2/9/2012

1

The Pathways to Desistance Study: 

Implications for Intervention and Policy

Edward P. Mulvey

Carol A. Schubert

University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

Presentation to the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Quarterly Meeting

February 10, 2012

Project Background
2/9/2012

2

Supported by

 Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention

 National Institute of Justice

 John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

 National Institute on Drug Abuse

 Pennsylvania Commission on Crime & Delinquency

 Arizona Governor’s Justice Commission

 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

 William Penn Foundation

 William T. Grant Foundation

Working Group Members

 Edward Mulvey

 Laurence Steinberg

 Elizabeth Cauffman 

 Laurie Chassin

 George Knight

 Carol Schubert

 Sandra Losoya 

 Robert Brame

 Jeffrey Fagan

 Alex Piquero
2/9/2012

3

Reasons for the study

 Richer information about serious adolescent 

offenders 

 Picture of the desistance process

• Individual maturation 

• Life changes 

• Systems involvement

 Improved practice and policy in juvenile justice

• Risk assessment

• Targeted interventions and sanctions

Study design

 Two sites: Philadelphia and Phoenix

 Enroll serious adolescent offenders

• 1,354 felony offenders, aged 14 -18

• Females and adult transfer cases 

 Regular interviews over eight years

• Initial interviews

• Time point interviews (background characteristics, 

psychological mediators, family context, relationships, community 

context, life changes)

• Release interviews

 Other sources of information

• Collateral interviews

• Official records
2/9/2012

4

Living situation calendar

Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6

Subject 1 900 West 

Huntington

St Gabe’s 

Hall

900 West 

Huntington

St Gabe’s 

Hall

Vision 

Quest

Youth 

Forestry 

Camp

Subject 2 2429 W. 

Augusta

Madison 

Street Jail

1808 S. 

Wilmot

1808 S. 

Wilmot

1808 S. 

Wilmot

Tucson 

Prison

Subject 3

5050 Master 4th and 

Norris

4th and 

Norris

4th and 

Norris

House of 

Corrections

House of 

Corrections

Who are these adolescents?

 At Enrollment

• 16 years old on average 

• 86% male

• Average of two prior court appearances 

32% had no prior petitions to court

Majority of priors were for a person crime

 Ethnically diverse

25%

44%

29%

2%

Caucasian African American Latino Other
2/9/2012

5

Progress so far 

 Average of 90% of interviews completed at each time point

 Over 21,000 interviews completed

 Archiving data at the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and 

Social Research (ICPSR). Initial data will be released for public 

access in June, 2012.

 Dissemination efforts

• 7 OJJDP bulletins published or under review

• Over 50 academic papers in print or under review; book in 

progress

• Over 100 presentations to academics, public officials, service 

providers

Patterns of Offending
2/9/2012

6

Self-reported offending

7 year follow-up period – only males – controlling for time on street

High stable

10%

Drop-off

21%

Lowest

26%

Low 

rising

12%

Low

stable

31%

Distribution of trajectory group

membership by index offense

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Person 

Crime

Property 

Crime

Weapons 

Charge

Drug 

Charge

Sex 

Offense

Other

Lowest

Low Stable

Low Rising

Drop off

High Stable
2/9/2012

7

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

High stable Drop-off Low rising Low stable Lowest

Offending Group

Range 1- 7

Average number of risk markers above

the sample mean by trajectory group

Policy statement #1

Serious juvenile offenders vary considerably in 

patterns of offending, risk factors, and life 

situations. Policies about placement or program 

eligibility which are based on criteria related to 

the presenting offense are a poor predictor of 

future recidivism or positive development. 

To increase the impact of investments in justice 

interventions, it is important to promote decision 

frameworks or statutes that 

a) consider cumulative risk and addressable needs, and 

b) target services to the highest risk offenders.
2/9/2012

8

Substance Abuse Disorders/

Substance Use

Schubert, CA, Mulvey, EP, Glasheen, C. (2011). The influence of mental health and substance use 

problems and criminogenic risk on outcomes in serious juvenile offenders. The Journal of the 

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50(9), 925-937

Chassin, L., Knight, G., Vargas-Chanes, D., Losoya, S., Naranjo, D. (2009). Substance Use Treatment 

Outcomes in a Sample of Serious Juvenile Offenders, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 36(2), 

183-194

Prevalence of disorders by gender

43

35

45

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Substance Use Mood/anxiety

Male

Female
2/9/2012

9

Does having a substance use or mood/anxiety 

disorder matter for long term outcomes?

