Next Article in Journal
The Age of Consent and the Ending of Queer Theory
Next Article in Special Issue
A Comparison of Female Delinquents: The Impact of Child Maltreatment Histories on Risk and Need Characteristics among a Missouri Sample
Previous Article in Journal
Providing an Architecture Framework for Cyberjustice
Previous Article in Special Issue
Explaining Female Offending and Prosocial Behavior: The Role of Empathy and Cognitive Distortions
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Addressing Trauma and Psychosocial Development in Juvenile Justice-Involved Youth: A Synthesis of the Developmental Neuroscience, Juvenile Justice and Trauma Literature

Department of Psychology, Rowan University, 201 Mullica Hill Road, Glassboro, NJ 08028, USA
Laws 2014, 3(4), 744-758; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws3040744
Submission received: 1 July 2014 / Revised: 3 October 2014 / Accepted: 11 October 2014 / Published: 21 October 2014
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Development of Juvenile Delinquency)

Abstract

:
Youth incarcerated in the juvenile justice system are disproportionately exposed to traumas both in and outside of custody that are associated with poor social, behavioral, and developmental outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to describe one pathway through which trauma can impact a myriad of outcomes, including delinquency, violence, substance use, and other behaviors that are self-regulatory in nature. Relevant research from the developmental neuroscience, juvenile justice, and trauma literatures are drawn upon and synthesized to describe this pathway. Using a multi-disciplinary approach to understanding the role that brain development and neural activity play in the relationship between trauma and associated behavioral outcomes could serve to inform juvenile justice policy decisions and intervention practice. Such application could increase the effectiveness with which juvenile justice systems work with one of the most vulnerable and traumatized populations of youth in today’s society: those incarcerated in our juvenile justice system.

1. Introduction

Youth incarcerated in the juvenile justice system are disproportionately exposed to experiences outside of custody that are known to increase the risk for physical violence, delinquency and self-injurious behaviors [1]. Such experiences include parental incarceration [2,3], violent victimization and exposure to violence [2,3,4], and poverty and family disruption [2,5]. All of these experiences can be categorized as childhood traumas, the proximal results of which include an increased risk for substance use disorders, conduct disorders, delinquency [6], violent behavior, carrying a weapon, bulling, suicidal ideation and attempted suicide [1]. This issue is particularly important with regards to juvenile justice-involved youth, given that an estimated 75%–93% of youth entering the juvenile justice system have already experienced some type of trauma in their lives compared to 25%–34% of the general population [6,7]. Although the juvenile justice literature has begun to focus attention on the need for trauma-informed clinical practice and treatment in working with juvenile justice-involved youth [8,9], what has yet to be fully described is the mechanism by which childhood trauma impacts such a wide array of outcomes, many of which are associated with increased risk for juvenile justice involvement. Knowledge of this pathway could inform juvenile justice policy and intervention practice, which may, in turn, help to ameliorate the impact of childhood trauma on youth, while at the same time serving the goals of the juvenile justice system. The purpose of this paper is to illuminate one pathway through which trauma impacts multiple behavioral outcomes along with the ways in which this pathway provides opportunities for prevention and intervention efforts. Research from the developmental neuroscience, juvenile justice and childhood trauma literature is synthesized to describe: (1) one pathway through which childhood trauma impacts normative adolescent development; (2) how that impact mediates the relationship between trauma and the proximal outcomes that increase the risk for juvenile justice involvement; and (3) the ways in which this particular pathway is amenable to intervention strategies feasible within the juvenile justice system.

2. Trauma

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have termed a specific set of traumatic circumstances occurring before the 18th birthday as adverse childhood experiences (ACE). These circumstances include abuse (emotional, physical or sexual), neglect (emotional or physical) and household dysfunction (mother treated violently, household substance abuse, household mental illness, parental separation or divorce or an incarcerated household member) [10]. Additional experiences common to operational definitions of childhood trauma include childhood poverty [11,12] and out-of-home placement in foster care [13,14,15,16,17,18], institutions, juvenile hall/detention or state youth authority facilities, residential treatment, orphanages, group care facilities or within the child welfare system [19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. Proximal outcomes associated with childhood traumas/ACEs include increased risk of depression, substance use disorders, personality and conduct disorders, ADHD, delinquency and anxiety [6]. Youth who experience ACEs have been found to be two- to 44-times more likely (depending on the type of trauma) to get into fights, perpetrate dating violence, carry a weapon, bully, harm themselves, have suicidal ideation or attempt suicide [1].
Adult or distal outcomes associated with ACEs include depression, panic reactions, hallucinations, anxiety, sleep disturbance, severe obesity, smoking, substance use, intravenous (IV) drug use, early intercourse, promiscuity and sexual dissatisfaction [26]. ACEs appear to have a cumulative effect, with the number of both proximal and distal outcomes increasing with each additional ACE. For instance, adults reporting one ACE had a higher risk of one outcome, alcoholism, for which they were twice as likely as adults with no ACEs. Those reporting two or more ACEs were also at a higher risk for alcoholism, as well as being twice as likely to experience depression, drug use, IV drug use or early intercourse. Those reporting three or more ACEs were also at a higher risk for these outcomes, as well as being twice as likely to experience panic reactions, hallucinations or promiscuity. Finally, those reporting four or more ACEs were at a higher risk for all of these outcomes, as well as being twice as likely to experience anxiety, sleep disturbances, severe obesity, smoking or sexual dissatisfaction [27].

