Eraka Bath

Child incarceration and long-term adult health outcomes: a longitudinal study

Purpose Although incarceration may have life-long negative health effects, little is known about associations between child incarceration and subsequent adult health outcomes. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyzed data from 14,689 adult participants in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) to compare adult health outcomes among those first incarcerated between 7 and 13 years of age (child incarceration); first incarcerated at>or=14 years of age; and never incarcerated. Findings Compared to the other two groups, those with a history of child incarceration were disproportionately black or Hispanic, male, and from lower socio-economic strata. Additionally, individuals incarcerated as children had worse adult health outcomes, including general health, functional limitations (climbing stairs), depressive symptoms, and suicidality, than those first incarcerated at older ages or never incarcerated. Research limitations/implications Despite the limitations of the secondary database analysis, these findings suggest that incarcerated children are an especially medically vulnerable population. Practical implications Programs and policies that address these medically vulnerable childrens health needs through comprehensive health and social services in place of, during, and/or after incarceration are needed. Social implications Meeting these unmet health and social service needs offers an important opportunity to achieve necessary health care and justice reform for children. Originality/value No prior studies have examined the longitudinal relationship between child incarceration and adult health outcomes.

Setting a minimum age for juvenile justice jurisdiction in California

Purpose Despite the existence of minimum age laws for juvenile justice jurisdiction in 18 US states, California has no explicit law that protects children (i.e. youth less than 12 years old) from being processed in the juvenile justice system. In the absence of a minimum age law, California lags behind other states and international practice and standards. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach In this policy brief, academics across the University of California campuses examine current evidence, theory, and policy related to the minimum age of juvenile justice jurisdiction. Findings Existing evidence suggests that children lack the cognitive maturity to comprehend or benefit from formal juvenile justice processing, and diverting children from the system altogether is likely to be more beneficial for the child and for public safety. Research limitations/implications Based on current evidence and theory, the authors argue that minimum age legislation that protects children from contact with the juvenile justice system and treats them as children in need of services and support, rather than as delinquents or criminals, is an important policy goal for California and for other national and international jurisdictions lacking a minimum age law. Originality/value California has no law specifying a minimum age for juvenile justice jurisdiction, meaning that young children of any age can be processed in the juvenile justice system. This policy brief provides a rationale for a minimum age law in California and other states and jurisdictions without one.