Approach: Moderation Analyses

Risk

(no disorder group)

Outcome

b

Risk

(disorder group)

Outcome

a

Does a equal b?

The role of substance use and 

mood/anxiety disorders on outcomes

Findings

 The mental health disorders alone do not affect the 

relationship between risk markers and outcomes. 

Given a certain risk, adolescents with disorders have 

no greater or lesser chance of either positive or 

negative outcomes (holds for males and females).

 A substance use disorder does change the 

relationship between risk markers and both gainful 

activity and re-arrest over 6 years. It makes things 

significantly worse.
2/9/2012

10

Do changes over time in levels of 

substance use affect offending?

 Approach: 

• Look at within individual changes at each time and see if 

they raise level of offending 

• See whether these effects are different, depending on the 

trajectory groups

• Consider substance use, having an antisocial partner, being 

a parent, and level of gainful activity (school and work) all 

at the same time - also consider time out of community. 

 Findings:

• Across all groups, level of substance use and having an 

antisocial partner increase offending significantly and 

independently 

 1.2 to 12 times more offending for substance use

 1.2 to 4 time more offending for antisocial partner

Are these adolescents getting 

substance use services?

Looking at those adolescents with a diagnosed 

substance use problem

Adult

Setting

Juvenile 

Setting

Community

% with service 45% 67% 14%

Average 

intensity of 

sessions 

1 every 10 days 1 every 5 days 1 every 50 days
2/9/2012

11

Does substance use treatment work if 

given to these adolescents? 

 Approach:

• Within individual, does treatment involvement in one time 

period affect substance use and offending in the next time 

period? 

• Test of treatment as actually provided

• Controlling for “street time”, drug testing, and characteristics 

predicting who gets treatment

 Findings: 

• Family involvement and duration of treatment necessary

• Significant short term (6-month) effects of treatment on 

• Marijuana use

• Offending

• Alcohol reductions (not dependent on family involvement)

• Not a one-shot “inoculation”

Policy statement #2

Increase the provision of substance abuse 

services to serious adolescent offenders in 

both institutions and in the community, 

making sure that they are of adequate 

intensity (e.g., meet NIDA standards for 

enrollment time) and preferably involve family 

members. Youth who are supported by family 

members have better outcomes.
2/9/2012

12

Institutional Placement

Loughran, T., Mulvey, E., Schubert, C., Fagan, J., Losoya, S., Piquero, A. (2009). Estimating a 

dose-response relationship between length of stay and future recidivism in serious juvenile 

offenders. Criminology, 47, 699-740. 

0

1

2

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Month Enrolled

Adult

Setting

Juvenile

Setting

Treatment

Facility

Community

Institutional placements over 84 months

Subject 52928

Age 14
2/9/2012

13

Institutional placements over 84 months

0

1

2

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Month Enrolled

Adult

Setting

Juvenile

Setting

Treatment

Facility

Community

Subject 4716

Age 17

Institutional placements over 84 months

0

1

2

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Month Enrolled

Adult

Setting

Juvenile

Setting

Treatment

Facility

Community

Subject 691

Age 15
2/9/2012

14

Probation vs. placement

Unadjusted comparison of re-arrest rate 

Mean Yearly Rate of Re-Arrest, 

by Placement Status

0.63

1.20

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

probation placement 

rate

Propensity score matching

 Two step process: 

• A propensity score is calculated for each case. It is the 

predicted probability that you get placed given all of 

the background characteristics considered

• Take each placed case and match it to one or more 

probation case with similar propensity score

 We then can look to see if the placed group looks 

similar to the matched probation group on a variety

of characteristics that might affect the outcome 

 If the groups look alike, we can attribute any 

difference in the outcomes to the fact that they 

were placed
2/9/2012

15

Treatment effect of placement

Matched groups

Mean Yearly Rate of Re-Arrest, 

by Placement Status After Matching

1.06

1.20

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

probation placement 

rate

No significant differences between groups in rate of re-arrest

Do longer institutional stays 

reduce re-arrest?

