The Legal Regulation of Adolescence

Woolard, Jennifer; Scott, Elizabeth S.

doi:10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy002011

Cited by 13 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our finding that older children were more likely to transition from the CWS into the JJS was consistent with our hypothesis that as children grow older, they experience more restrictive responses to problem behaviors, including involvement of the JJS (Woolard & Scott, 2009; Scott & Steinberg, 2008). In addition, developmental changes during the transition into adolescence, including impulsivity, susceptibility to peer pressure, and a greater sense of autonomy (Steinberg, 2008) may also place older children at greater risk of involvement in the JJS.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…The interaction between these developmental changes and the accumulation of risk across development places a child with previous CWS involvement at risk for continued and deeper involvement with multiple systems such the JJS. Further, older children compared to younger children may be held more accountable for problem behaviors, particularly law-breaking behaviors, which may require the involvement of the JJS (Woolard & Scott, 2009; Scott & Steinberg, 2008), and thus, result in a greater likelihood in crossing over from the CWS to the JJS.…”

Section: Social Risk Factors and Disparities In The Child Welfare-juvmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Maltreatment, family environment, and social risk factors: Determinants of the child welfare to juvenile justice transition among maltreated children and adolescents

Vidal

Prince

Connell

et al. 2017

Child Abuse & Neglect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study prospectively examines the transition from the child welfare system into the juvenile justice system among 10,850 maltreated children and adolescents and explores how patterns of risks, including severity and chronicity of maltreatment, adverse family environment, and social risk factors, affect service systems transition. Almost three percent of maltreated children and adolescents had their first juvenile justice adjudication within an average of approximately six years of their initial child protective services investigation (CPS). Social risk factors, including a child’s age at index CPS investigation (older), gender (boys), and race/ethnicity (Black and Hispanic vs. White) significantly predicted the risk of transition into the juvenile justice system. Recurrence of maltreatment and experiencing at least one incident of neglect over the course of the study period also increased the risk of transition into the juvenile justice system. However, subtypes of maltreatment, including physical, sexual, and other types of abuse did not significantly predict the risk of juvenile justice system transition. Finally, family environment characterized by poverty also significantly increased the risk of juvenile justice system transition. These findings have important implications for developing and tailoring services for maltreated children, particularly those at-risk for transitioning into the juvenile justice system.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Social Risk Factors and Disparities In The Child Welfare-juvmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maltreatment, family environment, and social risk factors: Determinants of the child welfare to juvenile justice transition among maltreated children and adolescents

Vidal

Prince

Connell

et al. 2017

Child Abuse & Neglect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A confluence of developmental changes, including impulsivity, susceptibility to peer pressure and influence, and transient nature and personality contribute to increased risk-taking behaviors in adolescence (Woolard, 2011). However, enhanced cognitive capacities in adolescence may impose assumptions of maturity and accountability when identifying an appropriate response to a problem behavior, some of these responses may be more restrictive than those offered in early and middle childhood (Woolard & Scott, 2009;Scott & Steinberg, 2008). Indeed, the risk for multisystem involvement with the juvenile justice system peaks around adolescence (Vidal et al, 2017).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multisystem-Involved Youth: A Developmental Framework and Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multisystem-involved youth are children and adolescents concurrently served in the child welfare, behavioral health, and/or juvenile justice systems. These youth are a high risk and vulnerable population, often due to their experience of multiple adversities and trauma, yet little is known about their multiple needs and pathways into multisystem involvement. Multisystem-involved youth present unique challenges to researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. In this article, we summarize the literature on multisystem-involved youth, including prevalence, characteristics, risk factors, and disparities for this population. We then describe a developmental cascade framework, which specifies how exposure to adverse experiences in childhood may have a "cascading" or spillover effect later in development, to depict pathways of multisystem involvement and opportunities for intervention. This framework offers a multidimensional view of involvement across service systems and illustrates the complexities of relationships between micro-and macrolevel factors at various stages and domains of development. We conclude that multisysteminvolved youth are an understudied population that may represent majority of youth who are already served in another service system. Many of these youth are also disproportionately from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds. Currently, for multisystem-involved youth and their families, there is a lack of standardized and integrated screening procedures to identify youth with open cases across service systems; inadequate use of available instruments to assess exposure to complex trauma; inadequate clinical and family-related evidence-based practices specifically for use with this population; and poor cross-systems collaboration and coordination that align goals

show abstract

“…Even raising the questions for young adult offenders may give advocates and practitioners significant pause, as they are still in the throes of articulating the practical implications of Supreme Court cases for existing juvenile sentences and future case processing. However, as Woolard and Scott () noted, “The simple binary classification of legal ‘childhood’ and ‘adulthood’ in fact is more complex than it seems because the boundary between childhood and adulthood varies depending on the policy purpose” (p. 345). What if assumptions about the vulnerability, incompetence, and dependency of children hold to a matter of degree with young adults?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…What if assumptions about the vulnerability, incompetence, and dependency of children hold to a matter of degree with young adults? Although juvenile justice is one of the exceptions to the efficacy of a bright line approach to legally defining adulthood, we must recognize that judgments about that line are as much about policy and politics as science (Woolard and Scott, ). As social scientists engaged in policy‐relevant questions, Farrington et al do not shy away from extending the logic of developmental differences to the young adult population, identifying several pathways to crafting what they consider a more developmentally informed and responsive criminal justice system.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%