31">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition, the intensity and type of education, behavioral, or mental health services that a juvenile receives during their stay or detainment is also associated with risk for recidivism. For instance, studies suggest that juveniles enrolled in high-quality education programs and those with higher rates of academic attainment during detainment may be more likely to return to school after reentry into their community and less likely to recidivate ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref32">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref33">28</reflink>]). Similarly, comorbid mental and behavioral health needs have been associated with higher rates of recidivism ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref34">24</reflink>]). Finally, as previously mentioned, the emerging body of literature in this area finds that an ED identification is a stronger predictor of recidivism for Black juveniles than it is for White juveniles ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref35">3</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0157637380-4">System-level risk factors</hd> <p>At the system level, evidence suggests that the resources and treatment quality within a particular juvenile justice system can serve as a risk factor for recidivism ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref36">2</reflink>]). For instance, when juvenile justice systems under-identify children with psychiatric disorders who might be otherwise eligible for services under IDEA or a mental or behavioral health program specifically targeting juveniles with ED or related conditions, those youth may be at even greater risk for recidivism ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref37">44</reflink>]). Similarly, other studies have found that when juveniles transition out of the juvenile justice system and are not provided individualized and robust services (e.g., services that meaningfully prepare youth for transition, community reentry, additional education attainment, or social skills development), they are more likely to recidivate ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref38">10</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0157637380-5">Placement risk factors</hd> <p>Finally, within the limited research examining effects of placement for juveniles, program and/or group placement for juveniles within the juvenile justice system can also have negative associations with recidivism. That is, once a youth is within the juvenile justice system, the types of placements (e.g., residential, secure-care settings, group homes, or boot camps) and groups (e.g., groupings by gender or grade level) may also have associations with a greater likelihood of recidivism ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref39">2</reflink>]). For example, in a study examining juvenile justice involvement, youth randomly assigned to Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care had lower levels of juvenile youth association than those youth assigned to group home placements at a 12-month follow-up ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref40">34</reflink>]). Similarly, studies have found that juveniles with behavioral issues were more likely to be in restricted, incarcerated settings, while youth with emotional issues were more likely to be placed into residential treatment placements ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref41">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Regarding race and ethnicity, other studies have found that professionals' bias or racism can influence program referral and placement decisions wherein Black youth are more likely to be referred to more restrictive programs than White youth ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref42">11</reflink>]). Racial bias within referral and placement decisions is particularly relevant within a juvenile justice system context as professionals can make specific placement determinations after a judge's adjudication. Intake, in particular, is where previous research has found the "greatest evidence of racial bias" ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref43">31</reflink>], p. 57). These referral and placement decisions are also associated with recidivism increases for Black youth ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref44">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Even though several risk factors associated with recidivism for juveniles with behavioral conditions have been found within the limited research base, the dearth of research itself contributes to the challenges of both understanding issues within the field and then subsequently addressing them ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref45">30</reflink>]). These challenges are often due to barriers such as juvenile justice facility center attrition and lack of facility coordination or research-practice partnerships (RPP) that are "long-term collaborations between practitioners and researchers that are organized to investigate problems of practice and solutions for improving schools and school districts" ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref46">13</reflink>], p. 48). Therefore, juvenile justice research, particularly for youth with mental health issues in secure-care residential settings, often offers a view that identifies barriers and challenges to service delivery but does not always offer robust recommendations to "improve on standard practice" ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref47">29</reflink>], p. 250).</p> <p>Thus, as evident here, the juvenile justice system is guided by a set of relevant laws and policies supporting service delivery, mental and behavioral treatment, and supports for juveniles. However, it is apparent that juveniles experience a variety of recidivism risk factors within the juvenile justice system due to their age, facility resources, or potential racism/bias within the juvenile justice system itself, and placement. In addition, the limited research base necessitates the "[i]mplementation of empirical studies in these facilities [to] help grow the body of research in this area" ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref48">30</reflink>], p. 50).</p> <p>Yet, the small research base provides limited information regarding the degree of association between placement in a particular type of setting and recidivism. Due to the prevalence of court-ordered secure-care setting placements (e.g., behavioral and mental health treatment and interventions and cognitive behavior treatment) for juveniles with ED or related conditions ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref49">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref50">47</reflink>]), the present study explored associations between the types of programs and services for behavioral and mental health services that court-ordered juveniles with ED or related conditions receive in secure-care settings. It also examined the likelihood of recidivism upon release, with particular attention paid to race and ethnicity due to a lack of research examining trends for system-involved racial or ethnic minority youth with ED or related conditions.</p> <hd id="AN0157637380-6">Research Questions</hd> <p>Within this exploratory analysis, the research questions are as follows: (a) Among juveniles, what are rates of recidivism by group, program, and race/ethnicity? (b) Among juveniles, are there racial/ethnic differences in residential, secure-care ("secure-care") placement settings via programs and groups? and (c) Do program and group differences in rates of recidivism remain after considering their racial/ethnic composition and youths' county of residence? To answer these questions, data from the State of Minnesota, a racially diverse state, are examined.