3. Trauma and Incarcerated Youth

In studies of ACEs in the general population, 25%–34% [6,7] of children and 64% of adults [26] are estimated to have experienced at least one childhood trauma or ACE. In contrast, upwards of 93% of youth entering the juvenile justice system have already had at least one circumstance or event in their lives that would be considered an adverse childhood experience [2,6].

3.1. Out of Custody Trauma

Almost 80,000 youth reside in juvenile justice facilities in the United States [28]. It is well documented that these youth disproportionately face high rates of emotional and substance use problems. For instance, 90% of youth leaving state custody in 2003 reported experiencing an emotional problem, such as anger management (81%), anxiety (61%), depression (59%), substance abuse (68%), suicidal ideation (27%) or suicide attempts (21%), with the vast majority (71%) reporting multiple problems [5,29]. A more recent needs assessment found similar challenges: 22% of incarcerated youth reported at least one past suicide attempt, four times the national average, 84% (vs. 30% in the general population) reported marijuana use, 59% reported being high or drunk the week prior to being arrested, and 68% reported problems and blackouts stemming from their substance use [30]. Such high rates of emotional and behavioral problems are not surprising given that these youth disproportionately experience trauma and family stressors outside of custody that are known to increase such emotional and behavioral outcomes [1].

3.1.1. Parental Incarceration

While parental incarceration is an event experienced by 10% of adolescents in the general population [31], it is experienced by up to 50% of adolescents incarcerated in juvenile justice facilities [3]. Parental incarceration is a known predictor of behavioral problems in youth such as aggression, violence and criminal behavior, as well as emotional problems, such as depression and withdrawal [4,32]. The separation of parent and child due to parental incarceration is also associated with such child developmental outcomes as impaired socio-emotional development, acute traumatic stress reactions, poor self-concept, impaired ability to overcome future trauma, rejection of limits on behavior and trauma-reactive behaviors [31]. Additionally, parental incarceration often results in foster care placement for the child, adding a second trauma that may increase the range of poor social, mental and behavioral health outcomes that are associated with each additional ACE.

3.1.2. Exposure to Violence

Disproportionate numbers of incarcerated youth are victims of and witnesses to violence outside of custody [4,32,33], both of which have been defined as ACEs and linked directly to increased violent and delinquent behavior [4]. Additionally, the relationship between violent victimization or exposure to violence and delinquency appears to be non-linear, such that as a youth experiences repeated incidents of victimization and/or exposure to violence, the impact on offending behavior increases exponentially [34]. Finally, victimization or exposure to community violence has also been associated with self-protective behaviors that have the unintended consequence of increasing the risk for juvenile justice involvement. For instance, youth who feel that their parents cannot keep them safe in their community or at school are more likely to join a gang or carry a weapon in order to feel safe [35].

3.1.3. Poverty

Incarcerated youth are also more likely than the general population to have been living in poverty prior to becoming incarcerated [3,4,32,33]. Poverty in childhood has been identified as a trauma itself, as well as a predictor of exposure to other childhood traumas, including violence in school, and of trauma reactions such as dissociation and the perpetration of violence [33]. Thus, living in poverty appears to have both a direct relationship with trauma-related outcomes, as well as an indirect relationship via exposure to other traumas associated with poverty [4,32,33].

3.2. In Custody Trauma

Traumatic experiences do not end when youth are placed in residential facilities in the juvenile justice system. For instance, 56% of youth in a nationwide survey of residential facilities reported at least one form of violent victimization while in custody, including physical assault (29%) and sexual assault by either another resident or staff member (12%). It is particularly troubling that while the national average for sexual assault is estimated at 12%, that rate is much higher in at least 13 facilities across the country, where 20%–36% of youth reported being the victims of sexual assault while in custody [36,37].
Add to these first-hand traumas the experiences of those youth who witness these events while in custody, and it is clear that many youth suffer traumatic events while under the care of the state. Indeed, there is some consensus that out-of-home placement in general and placement in a juvenile justice facility specifically are experiences that are considered in and of themselves to be a source of childhood trauma [19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. From this perspective, the percentage of incarcerated youth who have experienced at least one ACE becomes 100%. For those youth who arrive in the system having already experienced an ACE, out-of-home placement in a juvenile justice facility becomes an additional trauma, thus exacerbating the risk for the poor social, behavioral and mental health outcomes, both proximal and distal, associated with each additional adverse childhood experience.

3.3. Neuropsychosocial Development

Although incarcerated youth are a special population given their disproportionate exposure to ACEs, both in and out of custody, they are also, by definition, a group in the midst of a developmental period (adolescence) that is marked by dramatic neurological changes, some of which are associated with predictable changes in behavior. One behavioral pattern that has been consistently associated with this period of development is a dramatic rise and fall in delinquent and antisocial behavior that begins at approximately age 10, peaks at age 16–17 and declines sharply into late adolescence and early adulthood [38,39,40,41,42,43]. This pattern, which has come to be known as the age-crime curve [41], has been found in both juvenile justice and general population samples, across national boundaries and historical eras, and in the current U.S. juvenile justice population [44,45].
One of the emerging approaches to explaining this seemingly normative spike in delinquent/antisocial behavior for adolescents in general, including those with juvenile justice involvement, is based in brain imaging studies that have identified two main processes whose co-occurrence in the healthy adolescent brain directly impact delinquent behavior and, thus, may underlie this pattern.

