![]()
Part I
Pathways to prison
![]()
1 From juvie to jail
Gendered risk and protective factors for adult incarceration among high-risk institutionalized boys and girls in the Netherlands
Katharina J. Joosen, Mioara Zoutewelle-Terovan, Anne-Marie Slotboom, and Victor R. van der Geest
Introduction
Well begun is half done (Dutch proverb). Juveniles who were placed in detention or residential treatment centers for behavioral and/or emotional problems are less successful as adults across various life domains, such as education, work, income, and mental health (e.g., Culhane et al. 2011; Van der Molen et al. 2013). They also have an increased risk of being incarcerated in later life (Aizer and Doyle 2013; Petitclerc et al. 2013). Nonetheless, we know from existing research that not all high-risk adolescents end up in prison as adults. So which factors determine within this high-risk group who succeeds in the transition to adulthood; and, among those who fall behind, are their potential pathways to prison gendered?
From a life course perspective, adolescence is an extremely important phase between child- and adulthood in which many identity and behavioral changes occur (e.g., Wenar and Kerig 2000). Increased flexibility in the behavioral and emotional repertoire during (early) adolescence enables adaptation to changing environmental influences during the development into adulthood (e.g., Granic et al. 2003). However, adolescents who are institutionalized in juvenile detention and/or treatment centers often experience less than optimal caregiving environments from early infancy into early adolescence. These boys and girls report high rates of childhood victimization (e.g., Belknap and Holsinger 2006; Silvern and Griese 2012), family violence (Abram et al. 2013), parental psychopathology (Bauer et al. 2011), and instability in caregiving situations (Price and Kunz 2003). Outside of the family environment, they often have additional difficulties in school where they have to repeat classes, are expelled or play truant (e.g., Henry et al. 2012). Responses to childhood difficulties—such as running away from home and early drug or alcohol use—contribute to their admission or sentencing to juvenile detention and/or treatment centers. Across sexes these experiences have been shown to be risk factors for serious and chronic offending (Johansson and Kempf-Leonard 2009).
Juvenile residential care in the Netherlands
Until recently, the population of institutionalized juveniles in residential treatment centers in the Netherlands consisted of two groups. The largest group was committed to residential treatment through a civil law measure. For these juveniles placement had been imposed because behavioral problems, such as running away from home and subsequent homelessness, or unsafe family situations made it impossible for them to remain at home. The smallest group was comprised of convicted juveniles, who were often sentenced for a serious or violent offense and committed to residential treatment through a criminal law measure. However in reality, differences in delinquent behavior are small across both groups: delinquency is also common among juveniles placed out of the parental home as a civil measure and the seriousness of behavioral problems is comparable (Boendermaker and Uit Beijerse 2008; Wijkman et al. 2006). For reasons of clarity we will refer to both juveniles under civil and those under criminal law as high-risk juveniles throughout the rest of the chapter.
Gendered nature of risk factors for adulthood incarceration
Upon re-entering society after a period of institutionalization most of these high-risk juveniles have a high probability of experiencing adverse outcomes in adulthood such as offending and subsequent incarceration (e.g., Aizer and Doyle 2013; Culhane et al. 2011; Petitclerc et al. 2013). Different risk factors1 have been shown to contribute to these adverse outcomes. However, it is not clear whether these risk factors are gendered (Kruttschnitt 2013; Uggen and Kruttschnitt 1998). Though some factors (e.g., child abuse, family chaos and substance abuse) are frequently used to characterize female pathways into crime, according to Kruttschnitt (2013) these risk factors are primarily based on samples that only include female respondents. She argues that when actual gender comparisons are made within studies, less gender variation in risk factors is found than might be expected. Even so, it is possible that the same risk factors affect different life domains for males and females and therefore are experienced in a gendered way. In other words, risk factors that impact both genders may be embedded in the life course in gender specific ways.
Studies of the various risk factors associated with adult antisocial behavior are generally conducted among incarcerated male and/or female samples. Across the range of potentially gendered risk factors for incarceration, the variable mental health has received considerable attention. When mental health problems are measured through a broad definition, significant effects on adult offending are found across gender (Johansson and Kempf-Leonard 2009). However, when specific mental health problems are measured, studies tend to find different effects for men and women. For example, some studies report prevalence rates for antisocial personality disorder are higher for incarcerated males than for incarcerated females (Coolidge et al. 2011); whereas others find incarcerated women are more likely than incarcerated men to report diagnoses of mood-, anxiety-, posttraumatic stress- and borderline personality disorder prior to their imprisonment (e.g., Drapalski et al. 2009; Gunter et al. 2012). Additionally, relative to males in prison, imprisoned females are more likely to report prior psychiatric medication and hospitalizations, and a family history of mental illness (Gunter et al. 2012).
The experience of trauma and subsequent post-traumatic stress responses could play a role in these gender differences. The vast majority of incarcerated females report at least one traumatic experience during their pre-incarcerated lives (Cook et al. 2005) and significantly more traumatic experiences (e.g., victimization in child- and adulthood) compared to male offenders (e.g., Gunter et al. 2012; Jordan et al. 2012). Furthermore, among female inmates it has been shown that serious mental illness mediates the impact of both child- and adulthood victimization on offending history (Lynch et al. 2012). Thus, even though male inmates report a higher prevalence of antisocial personality disorder (Coolidge et al. 2011), female inmates seem to struggle more with psychological complaints or disorders related to traumatic experiences and victimization (e.g., Gunter et al. 2012; Kerig and Becker 2012).
Substance abuse is also frequently mentioned in the literature on gendered pathways but it is not clear whether its impact on offending and incarceration differs by gender. For example, several studies using incarcerated samples showed that problematic drug use is found in comparable rates across gender (Carlson et al. 2010; Drapalski et al. 2009). However, a literature review on substance abuse and dependence among prisoners presented a higher prevalence estimate range of drug abuse and dependence for female prisoners than male prisoners (Fazel et al. 2006; McClellan et al. 1997). By contrast, alcohol abuse has been found to be more prevalent among incarcerated males (Carlson et al. 2010; Drapalski et al. 2009). Thus, gender differences in the impact of substance abuse on the risk for incarceration may be tied to specific types of substance (e.g., alcohol or drugs) and severity of usage (e.g., problematic use or abuse).
Another potentially gendered risk factor for incarceration is economic marginalization, which is variously measured by unemployment rates, financial difficulties, debts and homelessness. Prior to imprisonment, female offenders are frequently unemployed and suffering from economic difficulties that are so severe that they do not have enough food or adequate clothing; and, it has been shown that these states are more characteristic of the lives of female offenders than male offenders (Jordan et al. 2012; McClellan et al. 1997). However, it is unclear whether homelessness prior to imprisonment is more prevalent among males or females (cf. e.g., Greenberg and Rosenheck 2008; McClellan et al. 1997). Whether these results on economic marginalization which are derived mainly from American studies are comparable to the situation in countries with a more...