</p> <hd id="AN0157637380-7">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0157637380-8">Setting and Participant Characteristics</hd> <p>In Minnesota, both juvenile placement in secure-care facilities and reentry services are overseen by the Minnesota Department of Corrections ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref51">51</reflink>]). Mental health screenings may be required for any juvenile who is detained in a state-licensed detention facility ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref52">51</reflink>]). Prior to or in lieu of sentencing to a juvenile or adult correctional facility, juveniles who have committed an offense or crime can be referred to a diversion program. Diversion is a process whereby less serious offenders (e.g., juveniles who have committed petty, non-violent crimes) are diverted to programs and services offered outside of "traditional" corrections institutions that serve adult or juvenile populations ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref53">51</reflink>]). The goal of diversion is to reduce juvenile delinquency and recidivism rates while maintaining public safety ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref54">51</reflink>]). Referrals to diversion in Minnesota can come from a variety of sources, including county attorneys, school administrators, and probation officers ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref55">51</reflink>]). Each juvenile in this study had been diverted to a secure-care residential facility setting because of an existing, identified ED or related condition. Within the sample, each juvenile was followed until the 5 years following their release from secure-care detainment or at the point of the first adult criminal conviction.</p> <p>The sample (<emph>N</emph> = 1,092) consisted of all enrolled juveniles with identified ED or related conditions born between 1984 and 2001 who were court-ordered to receive services from the agency during their period of detainment. Overall, the Minnesota sample included the following demographic characteristics: 76.94% male, an average age of 16.14 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.48 years), 39.62% White, 35.47% Black, 1.26% Latinx, 11.64% Indigenous, 3.97% Asian/Asian-Pacific Islander, and 6.95% with Two or More Races (see [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref56">4</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0157637380-9">Dataset and Dataset Characteristics</hd> <p>The dataset for this study came from a statewide agency ("agency") in Minnesota that provides court-ordered services to juveniles in juvenile justice residential, secure-care facilities throughout the state. The agency is a trauma-informed organization that provides, among other services, special education, youth mental health services and treatment, trauma-focused residential treatment, social development, and relationship-building programs for all court-ordered juveniles. Under the federal definition, these facilities are considered secure-care because juveniles were court-ordered to receive residential services at these facilities that have "building features and/or staffing models designed to restrict the movement and activities of the residents" ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref57">55</reflink>], p. 2).</p> <p>The agency data were collected by the agency (and not the authors of this article), so the age range of juveniles and data collection dates for juveniles within the study were pre-determined by the particular needs of the agency. Data were collected yearly from the time of each juvenile detainment, so no data from a youth's prior case file or juvenile record were provided. The authors received approval from the Institutional Review Board prior to any data analysis of this previously collected data.</p> <p>Each juvenile who received services from this agency had both a group affiliation and program assignment for services. Juveniles were assigned to a group based on gender and age, but subjective factors such as current size of existing groups, offense-level statuses within existing groups, and maturity levels of overall existing group members were also used to determine group placement for incoming youth. It is important to note that group affiliation determinations were predominately subjective. For example, if two similar-age juveniles (one of whom provided information to law enforcement about the other juvenile's involvement in a separate incident) came to the facility at the same time, these youth would be placed in separate groups.</p> <p>Juveniles were placed into one of the four programs based on his or her previously identified behavioral, education, mental health, or sentencing needs found during an intake assessment. <emph>Program Cognitive Management</emph> is a behavioral and emotional management program that uses cognitive behavioral approaches to target juveniles with behavioral needs to reduce out-of-home placement. <emph>Program Long-Term Treatment</emph> is a residential treatment program that uses evidence-based practices to address behavioral, emotional, chemical dependency, and mental health needs for juveniles who will be detained over longer periods of time. <emph>Program Independent Living</emph> is a gender-specific transition program that targets independent-living skills and provides education, employment, and life skills services. A fourth program, <emph>Program Short-Term Treatment</emph>, which is a short-term intervention program (between 90–120 days) with a focus on behavior management, self-regulation, and outpatient substance abuse and dependency treatment, was also an option. However, given the small number of participants in the program, it was excluded from analyses (see [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref58">5</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0157637380-10">Exploratory Data Analysis</hd> <p>Derived from the work of John Tukey, Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) is a method used to examine trends and patterns, if any, within actualized, real-time data ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref59">7</reflink>]). EDA is particularly useful when the "goal is not to draw conclusions regarding guilt and innocence but rather to investigate the actors, generate hunches, and provide preliminary evidence" ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref60">6</reflink>], p. 133). Specifically, EDA is used as a methodological tool to examine "numerous hypotheses, [look] for patterns, and [suggest] hypotheses based on the [data]" ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref61">6</reflink>], p. 133). Moreover, a goal of EDA is to develop models that help explain or clarify a phenomenon, and this can be accomplished using EDA as a data-analysis tool that complements other data methodology ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref62">7</reflink>]). Accordingly, the preliminary evidence examined here is from one component of the juvenile justice system (i.e., secure-care settings) and is offered as a way to explore patterns, particularly regarding racial disparities, found within this evidence.</p> <p>Furthermore, EDA is useful as a reporting tool for exploratory findings in areas where there is limited prior comprehensive reporting and/or longitudinal findings ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref63">7</reflink>]). Therefore, within this article, it is helpful to examine these specific data in terms of the posed research questions and to understand how placement and program-based decisions may influence recidivism over time. In addition, EDA provides an opportunity to explore the extent of disparity, if any, and make deductions as to any potential causal relationships between factors that should be noted for future research.</p> <hd id="AN0157637380-11">Variables</hd> <p>The dependent variable <emph>recidivation</emph> is a binary variable based on whether the juvenile who formerly received services in one of the three diversion programs was charged and convicted of a new offense after initial release. The independent variables included program-, group-, and individual-level characteristics. A categorical variable represents the <emph>program</emph> that the juvenile is enrolled in: Program Cognitive Management (the reference group), Program Long-Term Treatment, and Program Independent Living. An indicator variable represents the <emph>group</emph> that the juvenile is then assigned to: Group Atlas (the reference group), and Groups Breckenridge, Cadre, Delta, Emblazon, Feature, and Gable. A six-category variable represents the <emph>race/ethnicity</emph> of the youth: White (the reference group), Black, Latino (referred to here as Latinx), Indigenous, Asian/Asian-Pacific Islander, and Two or More Races. A binary variable represents whether the juvenile is listed as <emph>female</emph> (coded "1" if female and "0" if male) and a continuous variable represents the <emph>age</emph> of the juvenile. Finally, a categorical variable represents the county (out of 64 counties) in which the juvenile originally resided. More information about the sample can be found in Table 1, which shows descriptive statistics for all variables used in the analyses. Table 1 shows the proportion of individuals who recidivate (10% of our sample), attend different programs and groups, belong to different racial/ethnic groups, and are female. It also shows the average age of individuals.