3.3.1. Neuropsychosocial Development and Risk-Taking

The first process involves sudden and dramatic dopaminergic changes in activity in the limbic system that coincides with puberty. These changes include an increase in dopamine activity in the nucleus accumbens, an area in the brain involved in motivating the approach response towards rewards, with increased dopamine activity, making rewards seem more salient and rewarding [46,47], particularly when youth are in the presence of their peers [48]. Accompanying this increase is a decrease in activity in the amygdala, which is involved in the avoidance response to danger or threat, with reduced activity making negative outcomes seem less aversive or threatening [49,50].
These changes are associated with an increase in the salience of wanting and reward seeking behavior in adolescents and a decrease in the impact or salience of a threat (of negative consequences) on behavioral choices [47,49,50]. It is this combination of increased reward salience and decreased threat salience that is hypothesized to be the primary factor in adolescent risk-taking and associated delinquent behavior [38,44,46,47] via its impact on sensation seeking behavior or “the tendency to seek novel, varied or highly stimulating experiences and the willingness to take risks in order to attain them” ([51], p. 1765).

3.3.2. Neuropsychosocial Development and Self-Regulation

The second process underlying the relationship between age and delinquency is the slow development of self-regulatory areas in the brain, which continue to mature through adolescence into the early 20s. This maturational process occurs in the prefrontal cortex and on neural pathways between the prefrontal cortex and the limbic system and includes both an increase in white matter due to the myelination of axons and a decrease in gray matter due to synaptic pruning. As myelination increases, so too does the speed with which information is processed and communicated within and between cortical areas [52,53]. Similarly, as unused connections between neurons are pruned, the diffuse activation of areas not needed for a given task also decreases, thus increasing the focal activation of those areas that are needed [54].
Three areas in the prefrontal cortex that play central roles in self-regulation are the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). These three areas, which reach maturity (i.e., when myelination is complete) sometime in the late teens to early twenties [46,55], have been linked to the control of motivated behavior [54] and the regulation of the limbic system’s approach (nucleus accumbens) and avoidant (amygdala) structures [46]. There is ample evidence to indicate that the development of connections in and between the MPFC, VLPFC and ACC occurs on a predictable developmental timeline, while at the same time being responsive to experience, particularly during the adolescent period ([56], p. 67; [57]).
Accompanying the maturation of the MPFC, VLPFC and the ACC are: (1) an increase in those executive cognitive functions housed in the prefrontal cortex, such as response inhibition, planning ahead, weighing risks and rewards and simultaneously considering multiple sources of information [58]; and (2) an increase in coordination between the limbic system and the prefrontal cortex, which increases the ability to self-regulate the wants of the limbic system with the cognitive considerations of the prefrontal cortex [38,58,59,60].
The protracted development of these areas has been hypothesized to occur so as to allow experience and environmental demands to shape the maturation of connections within and between the emotional and cognitive areas of the brain [59]. This principle of environmental sensitivity in neural development suggests that those areas that are more active during sensitive developmental periods will become more myelinated, making signals moving to and from those areas faster and more efficient. Theoretically, the more the environment encourages the use of the executive functions of the prefrontal cortex, the more those areas should become myelinated. Alternatively, the more the environment encourages activation of limbic system structures in response to highly emotional or threatening circumstances at the expense of prefrontal activation, the less those cortical areas should become myelinated [61]. There is some evidence for both of these. For example, increases in myelination has been seen in brain imaging studies of mindfulness meditation interventions [62] and under-active cortical areas, including the ACC and MPFC, has been seen in veterans with PTSD [63].

4. Trauma and Development

Trauma has been implicated as a barrier to the healthy development of self-regulation [64,65,66], a process under dramatic development during adolescence and one that matures on a predictable developmental timeline while at the same time being responsive to experience, particularly during the late adolescent period [56,57]. It may be that part of prefrontal maturation sensitive to experience that explains how trauma impacts the development of self-regulation and illuminates the pathway through which trauma impacts an array of behavioral and emotional outcomes that are self-regulatory in nature, such as delinquency, interpersonal violence, substance use, self-harm, suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.