Approach

 Length of stay is broken up into discrete “doses”

 Methods to get similar cases across different 

levels of the “dose” 

• 65 of 66 variables show no difference among 

the groups, meaning we can rule them out as 

causes of differences in outcomes

 Response Curve is estimated
2/9/2012

16

Dose-response curve 

3 month intervals as doses

Expected Rate of Re-Arrest, 

by 3 mo. Dose Category

1.11

2.55

1.08

1.35

1.04

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12 > 12

rate

Findings

 Overall, no effect of placement on rate of rearrest (if anything, it may increase re-arrest) 

 For intermediate lengths of stay (i.e., 3-13 

months), there appears to be little or no 

marginal benefit for longer lengths of stay
2/9/2012

17

Policy statement #3

Reduce the rate of placement of serious 

adolescent offenders in institutions as well as 

the duration of these placements. Increase 

the level of community-based services to 

these adolescents.

Needs & Services in 

Institutions

Mulvey, E., Schubert, C.A., Chung, H. L. (2007). Service use after court involvement in a 

sample of serious adolescent offenders. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(4), 518-544. 

NIHMS154499, PMCID2777728.

Schubert, CA; Mulvey, EP, Loughran, TA, Losoya, S. (2012) Perceptions of institutional 

experience and community outcomes for serious adolescent offenders. Criminal Justice & 

Behavior, 39(1), 71-93.
2/9/2012

18

Do these adolescents get appropriate 

services?

Approach

 Identified two “treatable” types of problems

• Mood/anxiety problems

mental health-related treatment: individual 

sessions or treatment on a mental health unit

• Substance use problems

drug and alcohol services

 Focus on four most comment settings

 Tested findings with and without controls for site,

gender, ethnicity, days in setting

Increase in likelihood of receiving mental health 

treatment for those with a mood/anxiety problem

compared to those without a mood/anxiety problem

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Detention Jail/Prison YDC/ADJC Contracted Res

3.4 times

4.2 times

No Difference No Difference
2/9/2012

19

Increase in likelihood of receiving substance use 

treatment for those with a substance use problem

compared to those without a substance use problem

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Detention Jail/prison YDC/ADJC Contracted Res

No difference

5.4 times

2.6 times

4.8 times

Do institutional environments matter?

Approach

 Examine release interviews

 Data:

• Adolescent reports about a particular institutional experience

• n = 1,158 interviews

 Calculate eight dimensions of the institutional stay

-Safety -Institutional Order

-Harshness -Caring Adult

-Fairness -Antisocial Peers

-Services -Re-entry planning

 Control for risk factors related to offending 

 Assess if differences in these dimensions relate to

subsequent community outcomes in year after release

• System involvement

• Self reported antisocial activity
2/9/2012

20

Do institutional environments matter?

Findings

 Certain dimensions matter for certain 

outcomes

• Services and re-entry planning significantly reduce

the chances of later systems involvement.

• Low harshness, fewer antisocial peers, and high 

institutional order decrease the probability of selfreported antisocial activity

 These relationships don’t differ by facility 

type

Is a generally more positive institutional 

experience related to better outcomes?

0.82

0.76

0.72 0.72 0.73 0.75 0.74 0.73

0.69 0.71

0.66 0.66

0.62 0.63

0.6

0.55

0.6

0.47

0.53

0.33

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Mean Predicted Probability

Count of Components Above the Median

System Involvement Outcome

Even after controlling for background characteristics, there is a 35%-49% 

reduction in the probability of system involvement in the next year
2/9/2012

21

Policy statement #4

Promote procedures, policies and assessment 

tools that review whether adolescent 

offenders are receiving services matched to 

their needs in institutional care and promote 

periodic assessments of institutional 

environments from the perspective of the 

adolescent in care.

Points to remember

 This is a sample of serious adolescent 

offenders. Results aren’t applicable across the 

whole juvenile justice system.

 Outcome measures rely on self reports, but 

arrests and official records support the results 

so far.

 The study was conducted in only two cities. 

While there is considerable variability across 

cities, the outcomes regarding development 

over time appear consistent in each site. 
2/9/2012

22

“Be of use”

Contact Information

Edward P. Mulvey, Ph.D.

mulveyep@upmc.edu

Carol A. Schubert, M.P.H.

schubertca@upmc.edu

www.pathwaysstudy.pitt.edu