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 1. Descriptive Statistics on All Variables Used in Analyses.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Variables</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic>/Proportion</th><th align="center">(SD)</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4">Dependent variable</td></tr><tr><td> Recidivate</td><td>0.10</td><td /><td>185</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Independent variables</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"> Program</td></tr><tr><td> Cognitive Management</td><td>0.50</td><td /><td>603</td></tr><tr><td> Long-Term Treatment</td><td>0.40</td><td /><td>470</td></tr><tr><td> Independent Living</td><td>0.10</td><td /><td>125</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"> Group</td></tr><tr><td> Atlas</td><td>0.22</td><td /><td>265</td></tr><tr><td> Breckenridge</td><td>0.15</td><td /><td>182</td></tr><tr><td> Constellation</td><td>0.29</td><td /><td>351</td></tr><tr><td> Delta</td><td>0.08</td><td /><td>105</td></tr><tr><td> Emblazon</td><td>0.08</td><td /><td>104</td></tr><tr><td> Feature</td><td>0.08</td><td /><td>115</td></tr><tr><td> Gable</td><td>0.06</td><td /><td>71</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"> Youth race/ethnicity</td></tr><tr><td> White</td><td>0.40</td><td /><td>439</td></tr><tr><td> Black</td><td>0.35</td><td /><td>393</td></tr><tr><td> Latinx</td><td>0.01</td><td /><td>14</td></tr><tr><td> Indigenous</td><td>0.12</td><td /><td>129</td></tr><tr><td> Asian/Asian-Pacific Islander</td><td>0.04</td><td /><td>44</td></tr><tr><td> Two or More Races</td><td>0.07</td><td /><td>77</td></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td>0.24</td><td /><td>293</td></tr><tr><td> Age</td><td>16.14</td><td>(1.49)</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> 20 students were also enrolled in Short-Term Treatment, but were dropped due to small <emph>N</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0157637380-12">Analytic Strategy</hd> <p>Using the Minnesota data, this study further investigated whether there are descriptive differences in rates of recidivism by program, group, and juvenile race/ethnicity. The analyses first showed a series of descriptive figures that displayed rates of recidivism by student characteristics and the racial/ethnic composition of programs and groups. To examine the link between recidivism and the racial/ethnic composition of programs and groups, regression analyses were conducted. In these analyses, given that counties differ drastically by socioeconomic and demographic compositions—characteristics that are linked with rates of recidivism—county fixed effects models were used to estimate rates of recidivism. Therefore, only outcomes for juveniles that reside in the same county were compared. The model to be fitted is shown in the following:</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">l</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">n</mi><mfrac><mrow><mi>P</mi><mi>r</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><msub><mi>y</mi><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><mn>1</mn><mo stretchy="false">)</mo></mrow><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>−</mo><mi mathvariant="normal">P</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">r</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><msub><mi>y</mi><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><mn>1</mn><mo stretchy="false">)</mo></mrow></mfrac><mo>=</mo><mi mathvariant="normal">α</mi><mo>+</mo><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">χ</mi><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>j</mi></mrow><mo>′</mo></msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">β</mi><mo>+</mo><msub><mi mathvariant="normal">ν</mi><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi mathvariant="normal">ε</mi><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p>where <emph>i =</emph> 1,..., <emph>N</emph> denotes individuals, <emph>j</emph> = 1,..., <emph>n</emph><subs><emph>i</emph></subs> denotes counties of residence, and</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">l</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">n</mi><mfrac><mrow><mi>P</mi><mi>r</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><msub><mi>y</mi><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><mn>1</mn><mo stretchy="false">)</mo></mrow><mrow><mn>1</mn><mo>−</mo><mi mathvariant="normal">P</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">r</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><msub><mi>y</mi><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><mn>1</mn><mo stretchy="false">)</mo></mrow></mfrac></mrow></math> </ephtml> is whether the juvenile recidivates.</item> <p></p> <item> α is the intercept.</item> <p></p> <item> β is the vector of regression coefficients.</item> <p></p> <item> χ<subs><emph>ij</emph></subs> is the vector of individual-level predictors, including race, program and group indicators, and control variables (e.g., sex and age).</item> <p></p> <item> ν<subs><emph>i</emph></subs> is the individual-level residual.</item> <p></p> <item> ε<subs><emph>ij</emph></subs> is the county-level residual.</item> </ulist> <p>The fixed effects approach estimates α and β using logistic regression where <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msub><mover accent="true"><mi>y</mi><mo>¯</mo></mover><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>=</mo><msubsup><mo>∑</mo><mrow><mi>j</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow><mrow><msub><mi>n</mi><mi>i</mi></msub></mrow></msubsup><mrow><msub><mi>y</mi><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub></mrow><mo>/</mo><msub><mi>n</mi><mrow><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><mspace width="0.25em" /><mi>a</mi><mi>n</mi><mi>d</mi><mspace width="0.25em" /><mover accent="true"><mi>y</mi><mo>¯</mo></mover><mo>=</mo><msubsup><mo>∑</mo><mrow><mi>i</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow><mi>N</mi></msubsup><mrow><msub><mi>y</mi><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub></mrow><mo>/</mo><mi>N</mi></mrow></math> </ephtml> are the within-individual and overall means and similarly for the other terms. Standard errors are estimated with a Huber–White sandwich estimator.</p> <hd id="AN0157637380-13">Results</hd> <p>Turning to the first research question, which focuses on descriptive differences on the outcome variable (i.e., youth recidivism) by key variables of interest, Figure 1 shows rates of recidivism by program, group, and race/ethnicity within the Minnesota dataset. Here, the main finding is that different programs, groups, and racial/ethnic groups have, descriptively, different rates of recidivism. Among programs, Cognitive Management has the lowest rates of recidivism (12%) compared to Long-Term Treatment (18%) and Independent Living (21%). For groups, Atlas and Breckenridge have far lower rates of recidivism (4% and 1%, respectively) compared to other groups, such as Emblazon (33%) or Gable (30%). Black and Indigenous youth also have higher rates of recidivism (22% and 19%, respectively) compared to other race/ethnicity categories.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Rates of recidivism, by group, program, and race/ethnicity. Note. Statistically significant differences for all three at p < 0.001 level.</p> <p>The second research question asks whether there are racial/ethnic differences in program and group placements. To address this question, Figure 2 shows the racial/ethnic composition of programs and Figure 3 shows the racial/ethnic composition of groups. These figures demonstrate that the programs and groups have largely different racial/ethnic compositions. For example, almost half of the juveniles who entered the Cognitive Management program were White, compared to less than a third of juveniles who were sentenced to Program Independent Living. Program Cognitive Management contained the fewest number of Black juveniles (27%) compared to Program Independent Living (45%). Among groups, the percentage of White juveniles ranged from 21% (Group Emblazon) to 51% (Group Breckenridge). These groups also had the highest and lowest percentage of Black juveniles, respectively. Descriptive results show that rates of recidivism varied widely by programs, groups, and racial/ethnic categories. Moreover, programs and groups also had different racial/ethnic compositions, which suggests that program and group differences in rates of recidivism may be linked to their demographic composition. Alternatively, White juveniles may be assigned to more effective programs.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Racial/ethnic demographics of programs.