Self-Regulation as a Mediating Variable

Self-regulation is a cognitive function that is associated with the control of emotions and desires, along with the behaviors associated with them. As such, it is a function whose increase in efficiency is associated with the reduction of normative risk-taking in adolescence [58,67] and the increase in cognitive control of behavior in emotionally-charged situations [55,59]. Self-regulation has also been associated with resiliency in the face of adverse and disrupted family environments. For instance, a longitudinal study of adolescents with high levels of family disruption (divorce, death, mental illness, addiction) found that youth who showed higher levels of effortful control (of attention and behavior) had lower levels of aggressive and rule-breaking behavior compared to similar age cohorts with lower levels of these self-regulatory skills [68]. Another study of adolescents from families with very low income found that higher levels of self-regulatory abilities were associated with fewer depressive symptoms, fewer problems at home and in the community, as well as fewer police contacts [69].
There is mounting evidence that ACEs can impact the development of the prefrontal cortex and the neural pathways between the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala [26,70], a structure in the limbic system involved in the identification and response to environmental threats. The impact that childhood trauma has on the development of self-regulatory areas and pathways in the brain may be one way in which trauma impacts outcomes, such as delinquency, substance abuse, violence and self-injurious behavior, all of which are self-regulatory in nature. This possibility has been hypothesized to explain the increased risk of aggression [64], serious delinquency [65], and substance abuse [66] among youth with a history of childhood trauma. The relationships between trauma and the development of self-regulatory areas in the brain and that between trauma and associated outcomes, therefore, may involve a pathway whereby self-regulation mediates the relationship between childhood traumas/ACEs and those poor social, mental health and behavioral outcomes that are self-regulatory in nature (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Self-regulation as a mediator between trauma and risk behavior.
Figure 1. Self-regulation as a mediator between trauma and risk behavior.
Laws 03 00744 g001

5. Implications for Juvenile Justice Policy and Practice

Juvenile justice programming provides an opportunity to intervene in the lives of youth who face traumas outside of custody that are a barrier to healthy psychosocial development. Until those structural factors at the source of many of these traumas (i.e., poverty, racism, unequal access to resources) can be ameliorated, supporting the healthy development of juvenile justice-involved youth via programming that recognizes their particular contextual and developmental needs remains one operative approach to both preventing the long-term consequences associated with multiple childhood traumas and treating a source of the more immediate behavioral responses that increase the likelihood of continued juvenile justice involvement.

5.1. Supporting Healthy Neuropsychosocial Development

The sensitivity to experience that is part of the normative development of connections in and between cortical and sub-cortical areas central to self-regulation offers two primary opportunities for juvenile justice systems to support the healthy development of youth in its charge. First, juvenile justice systems can work to reduce the role residential facilities play in exposing youth to additional traumatic experiences that serve to increase the risk for poor social and behavioral outcomes. Because the environmental sensitivity of cortical myelination may be the route through which trauma impacts outcomes that are self-regulatory in nature (e.g., delinquency, substance use, violence), reducing the incidence of trauma in custody would be an efficient use of resources for both long-term health outcomes of youth and the shorter term goals of the juvenile justice system (i.e., to reduce delinquency and recidivism). Additionally, continuing to work towards keeping youth in the community would eliminate exposure to the trauma of out-of-home placement in juvenile justice facilities. Although out-of-home placement in foster care has also been identified as a source of childhood trauma, it may be one alternative for those offenders that are not safe in their homes or are in need of intensive supervision not feasible in their homes or communities. Alternatives to incarceration, such as multi-treatment foster care (MTFC), have been found to effectively reduce recidivism and recidivism-related outcomes in chronic and serious offenders [71], as well as with general population juvenile justice-involved youth [72,73,74].
The second opportunity provided by the environmental sensitivity of self-regulatory maturation is the opportunity to ameliorate the impact of trauma through programmatic interventions designed to increase the development of connections within and between self-regulatory areas of the pre-frontal cortex. The principle of environmental sensitivity theoretically predicts that areas that are more active during sensitive developmental stages become more myelinated, and so, interventions that increase cortical activity in self-regulatory areas of the prefrontal cortex should increase myelination, thus making signals moving to and from those areas faster and more efficient. MRI studies of adolescents and young adults suggest that the sensitive period of myelination in the prefrontal cortex lies in late adolescence [61,75] and evidence from juvenile justice intervention studies that utilize multiple group analysis suggests that interventions targeting self-regulatory outcomes may be most effective in youth who are in late adolescence and early adulthood but limited in their ability to increase self-regulation in youth who are in early to mid-adolescence (i.e., prior to the sensitive period [76,77]). Brain imaging studies have already indicated that one intervention, mindfulness meditation, activates areas of the brain that are both associated with self-regulatory abilities and still developing (and thus sensitive to environmental input) in the adolescent brain [62,78]. At least one randomized controlled trial conducted with youth incarcerated in the juvenile justice system found that older youth who practiced mindfulness meditation for eight weeks had significantly higher interpersonal self-regulation at post-test than older control youth who practiced progressive muscle relaxation [76].
Approaching intervention design from a developmental perspective that takes healthy neural development into account, similar to physical therapies that target compromised or developing muscle groups with a variety of exercises, could be one additional approach that juvenile justice systems can add to the variety of treatment options needed to effectively treat the range of traumas and trauma responses experienced by youth in their care.

