Impact of Labeling on Juvenile Offenders

Labeling Effects of First Juvenile Arrests

Labeling Juvenile First Offenders

Luberman, et al. (2014) studied the labeling effects of first juvenile arrests, which appear to take two primary forms: secondary deviance and secondary sanctioning. Using a robust quasi-experimental research design, the authors utilized a sample and structural aspects of a longitudinal study conducted by the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCH). The PHDCH longitudinal study conducted three waves of data collection at 3-year intervals with seven youth cohorts. The PHDCH selected a sample from 80 neighborhood clusters in the city of Chicago. The neighborhood clusters were stratified by seven categories of racial / ethnic composition and three levels of socio-economic status (high, medium, and low). Within the sampling unit of 80 neighborhood clusters, a sampling frame of 1,517 youth, from the 12-year-old to 15-year-old cohorts, were selected by simple random sampling.

In order to measure the re-arrest outcomes, the researchers selected 58 arrestees, for the treatment group, and 1,191 non-arrestees who completed the self-reported offending (SRO) questionnaire and also consented to the search of official records. Of the sampling frame, 34 youth did not respond to the survey and 234 youth did not consent to have their official records searched. Wave II attrition reduced the sample to 53 arrestees and 951 non-arrestees. The sample of arrestees was distributed across 39 of the 80 neighborhood clusters, with only one neighborhood cluster containing more than three arrestees.

Three hypotheses were tested in the research, as follows:

1) A first juvenile arrest has an independent positive effect on subsequent delinquency and criminal offending above and beyond the influence of individual, family, peer, neighborhood, and school correlates.

2) Arrested adolescents are more likely to be arrested in the future than otherwise similar youth without arrest records.

3) The effect of first arrest on future arrests is independent of the effect of a first arrest on criminal offending. That is, adolescents with a previous arrest are more likely to be arrested in the future than comparable non-arrestees even if they engage in similar levels of future dependency.

The independent variable was constructed by determining whether the subjects were officially arrested as juveniles for the first time during a period of 45 months between wave I and wave III interviews. The dependent variable is an outcome measure that consists of 22 items that represent different types of criminal acts committed by the subjects in the preceding 12 months. To determine the temporal sequence of the arrests with pretreatment and treatment, the data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) were merged with arrest data from the Chicago Police Department (CPD) and the Illinois State Police (ISP). Data was matched by accessing demographic information and personal identifiers for the PHDCN survey respondents.

Data collection was retrospective, examining arrest records on juvenile offenders from the Chicago Police Department (CPD), the Illinois State Police (ISP), and the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCH).

The literature review was extensive and explored each of the primary lines of research associated with the research topic, the research questions, and with each of the research hypotheses. The literature review examined studies that addressed the labeling effects on delinquent behavior and on the response of social and criminal justice systems. Also addressed in the literature review were studies that focused on the labeling effect of juvenile arrests. The literature review was of sufficient depth to examine prior research studies that delved into the aspects of the social and criminal justice systems such as increased surveillance following labeling or first arrests. Studies that analyzed both primary and secondary sanctioning events were considered in the literature review. The literature review is considered to have presented an adequate representation of all relevant studies and lines of research.

The results of the current research study suggest that there is a large labeling effect on re-arrest that truly reflects secondary sanctioning, which is the differential response that society generates in interactions with youth who have been labeled delinquent or as an arrestee. Moreover, the research results indicate that the societal response is not mediated by different offending behaviors of the juveniles. In essence, the research describes cascading effect that results from the secondary sanctioning processes, and that results in the initial arrest bringing about subsequent arrests through a deepening of their involvement with the criminal justice system.

The sample was very specific in this research study, which would preclude generalization to any substantial degree. That said, the underlying principles that have been used in the study are well documented in the research, which contributes to the conceptual validity of the research. Certainly, the research findings suggest that replications with other samples are warranted. An important question was posed early in the study regarding the differences and similarities between the youth who were arrested and the youth who were not arrested. The arrestees differed from the non-arrestees on 34 of 79 covariates that were reviewed. The covariates included factors related to individual differences, family attributes, peer related variables and neighborhood characteristics. Indeed, the prevalence of offending among the arrested youth that had occurred at wave 1 was significantly greater across all of the offending categories than among the control youth. Offending behaviors included violence, property, drug sales, and public order. Indeed, offending youth were found to exhibit lower inhibitory control, were quicker to make decisions, and were more sensation seeking.

Rosenbaum's bounding strategy was used to explore the size of bias resulting from an omitted variable, such as might occur with the covariates. The results indicated that a factor would have to be related to first arrests more strongly than prior violent offending was shown to be, which is highly unlikely. Bias from omitting a variable was not viewed as a realistic concern; the effects of future arrests and the effects on violent offending were found to be robust and not sensitive to omitted variable bias. However, the effects on future offending were less robust and somewhat more sensitive.