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Racial/ethnic demographics of groups.</p> <p>The final research question focuses on whether program and group differences in recidivism rates persist after considering their demographic compositions. Accordingly, Table 2 shows coefficients from logistic regression models with county fixed effects. Model 1 includes only a variable representing programs to test whether program differences in rates of recidivism persist after only comparing youth that come from the same county. Model 2 adds variables representing groups, which reveals whether program differences persist once group placements are considered, as well as group differences themselves. Model 3, the full model, includes student characteristics, notably race/ethnicity, to examine whether program and group differences remain after considering their demographic compositions.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 2. Coefficients From County Fixed Effects Logistic Regression Models Estimating Whether Juvenile Recidivates.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Variables</th><th align="center">Model 1</th><th align="center">Model 2</th><th align="center">Model 3</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4">Program (reference group: Cognitive Management)</td></tr><tr><td> Long-Term Treatment</td><td>2.80<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td>−0.98<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td>−1.00</td></tr><tr><td> Independent Living</td><td>3.02<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td>−9.66</td><td>−8.87</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Group (reference group: Atlas)</td></tr><tr><td> Breckenridge</td><td /><td>−0.75</td><td>−0.40</td></tr><tr><td> Constellation</td><td /><td>1.74<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">***</xref></td><td>2.14</td></tr><tr><td> Delta</td><td /><td>2.68<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">***</xref></td><td>3.21</td></tr><tr><td> Emblazon</td><td /><td>2.90<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">***</xref></td><td>3.04</td></tr><tr><td> Feature</td><td /><td>2.44<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">***</xref></td><td>2.93</td></tr><tr><td> Gable</td><td /><td>11.53</td><td>10.75</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Race/ethnicity (reference group: White)</td></tr><tr><td> Black</td><td /><td /><td>0.76<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td> Latinx</td><td /><td /><td>−0.36</td></tr><tr><td> Indigenous</td><td /><td /><td>1.44<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">***</xref></td></tr><tr><td> Asian/Asian-Pacific Islander</td><td /><td /><td>−0.85</td></tr><tr><td> Two or more race</td><td /><td /><td>−0.37</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td /><td /><td>0.34</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td /><td /><td>0.19<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td>1,155</td><td>1,155</td><td>1,155</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>p</emph> <.05. **<emph>p</emph> <.01. ***<emph>p</emph> <.001.</p> <p>From this analysis, there are two main findings. First, while program and group differences are similar in Models 1 and 2, once juvenile characteristics of race, gender, and age are controlled for, there are no differences in rates of recidivism among programs and groups (Model 3). Second, Model 3 also shows that Black and Indigenous juveniles were much more likely to recidivate regardless of the type of group or program services they received. Interaction models were run to determine whether there were differential returns to programs and groups by race/ethnicity. No interaction terms were significant. Figure 4 illustrates this finding: The highest probabilities of recidivating were found for Black (0.23) and Indigenous (0.32) juveniles.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4. Predicted probabilities of recidivating. Note. Models estimated from Table 2, Model 3. All other variables held at mean or proportion.</p> <hd id="AN0157637380-14">Discussion</hd> <p>The present study attempted to identify factors associated with recidivism for juveniles with identified ED or related conditions by analyzing a longitudinal dataset covering multiple cohorts of juveniles court-ordered to receive education, mental health, and behavioral services within residential, secure-care settings. Three research questions were posed. First, in regard to rates of recidivism by group, program, and youth race/ethnicity, the study found that, descriptively, rates differed across these three categories. This is consistent with prior work ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref64">5</reflink>]). For instance, Black and Indigenous juveniles were found to have higher rates of recidivism than other racial/ethnic groups. Second, regarding whether the racial/ethnic composition of programs and groups differed, some groups had more than double the proportion of White youth compared to others. Third, regarding whether program and group differences in rates of recidivism persisted after considering their racial/ethnic composition, the study found that there are no longer statistically significant program and group differences in rates of recidivism after controlling for individual youth characteristics. In other words, within this study, race is a consistent factor that predicts the likelihood of recidivism. These findings are consistent with other scholarly work, with recent estimates showing that Black juveniles are more than 4 times as likely to be court-ordered to receive services within a secure-care setting than White juveniles, and Indigenous juveniles more than 3 times as likely to be court-ordered as White juveniles ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref65">43</reflink>]). Therefore, these results suggest that, while legal and policy reforms aimed at addressing practices within juvenile facilities and special education programs/related services within placements have recently pushed juvenile justice systems to have a greater focus on service delivery, rehabilitation, and transition/reentry for all juveniles, these reforms may fail to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref66">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>Yet, even though there are some limited findings and patterns from this exploratory analysis, this study illustrates the need for cross-sector partnerships to support system-involved youth. That is, juveniles returning to their communities require multiple agencies to work in concert to prevent the reoccurrence of offenses. Indeed, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref67">13</reflink>] note the importance of collaboration across agencies (e.g., juvenile justice, social work, education) to share insights and evidence within an education context. Moreover, determining the possible extent and limitations of RPPs, understanding challenges with involving and informing juvenile justice professionals of evidence-based practices, and recognizing pitfalls associated with developing these partnerships to increase information dissemination of research collected within actual residential settings remain ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref68">35</reflink>]). Accordingly, the following section contextualizes the study's findings and situates them into a larger discussion regarding RPP recommendations within the juvenile justice system based upon challenges found within these findings.