5.2. Supporting the Goals of Juvenile Justice Systems

Self-regulation may not only be a mediator of the relationship between childhood traumas and behavioral outcomes, such as delinquency, violence, etc., but also a mediator of many interventions that target or attempt to increase the ability of youth to delay gratification, consider the consequences of their actions or control their emotional responses and, thus, reduce the likelihood of future juvenile justice involvement [77]. For instance, supervisory interventions, such as probation, use the threat of violation to keep youth from participating in delinquent behavior in the moment when the opportunity presents itself. Other interventions attempt to reduce delinquency by increasing emotional control over anger or the desire to use drugs and alcohol. Both of these examples describe attempts to increase self-regulatory abilities (i.e., self-control of emotional responses, delay of gratification, considering consequences in behavioral decisions) in order to reduce delinquency. Such interventions are thus attempting to impact self-regulation, which would act as the mediator in the relationship between juvenile justice interventions and delinquency outcomes, a relationship described in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Self-regulation as a mediator in the relationship between interventions and delinquency outcomes.
Figure 2. Self-regulation as a mediator in the relationship between interventions and delinquency outcomes.
Laws 03 00744 g002
This relationship suggests that when the goals of juvenile justice interventions are to reduce delinquency via self-regulation, identifying intervention practices that increase self-regulation directly become central to the accomplishment of that goal. Understanding the timing of the sensitive period within which the neural development of self-regulatory capacities is responsive to intervention (i.e., later adolescence and early adulthood) vs. those periods in which it is less so (i.e., early to mid-adolescence) may help to increase the effective decision making in the juvenile justice system with regards to what interventions will be more effective for whom [77].