</p> <hd id="AN0157637380-15">Offer Additional Placement Training Based Upon Evidence-Based Practices</hd> <p>Within this study, groups and programs with the lowest percentages of Black or Indigenous juveniles were also the groups or programs with the lowest rates of recidivism. From an RPP perspective, professionals working within secure-care setting placements must consider paying greater attention to how juveniles are grouped or placed after being sentenced to a court-ordered detainment. That is, there may be a need for practitioners to be trained to engage in intentional efforts to distribute program effects, treatment, and high-quality services across the juvenile population within secure-care settings in ways that are culturally responsive. Moreover, these types of exercises align with recent mandates under the 2018 JJDPA reauthorization, which requires that juvenile justice systems identify practices that result in racial disparities and systematically reduce these disparities ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref69">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>For instance, professionals could be provided training on how to discuss appropriate and equitable program placements during intake, with team follow-up throughout a juvenile's stay and upon community re-entry ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref70">48</reflink>]). Moreover, specific training regarding the importance of heterogeneous group and program placement will allow practitioners working with juveniles in secure-care settings an opportunity to consider how to best use resources to provide preventive and rehabilitative strategies to all juveniles, particularly for racial or ethnic minority juveniles who are at higher risk for recidivism. In practice, these trainings could provide juvenile justice system professionals with case-based opportunities to examine profiles of youth like those in facilities where professionals work, and professionals could consider how to make placement decisions based upon individual, identified needs within a profile ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref71">48</reflink>]). In addition, with training opportunities such as these, there is also the prospect of improving professionals' understanding of which services, groups, and programs are most clearly linked to reduced recidivism.</p> <p>Relatedly, as the research base for this type of intake training emerges, it is even more critical to advance high-quality research that sheds new insight on how placement decisions occur in practice and can be reformed in the future. Though the research is emerging, initial analysis signals that professionals continue to need significant training to adopt evidence-based practice and that staff need help "learn[ing] to integrate the innovation into their work processes" ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref72">52</reflink>], p. 186).</p> <hd id="AN0157637380-16">Link Transition and Reentry Support With Data and Research</hd> <p>Within this study, the percentage of African American and Indigenous formerly court-ordered juveniles who recidivated in comparison to their White counterparts, even after county effects were accounted for, suggests a need to design and implement programs that specifically assist African American and Indigenous court-ordered youth as they transition back into communities that may not be able to adequately receive them. In addition, across the research base, juveniles such as those within this study are reentering communities that are often plagued with excessive surveillance and racial profiling ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref73">18</reflink>]), substandard housing ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref74">39</reflink>]), inadequate education systems ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref75">28</reflink>]), and a dearth of employment opportunities ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref76">39</reflink>]). Upon return, they are also more likely to be served across a spectrum of various social services and public agencies including schools, mental health agencies, or child welfare and health agencies ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref77">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref78">39</reflink>]). This speaks to negative system exposure and inequities for an at-risk population (and their families) who, due to these contextual factors, are at greater risk for recidivism.</p> <p>From an RPP perspective, it is imperative that intervention research with a multi-systemic and integrative approach be used to identify and address various needs as youth transition back into their communities. Additional research may be needed to address how juvenile justice system professionals can support the youth's reentry into an inequitable society that disadvantages them and their families. For example, in a study comparing a sample of juvenile offenders (<emph>n</emph> = 63 reentry program juveniles and 49 juveniles who received standard supervised probation), indicators suggested that reentry services were associated with greater access to ongoing rehabilitation and social services and a reduced likelihood to test positive for drugs or to recidivate ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref79">9</reflink>]). An emerging model such as Project SUPPORT (Service Utilization to Promote the Positive Rehabilitation and Community Transition of Incarcerated Youth with disabilities) has been identified as an evidence-based practice to guide juvenile justice system professionals as they support a juvenile's reentry into education, community, and employment programs ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref80">54</reflink>]). Specifically, the population for Project SUPPORT comprised incarcerated youth with either/both a special education disability or psychiatric diagnosis. Within the intervention, youth were provided with individualized, pre-release transition support and education, self-determination and social skills training, and youth had access to a collaborative transition team led by a transition specialist ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref81">54</reflink>]). As systems consider updating practices in real time, it may be necessary to add to the emerging research in this area and provide data regarding adoption of these types of specific practices.</p> <hd id="AN0157637380-17">Disseminate Research With Stronger Findings and More Robust Reporting Indices</hd> <p>As evidenced from this exploratory analysis, the dataset did not include information regarding intervention fidelity for programs or groups where juveniles were placed, as these data were not collected by the agency itself. When working with datasets collected by juvenile justice system facilities, this is a common limitation, as "[fidelity] in the execution of interventions and the need for more systematic analysis of the process of intervention delivery are not challenges new to [juvenile justice]" ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref82">15</reflink>], p. 456). Accordingly, from an RPP perspective, it is imperative that future research in this challenging area marry information regarding fidelity with stronger findings and other pertinent study data. With this, it becomes possible to build reporting indices and/or juvenile justice reporting clearinghouses such as the What Works Clearinghouse (which reviews research across a variety of research topics including children and youth with disabilities or postsecondary outcomes) to determine which practices or programs best work for juvenile justice system professionals ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref83">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition, this exploratory analysis highlighted challenges with interpreting placement data not collected by researchers. In this exploratory analysis, youth were assigned into programs and groups based on their individualized needs, but the dataset did not include intake notes regarding the significance of determinations and <emph>how</emph> these determinations are made. As prior work has found that juvenile sentencing may be racially biased ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref84">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref85">38</reflink>]), it is conceivable that youth may not have been assigned to programs based solely on their needs. That is, there might have been considerable selection bias into these programs. Future RPP work should focus on how youth, particularly youth with ED or related conditions, are assigned to these programs, and as data become more available, the impacts of these programs can incorporate the selection biases into the programs in the first place.