6. Conclusions

Incarcerated youth are a population at risk for a multitude of poor social, behavioral and developmental outcomes due to their disproportionate exposure to circumstances, both in and out of custody, that not only act as barriers to healthy development, but also contribute to and exacerbate the high rate of emotional problems and recidivism found in this population. Addressing these factors in both juvenile justice policy and intervention practices are strategies that may have the potential to support the healthy development of youth while they are in custody, which, in turn, may help them cope more successfully with the stressors and traumas they face outside of custody.
Normative development and out of custody context are thus both important factors to consider when making policy decisions and/or designing juvenile justice interventions. Self-regulation is, for all adolescents, a skill whose increase is associated with a decrease in delinquent behavior. Increasing self-regulation in youth who are incarcerated in the juvenile justice system has the potential to support the healthy development of a population disproportionately affected by traumas known to both impact the development of self-regulation and increase the risk of delinquent behavior. Therefore, increasing self-regulation in youth while they are in custody has the potential to reduce the likelihood of subsequent delinquent behavior/recidivism and, thus, further contact with the juvenile justice system.
Future research should explore the implications of the research discussed here in both prevention and intervention efforts within juvenile justice systems. To prevent the trauma exposure that is currently a part of being in the custody of the juvenile justice system, future research should focus on identifying alternatives to placement in juvenile justice facilities while at the same time enacting policies to eliminate victimization and traumatization of those youth who are in custody. Future studies should also design and evaluate interventions for youth that are trauma-informed, not only in the treatment of the emotional scars of trauma, but also the stunted neurological growth that can occur, as well. Such research would move the field forward in more effectively addressing both the needs of the youth whose trauma may be the driving force behind the behaviors that lead to juvenile justice involvement, as well as the goals of juvenile justice systems to reduce those behaviors and support youth in developing into emotionally, physically and neurologically healthy adults.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Naomi N. Duke, Sandra L. Pettingell, Barbara J. McMorris, and Iris W. Borowsky. “Adolescent Violence Perpetration: Associations with Multiple Types of Adverse Childhood Experiences.” Pediatrics 125 (2010): e778–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Michael T. Baglivio, Nathan Epps, Kimberly Swartz, Mona Sayedul, Amy Sheer, and Nancy S. Hardt. “The Prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) in the Lives of Juvenile Offenders.” Journal of Juvenile Justice 3 (2014): 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  3. Terri Bailey, Diane Peck, Stephanie Nelson, Kim English, and Diane Pasinin-Hill. “Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Research: A Study of Youth in Detention in Denver, October 1997–September 1998.” September 1999. Available online: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/192982.pdf (accessed on 2 June 2002). [Google Scholar]
  4. J. David Hawkins, Todd Herrenkohl, David Farrington, Devon Brewer, Richard Catalano, Tracey Harachi, and Lynn Cothern. “Predictors of Youth Violence.” In OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin; April 2000. Available online: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/179065.pdf (accessed on 25 September 2008). [Google Scholar]
  5. Howard Snyder, and Melissa Sickmund. “Juvenile Offenders & Victims: 2006 National Report.” In OJJDP National Report; March 2006. Available online: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/nr2006.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2008). [Google Scholar]
  6. Erica Adams. “Healing invisible wounds: Why investing in trauma-informed care for children makes sense.” Justice Policy Institute. July 2010. Available online: http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/10-07_REP_HealingInvisibleWounds_JJ-PS.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2014).
  7. E. Jane Costello, Alaattin Erklani, John Fairbank, and Adrian Angold. “The Prevalence of Potentially Traumatic Events in Childhood and Adolescence.” Journal of Traumatic Stress 15 (2003): 99–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Erin M. Espinosa, Jon R. Sorensen, and Molly A. Lopez. “Youth Pathways to Placement: The Influence of Gender, Mental Health Need and Trauma on Confinement in the Juvenile Justice System.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 42 (2013): 1824–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Julian D. Forda, Damion J. Grassoa, Josephine Hawkea, and John F. Chapman. “Poly-Victimization among Juvenile Justice-Involved Youths.” Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013): 788–800. [Google Scholar]
  10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Injury Prevention and Control: Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. ” Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/acestudy/ (accessed on 5 January 2014).
  11. Carol L. M. Caton, Deborah Hasin, Patrick E. Shroiit, Lewis A. Opler, Sabina Hirshfield, Boanerges Dominguez, and A. Ian Felix. “Risk Factors for Homelessness among Urban Adults with No History of Psychotic Illness: A Case-Control Study.” American Journal of Public Health 90 (2000): 258–63. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  12. Kate E. Fothergill, Elaine E. Doherty, Judith A. Robertson, and Margaret E. Ensminger. “A Prospective Study of Childhood and Adolescent Antecedents of Homelessness among a Community Population of African Americans.” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 89 (2012): 432–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Debra Gay Anderson, and Margaret Imle. “Families of Origin in Homeless and Never-Homeless Women.” Western Journal of Nursing Research 23 (2001): 394–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Martha R. Burt, Laudan Y. Aron, Toby Douglas, Jesse Valente, Edgar Lee, and Britta Iwen. “Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve.” December 1999. Available online: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/homelessness.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2012).
  15. Alison Hamilton, Ines Poza, and Donna Washington. “Homelessness and Trauma Go Hand-In-Hand: Pathways to Homelessness among Women Veterans.” Women’s Health Issues 21 (2011): S203–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Jung Min Park, Steve Metraux, and Dennis Culhane. “Childhood Out-of-Home Placement and Dynamics of Public Shelter Utilization among Young Homeless Adults.” Children and Youth Services Review 27 (2005): 533–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Irving Piliavin, Michael Sosin, Alex Westerfelt, and Ross Matsueda. “The Duration of Homeless Careers: An Exploratory Study.” Social Service Review 67 (1993): 576–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nan Roman, and Phyllis Wolfe. “Web of Failure: The Relationship between Foster Care and Homelessness.” April 1995. Available online: http://b.3cdn.net/naeh/0322dc703428f347f3_s3m6iiv34.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2012).