</p> <hd id="AN0157637380-18">Limitations</hd> <p>As previously mentioned, this exploratory analysis has limitations, some of which have been analyzed in context to how future RPP research can blend high-quality evidence-based research with targeted training for juvenile justice system professionals. In addition, there are other study limitations. The "county" variable was used as a proxy for neighborhood characteristics and socioeconomic status. More specifically, individual-level indicators of socioeconomic status (e.g., family income level, family debt-to-income ratio) were not included within our analyses of the Minnesota dataset because intake coordinators did not systematically collect this information for each juvenile. This limitation is common within studies of juveniles within the juvenile justice system, as key demographic information (e.g., parents' educational attainment, family income, parents' criminal record) is rarely collected systematically ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref86">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, criminal offenses are not provided at the individual level for criminal offense classification (e.g., felony, misdemeanor, or infraction status). Similarly, disability status for juveniles is not disaggregated beyond the designation of having an ED or related condition (e.g., anxiety disorders, behavioral/conduct disorders, psychotic disorders [[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref87">12</reflink>]]). These are also common limitations, as juvenile justice data are rarely linked to adult or juvenile recidivism data, let alone linked to ED status or criminal offense data at the individual level ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref88">22</reflink>]). Moreover, pertinent information for juveniles' files are infrequently updated, and juveniles' files are often not transferred completely when juveniles move from placement to placement or to a home school upon community reentry ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref89">22</reflink>]). Future research is needed to examine pertinent individual-level demographic information, and it is critical that mandated information collection practices be enforced.</p> <p>Finally, the present exploratory analysis examination did not include comparison data for other agencies contracted out by the State to provide education or behavioral and mental health services to juveniles in secure-care settings, nor did it include analysis comparing the outcomes of juveniles in secure-care settings to those in other types of residential placements (e.g., juvenile boot camps) or adult correctional facilities. Again, these data are rarely systematically collected and agencies can be hesitant to share data with researchers, but it remains critically important for future research to, when possible, compare youth with ED in court-ordered secure-care settings to their comparable peers within other parts of the juvenile justice system ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref90">56</reflink>]). From this exploratory analysis, it is also clear that those interpreting juvenile justice data and analysis should consider the data collection limitations of agencies and providers within the juvenile justice system, particularly because intake or transition coordinators are often not trained in data collection and/or only have access to a particular component of a youth's sealed court record (Leone & Weinberg, 2012; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref91">48</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0157637380-19">Conclusion</hd> <p>Within this examination of recidivism patterns for formerly court-ordered juveniles with identified ED or related conditions, findings indicate consistently poorer outcomes for Black and Indigenous juveniles. Descriptively, programs, which are based on individual needs, have considerably different racial compositions within this analysis of Minnesota administrative data. Moreover, there remains a need to examine further the individual-level risk factors for juveniles with ED or related conditions and any associations with recidivism. In addition, with the goal of reducing recidivism as youth re-enter communities, it may be necessary to strengthen legally and policy-mandated program and service delivery with evidence-based practices and partnerships that increase access to services delivered by juvenile justice system professionals, equity, and reentry and transition service opportunities for juveniles.</p> <ref id="AN0157637380-20"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref77" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Baglivio M. T., Epps N., Swartz K., Huq M. S., Sheer A., Hardt N. S. (2014). The prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in the lives of juvenile offenders. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 3(2), 1–23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref36" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baglivio M. T., Wolff K. T., Jackowski K., Chapman G., Greenwald M. A., Gomez K. (2018). Does treatment quality matter? Multilevel examination of the effects of intervention quality on recidivism of adolescents completing long-term juvenile justice residential placement. Criminology and Public Policy, 17(1), 147–180.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref15" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barrett D. E., Katsiyannis A. (2015). Juvenile delinquency recidivism: Are black and white youth vulnerable to the same risk factors? Behavioral Disorders, 40(3), 184–195. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/43740446">http://www.jstor.org/stable/43740446</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref18" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barrett D. E., Katsiyannis A., Zhang D. (2010). Predictors of offense severity, adjudication, incarceration, and repeat referrals for juvenile offenders: A multicohort replication study. Remedial and Special Education, 31(4), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932509355990</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref27" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Becker S. P., Kerig P. A., Lim J., Ezechuku R. N. (2012). Predictors of recidivism among delinquent youth: Interrelations among ethnicity, gender, age, mental health problems, and posttraumatic stress. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 5, 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361521.2012.671798</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref60" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Behrens J. T. (1997). Principles and procedures of exploratory data analysis. Psychological Methods, 2(2), 131–160.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref59" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Behrens J. T., Yu C. (2003). Exploratory data analysis. In Schinka J. A., Velicer W. F. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Research methods in psychology (pp. 33–64). John Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref32" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Blomberg T. G., Bales W. D., Mann K., Piquero A. R., Berk R. A. (2011). Incarceration, education, and transition from delinquency. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(4), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.04.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref79" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bouffard J. A., Bergseth K. J. (2008). The impact of reentry services on juvenile offenders' recidivism. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6(3), 295–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204007313384</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bullis M., Yovanoff P., Mueller G., Havel E. (2002). Life on the "outs"—Examination of the facility-to-community transition of incarcerated youth. Exceptional Children, 69(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290206900101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell N. A., Barnes A. R., Mandalari A., Onifade E., Campbell C. A., Anderson V. R., Kashy D. A., Davidson W. S. (2018). Disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system: An investigation of ethnic disparity in program referral at disposition. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 16(2), 77–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2017.1347544</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Center for Parent Information & Resources. (2019). Emotional disturbance. https://<ulink href="http://www.parentcenterhub.org/emotionaldisturbance/">www.parentcenterhub.org/emotionaldisturbance/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coburn C. E., Penuel W. R. (2016). Research practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16631750</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engen R. L., Steen S., Bridges G. S. (2002). Racial disparities in the punishment of youth: A theoretical and empirical assessment of the literature. Social Problems, 49(2), 194–220. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2002.49.2.194</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans-Chase M., Zhou H. (2014). A systematic review of the juvenile justice intervention literature: What it can (and cannot) tell us about what works with delinquent youth. Crime and Delinquency, 60(3), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128712466931</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2015).