  19. Robert Calysn, and Laurie Roades. “Predictors of Past and Current Homelessness.” Journal of Community Psychology 22 (1994): 272–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Paul Koegel, Elan Melamid, and M. Audrey Burnam. “Childhood Risk Factors for Homelessness among Homeless Adults.” American Journal of Public Health 85 (1995): 1642–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Marybeth Shinn, James Knickman, and Beth Weitzman. “Social Relationships and Vulnerabilities to Becoming Homeless among Poor Families.” American Psychologist 11 (1991): 1180–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tammy Tam, Cheryl Zlotnick, and Marjorie Robertson. “Logitudinal Perspectives: Adverse Childhood Events, Substance Use, and Labor Force Participation among Homeless Adults.” The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 29 (2003): 829–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Richard Tessler, Robert Rosenheck, and Gail Gamache. “Comparison of Homeless Veterans with Other Homeless Men in a Large Clinical Outreach Program.” Psychiatric Quarterly 13 (2002): 109–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cheryl Zlotnick, Marjorie Robertson, and Marguerite Wright. “The Impact of Childhood Foster Care and Other Out-of-Home Placement on Homeless Women and Their Children.” Child Abuse & Neglect 23 (1999): 1057–68. [Google Scholar]
  25. Cheryl Zlotnick, Tammy Tam, and Marjorie Robertson. “Adverse Childhood Events, Substance Abuse, and Measures of Affiliation.” Addictive Behaviors 29 (2004): 1177–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Robert Anda, Vincent Felitti, Douglas Bremner, John Walker, Charles Whitfield, Bruce Perry, Shanta Dube, and Wayne Giles. “The Enduring Effects of Abuse and Related Adverse Childhood Experiences: A Convergence of Evidence from Neurobiology and Epidemiology.” European Archives of Psychiatry & Clinical Neuroscience 256 (2006): 174–86. [Google Scholar]
  27. Robert Anda, Alexander Butchart, Vincent Felitti, and David Brown. “Building a Framework for Global Surveillance of the Public Health Implications of Adverse Childhood Experiences.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 39 (2010): 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Sarah Hockenberry. “Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2010.” In OJJDP Juvenile Justice National Report Series Bulletin; June 2013. Available online: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/241060.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2014). [Google Scholar]
  29. Andrea Sedlak, and Karla McPherson. “Conditions of Confinement: Findings from the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement.” In OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin; May 2010. Available online: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227729.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2014). [Google Scholar]
  30. Melissa Sickmund. “Juvenile in Residential Placement, 1997–2008.” In OJJDP Fact Sheet; February 2010. Available online: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/229379.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2012). [Google Scholar]
  31. Jeremy Travis, Elizabeth Cincotta, and Amy Solomon. “Families Left Behind: The Hidden Costs of Incarceration and Reentry.” Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. October 2003. Available online: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/310882_families_left_behind.pdf (accessed on 25 September 2008).
  32. David Bjerk. “Measuring the Relationship between Youth Criminal Participation and Household Economic Resources.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 23 (2007): 23–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Karen Carlson. “Poverty and Youth Violence Exposure: Experiences in Rural Communities.” Children & Schools 28 (2006): 87–96. [Google Scholar]
  34. David Smith, and Russell Ecob. “An Investigation into Causal Links between Victimization and Offending in Adolescence.” The British Journal of Sociology 58 (2007): 633–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Zina McGee. “Community Violence and Adolescent Development: An Examination of Risk and Protective Factors among African American Youth.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 19 (2003): 293–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Allen Beck, Paige Harrison, and Paul Guerino. “Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008–2009.” 2010. Available online: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf (accessed on 9 October 2011). [Google Scholar]
  37. Andrea J. Sedlak, Karla S. McPherson, and Monica Basena. “Conditions of Confinement: Findings from the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement.” In OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin; May 2013. Available online: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227729.pdf (accessed on 4 June 2014). [Google Scholar]
  38. Laurence Steinberg. “Should the Science of Adolescent Brain Development Inform Public Policy? ” American Psychologist 64 (2009): 739–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Alfred Blumstein, and Jacqueline Cohen. “Characterizing Criminal Careers.” Science 28 (1987): 985–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Michael Gottfredson, and Travis Hirshi. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  41. Travis Hirschi, and Michael Gottredson. “Age and the Explanation of Crime.” American Journal of Sociology 89 (1983): 552–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Terrie Moffitt. “Adolescent-Limited and Life-Course-Persistent Antisocial Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy.” Psychological Review 100 (1993): 674–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Lawrence Steinberg, and Elizabeth Scott. “Less guilty by reason of adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility and the Juvenile Death Penalty.” American Psychologist 58 (2003): 1009–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Elizabeth Scott, and Lawrence Steinberg. Rethinking Juvenile Justice. Boston: President & Fellows of Harvard College, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  45. Michelle Evans-Chase. “The Neuroscience of Risk-Taking in Adolescence.” In Social Work and Neuroscience: Implications for Policy, Practice, and Research. Edited by Holly Matto, Jessica Strolin-Goltzman and Michelle Ballan. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 2014, pp. 313–33. [Google Scholar]
  46. Dominic Fareri, Laura Martin, and Mauricio Delgado. “Reward-Related Processing in the Human Brain: Developmental Considerations.” Developmental and Psychopathology 20 (2008): 1191–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Sunita Bava, and Susan Tapert. “Adolescent Brain Development and Risk for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems.” Neuropsychology Review 20 (2010): 398–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Jason Chein, Dustin Albert, Lia O’Brien, Kaitlyn Uckert, and Lawrence Steinberg. “Peers Increase Adolescent Risk Taking by Enhancing Activity in the Brain’s Reward Circuitry.” Developmental Science 14 (2011): F1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Monique Ernst, Eric Nelson, Sandra Jazbec, Erin McClure, Christopher Monk, Ellen Leibenluft, James Blair, and Daniel Pine. “Amygdala and Nucleus Accumbens in Response to Receipt and Omission of Gains in Adults and Adolescents.” NeuroImage 25 (2005): 1279–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Tamara Doremus-Fitzwater, Elena Varlinskaya, and Linda Spear. “Motivational Systems in Adolescence: Possible Implications for Age Differences in Substance Abuse and Other Risk-taking Behaviors.” Brain and Cognition 72 (2010): 114–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Laurence Steinberg, Dustin Albert, Elizabeth Cauffman, Marie Banich, Sandra Graham, and Jennifer Woolard. “Age Differences in Sensation Seeking and Impulsivity as Indexed by Behavior and Self-Report: Evidence for a Dual Systems Model.” Developmental Psychology 44 (2008): 1764–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Antonio