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fazel S., Doll H., Långström N. (2008). Mental disorders among adolescents in juvenile detention and correctional facilities: A systematic review and metaregression analysis of 25 surveys. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(9), 1010–1019. https://doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e3187eecf3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forman J. Jr. (2017). Locking up our own: Crime and punishment in Black America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gage N. A., Josephs N. L., Lunde K. (2012). Girls with emotional disturbance and a history of arrest: Characteristics and school-based predictors of arrest. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(4), 603–622. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/42900177">www.jstor.org/stable/42900177</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gagnon J. C., Barber B. (2010). Characteristics of and services provided to youth in secure care facilities. Behavioral Disorders, 36(1), 7–19. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/43153826">http://www.jstor.org/stable/43153826</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gagnon J. C., Read N. W., Gonsoulin S. (2015). Key considerations in providing a free appropriate public education for youth with disabilities in juvenile justice secure care facilities. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED571826.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griller Clark H., Unruh D. (2010). Transition practices for adjudicated youth with E/BDs and related disabilities. Behavioral Disorders, 36(1), 43–51. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/43153829">http://www.jstor.org/stable/43153829</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grunwald H. E., Lockwood B., Harris P. W., Mennis J. (2010). Influences of neighborhood context, individual history and parenting behavior on recidivism among juvenile offenders. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 39, 1067–1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9518-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoeve M., McReynolds L. S., Wasserman G. A. (2013). Service referral for juvenile justice youths: Associations with psychiatric disorder and recidivism. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 41, 379–389. <ulink href="http://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0472-x">http://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0472-x</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Institute of Education Sciences. (2020). Welcome to the What Works Clearinghouse. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5601 et seq. (1974).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katsiyannis A., Ryan J. B., Zhang D., Spann A. (2008). Juvenile delinquency and recidivism: The impact of academic achievement. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560701808460</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumm S., Maggin D., Brown C., Talbott E. (2019). A meta-analytic review of mental health interventions targeting youth with internalizing disorders in juvenile justice facilities. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 36(3), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571X.2018.1560716</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lane C., Goldstein E. S., Heilbrun K., Cruise K. R., Pennacchia D. (2012). Obstacles to research in residential juvenile justice facilities: Recommendations for researchers. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 30, 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.1991</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leiber M. J., Mack K. Y. (2003). The individual and joint effects of race, gender, and family status on juvenile justice decision-making. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(1), 34–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427802239253</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leone P. E., Meisel S. M., Drakeford W. (2002). Special education programs for youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections. Journal of Correctional Education, 53(2), 46–50. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/41971066">http://www.jstor.org/stable/41971066</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leone P. E., Weinberg L. (2010). Addressing the unmet educational needs of children and youth in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems. https://<ulink href="http://www.aecf.org/resources/addressing-the-unmet-educational-needs">www.aecf.org/resources/addressing-the-unmet-educational-needs</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leve L. D., Chamberlain P. (2005). Associations with delinquent peers: Intervention effects for youth in the juvenile justice system. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(3), 339–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-005-3571-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Love H., Harvell S. (2016). Understanding research and practice gaps in juvenile justice: Early insights from the Bridge Project. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://<ulink href="http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250489.pdf">www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250489.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyons J. S., Baerger D. R., Quigley P., Erlich J., Griffin E. (2001). Mental health service needs of juvenile offenders: A comparison of detention, incarceration, and treatment settings. Children's Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 4(2), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326918CS0402_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maxfield L. D. (2005). Measuring recidivism under the federal sentencing guidelines. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 17(3), 166–170. <ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/fsr.2005.17.3.166">http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/fsr.2005.17.3.166</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore L. D., Padavic I. (2010). Racial and ethnic disparities in girls' sentencing in the juvenile justice system. Feminist Criminology, 5(3), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085110380583</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myers D. M., Farrell A. F. (2008). Reclaiming lost opportunities: Applying public health models in juvenile justice. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(10), 1159–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.03.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice. (2013). Better solutions for youth with mental health needs in the juvenile justice system. https://ncyoj.policyresearchinc.org/img/resources/Better_Solutions_for_Youth_with_Mental_Health_Needs_in_the_Juvenile_Justice_System-501172.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng I. Y. H. (2010). Where juvenile serious offenders live: A neighborhood analysis of Wayne County, Michigan. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(2), 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.02.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prison Policy Initiative. (2019). Youth confinement: The whole pie 2019. https://<ulink href="http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/youth2019.html">www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/youth2019.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puzzanchera C., Sladky A., Kang W. (2015). Easy access to juvenile populations: 1990–2014. <ulink href="http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop">http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn M. M., Rutherford R. B., Leone P. E., Osher D. M., Poirier J. M. (2005). Youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections: A national survey. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 339–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100308</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rovner J. (2016). Policy brief: Racial disparities in youth commitments and arrests. https://<ulink href="http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Racial-Disparities-in-Youth-Commitments-and-Arrests.pdf">www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Racial-Disparities-in-Youth-Commitments-and-Arrests.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sinclair J. G., Unruh D. K., Griller Clark H., Waintrup M. G. (2017). School personnel perceptions of youth with disabilities returning to high schools from the juvenile justice system. The Journal of Special Education, 51(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466916676089</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stone S., Zibulsky J. (2015). Maltreatment, academic difficulty, and systems-involved youth: Current evidence and opportunities. Psychology in the Schools, 52(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21812</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strassfeld N. M. (2021). Transition for system-involved youth with disabilities: Law, compliance, and support. Education and Treatment of Children, 44(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-021-00036-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swank J. M., Gagnon J. C. (2016). Mental health services in juvenile correctional facilities: A national survey of clinical staff. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(9), 2867–2872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0436-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swank J. M., Gagnon J. C. (2017). A national survey of mental health screening and assessment practices in juvenile correctional facilities. Child & Youth Care Forum, 46, 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-016-9379-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swayze D., Buskovick D. (2012). Minnesota juvenile diversion: A summary of statewide practices and programming. Minnesota Department of Public Safety Office of Justice Programs. https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms-documents/Documents/Juvenile%20Justice%20Reports/MINNESOTA%20JUV_DIV%20REPORT_Final.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taxman F. S., Henderson C., Young D., Farrell J. (2014). The impact of training interventions on organizational readiness to support innovations in juvenile justice offices. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 41, 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-012-0445-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson K.C., Morris R. J. (2016). Juvenile Delinquency and Disability (1st ed.). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Unruh D. K., Gau J. M., Waintrup M. G. (2009). An exploration of factors reducing recidivism rates of formerly incarcerated youth with disabilities participating in a re-entry intervention. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 284–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-008-9228-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Departments of Education & Justice. (2014). Guiding principles for providing high-quality education in juvenile justice secure care settings. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/correctional-education/guiding-principles.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang D., Hsu H., Katsiyannis A., Barrett D. E., Ju S. (2011). Adolescents with disabilities in the juvenile justice system: Patterns of recidivism. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107700302</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0157637380-21"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Natasha M. Strassfeld</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8522-2272</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 1.08% of juveniles (12 individuals) were identified as having an "Unknown" race. Given the focus of the study, these youth were excluded from the analyses.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The fourth program, Short-Term Treatment, served 1.6% of the population within the dataset, which amounted to 20 students. None of these 20 students had recidivated, which precluded these groups from further statistical analyses.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Natasha M. Strassfeld and Hua-Yu Sebastian Cherng</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref86"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1343408
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Services for Juveniles with Emotional Disturbances in Secure-Care Settings: An Exploratory Analysis of Racial Disparities and Recidivism
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Strassfeld%2C+Natasha+M%2E%22">Strassfeld, Natasha M.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8522-2272">0000-0002-8522-2272</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cherng%2C+Hua-Yu+Sebastian%22">Cherng, Hua-Yu Sebastian</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Behavioral+Disorders%22"><i>Behavioral Disorders</i></searchLink>. Aug 2022 47(4):257-269.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Juvenile+Justice%22">Juvenile Justice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Disturbances%22">Emotional Disturbances</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Recidivism%22">Recidivism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correctional+Institutions%22">Correctional Institutions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutionalized+Persons%22">Institutionalized Persons</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Delinquency%22">Delinquency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Delinquent+Rehabilitation%22">Delinquent Rehabilitation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Delinquency+Prevention%22">Delinquency Prevention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racial+Differences%22">Racial Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Placement%22">Placement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Transitional+Programs%22">Transitional Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Risk%22">Risk</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Minnesota%22">Minnesota</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/01987429211046552
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0198-7429
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study examines associations between recidivism rates and groups/programs for legally mandated education, behavioral, and mental health services that court-ordered juvenile youth ("juveniles") with identified emotional disturbance or related conditions receive in secure-care juvenile facilities. Using statewide agency data in Minnesota, this exploratory analysis investigates whether there are racial/ethnic and county disparities in residential placements or secure-care settings via programs and groups for court-ordered juveniles (N = 1,092). The study also considers whether program and group placements contribute to racial/ethnic patterns of recidivism. This study finds that recidivism rate differences by program/group level are largely attributed to differences in racial/ethnic compositions. Findings suggest placements lack strong effects on recidivism, and assignments may perpetuate inequalities. In addition, from this exploratory analysis examination, this article offers considerations for future research-to-practice partnerships to strengthen legally and policy-mandated program and service delivery with practices that increase training to juvenile justice system professionals, access to secure-care setting services, and transition services for juveniles.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1343408
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1343408
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/01987429211046552
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 257
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Juvenile Justice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Disturbances
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Recidivism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correctional Institutions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutionalized Persons
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Delinquency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Delinquent Rehabilitation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Delinquency Prevention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Racial Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Placement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Transitional Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Risk
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Minnesota
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Services for Juveniles with Emotional Disturbances in Secure-Care Settings: An Exploratory Analysis of Racial Disparities and Recidivism
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Strassfeld, Natasha M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cherng, Hua-Yu Sebastian
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0198-7429
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 47
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Behavioral Disorders
              Type: main
ResultId 1