Giorgio, Kate Watkins, Martin Chadwick, S. James, Louise Winmill, Gwenaëlle Douaud, Nicola DeStefano, Paul Matthews, Steve Smith, Heidi Johansen-Berg, and Anthony C. James. “Longitudinal Changes in Grey and White Matter during Adolescence.” NeuroImage 49 (2010): 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. A.M. Clare Kelly, Adriana Di Martino, Lucina Q. Uddin, Zarrar Shehzad, Dylan G. Gee, Philip T. Reiss, Daniel S. Margulies, F. Xavier Castellanos, and Michael P. Milham. “Development of Anterior Cingulate Functional Connectivity from Late Childhood to Early Adulthood.” Cerebral Cortex 19 (2009): 640–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Monique Ernst, Daniel Pine, and Michael Hardin. “Triadic Model of Neurobiology of Motivated Behavior in Adolescence.” Psychological Medicine 36 (2005): 299–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Beatriz Luna, Aarthi Padmanabhan, and Kirsten O’Hearn. “What Has fMRI Told Us about the Development of Cognitive Control Through Adolescence? ” Brain and Cognition 72 (2010): 101–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. BJ Casey, Sarah Getz, and Adriana Galvan. “The adolescent brain.” Developmental Review 28 (2008): 62–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Elizabeth Cauffman, Laurence Steinberg, and Alex Piquero. “Psychological, Neuropsychological and Physiological Correlates of Serious Antisocial Behavior in Adolescence: The Role of Self-Control.” Criminology 43 (2005): 133–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Laurence Steinberg. “A Social Neuroscience Perspective on Adolescent Risk-Taking.” Developmental Review 28 (2008): 78–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Eric Nelson, Ellen Leibenluft, Erin McClure, and Daniel Pine. “The Social Re-Orientation of Adolescence: A Neuroscience Perspective on the Process and Its Relation to Psychopathology.” Psychological Medicine 35 (2005): 163–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Praveen Kambam, and Christopher Thompson. “The Development of Decision-Making Capacities in Children and Adolescents: Psychological and Neurological Perspectives and Their Implications for Juvenile Defendants.” Behavioral Science and the Law 27 (2009): 173–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Child Welfare Information Gateway. “Understanding the Effects of Maltreatment on Brain Development (Issue Brief).” 2009. Available online: https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/brain_development/brain_development.pdf (accessed on 18 March 2014). [Google Scholar]
  62. Britta Holzel, Ulrich Ott, Hannes Hempel, Andrea Hackl, Katharina Wolf, Rudolf Stark, and Dieter Vaitl. “Differential Engagement of Anterior Cingulated and Adjacent Medial Frontal Cortex in Adept Meditators and Non-Meditators.” Neuroscience Letters 421 (2007): 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Jennifer Vasterling, Mieke Verfaellie, and Karen Sullivan. “Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Returning Veterans: Perspectives from Cognitive Neuroscience.” Clinical Psychology Review 29 (2009): 674–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Brian Allen. “Childhood Psychological Abuse and Adult Aggression: The Mediating Role of Self-Capacities.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 26 (2011): 2093–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Judith Baer, and Tina Maschi. “Random Acts of Delinquency: Trauma and Self-Destructiveness in Juvenile Offenders.” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 20 (2003): 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Denise Hein, Lisa Cohen, and Amy Campbell. “Is Traumatic Stress a Vulnerability Factor for Women with Substance Use Disorders? ” Clinical Psychology Review 25 (2005): 813–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Neir Eshel, Eric Nelson, R. James Blair, Daniel Pine, and Monique Ernst. “Neural Substrates of Choice Selection in Adults and Adolescents: Development of the Ventrolateral Prefrontal and Anterior Cingulate Cortices.” Neuropsychologia 45 (2007): 1270–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Martin Paul Bakker, Johan Ormel, Frank C. Verhulst, and Albertine J. Oldehinkel. “Adolescent Family Adversity and Mental Health Problems: The Role of Adaptive Self-Regulation Capacities: The TRAILS Study.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 39 (2011): 341–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. John C. Buckner, Enrico Mezzacappa, and William R. Beardslee. “Self-Regulation and Its Relations to Adaptive Functioning in Low Income Youths.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 79 (2009): 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Douglas Bremner. “Long-Term Effects of Childhood Abuse on Brain and Neurobiology.” Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America 12 (2003): 271–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Patricia Chamberlain, and John Reid. “Comparison of Two Community Alternatives to Incarceration for Chronic Juvenile Offenders.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66 (1998): 624–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Leslie Leve, and Patricia Chamberlain. “Association With Delinquent Peers: Intervention Effects for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 33 (2005): 339–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Leslie Leve, and Patricia Chamberlain. “A Randomized Evaluation of Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care: Effects on School Attendance and Homework Completion in Juvenile Justice Girls.” Research on Social Work Practice 17 (2007): 657–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Leslie Leve, Patricia Chamberlain, and John Reid. “Intervention Outcomes for Girls Referred from Juvenile Justice: Effects on Delinquency.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 73 (2005): 1181–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. National Institute of Mental Health. “Teenage brain: A Work in Progress (Fact Sheet).” 2001. Available online: www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/teenage-brain-a-work-in-progress-fact-sheet/index.shtml (accessed on 25 August 2014). [Google Scholar]
  76. Michelle Evans-Chase. “Internet-Based Mindfulness Meditation and Self-Regulation: A Randomized Trial with Juvenile Justice Involved Youth.” Journal of Juvenile Justice 3 (2013): 63–79. [Google Scholar]
  77. Michelle Evans-Chase, Minseop Kim, and Hacquin Zhou. “Risk-Taking and Self-Regulation: A Systematic Review of the Analysis of Delinquency Outcomes in the Juvenile Justice Intervention Literature 1996–2009.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 40 (2013): 608–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. J. David Creswell, Baldwin Way, Naomi Eisenberger, and Matthew Lieberman. “Neural Correlates of Dispositional Mindfulness during Affect Labeling.” Psychosomatic Medicine 69 (2007): 560–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Evans-Chase, M. Addressing Trauma and Psychosocial Development in Juvenile Justice-Involved Youth: A Synthesis of the Developmental Neuroscience, Juvenile Justice and Trauma Literature. Laws 2014, 3, 744-758. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws3040744

AMA Style

Evans-Chase M. Addressing Trauma and Psychosocial Development in Juvenile Justice-Involved Youth: A Synthesis of the Developmental Neuroscience, Juvenile Justice and Trauma Literature. Laws. 2014; 3(4):744-758. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws3040744

Chicago/Turabian Style

Evans-Chase, Michelle. 2014. "Addressing Trauma and Psychosocial Development in Juvenile Justice-Involved Youth: A Synthesis of the Developmental Neuroscience, Juvenile Justice and Trauma Literature" Laws 3, no. 4: 744-758. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws3040744

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop