Understanding the Adjustment of Incarcerated Young Offenders: A Canadian Example
| Published date | 01 August 2010 |
| Date | 01 August 2010 |
| Author | Michele Peterson-Badali,Carla Cesaroni |
| DOI | 10.1177/1473225410369290 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Corresponding author:
Dr Carla Cesaroni, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Criminology, Justice and Policy Studies, University of Ontario Institute
of Technology, 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, Ontario L1H 7K4, Canada.
Email: carla.cesaroni@uoit.ca
Understanding the Adjustment of
Incarcerated Young Offenders:
A Canadian Example
Carla Cesaroni
University of Ontario, Institute of Technology, Canada
Michele Peterson-Badali
University of Toronto, Canada
Abstract
This article describes a short-term longitudinal study of the adjustment to custody of Canadian youth. It explores
whether pre-existing and institutional vulnerabilities are independent predictors of custodial adjustment.
Findings suggest that youth with many pre-existing vulnerabilities and high prison stress at entry into custody
are more likely to experience initial adjustment difficulties. As youth spend more time in custody, their levels
of pre-existing vulnerabilities remain important but perceived level of support and level of fear also emerge as
important predictors of adjustment. Implications of the findings for research and practice are discussed.
Keywords
adjustment, custody, prison, young offenders
Custody is the most invasive and punitive disposition the Canadian justice system may
impose. Christie (1993: 23) argues that ‘next to killing, imprisonment is the strongest mea-
sure of power at the disposal of the state’. This is one reason that the criminal and youth
justice laws of many countries (including Canada) indicate that imprisonment should be
used sparingly and for very specific purposes. There is sufficient agreement from social
scientists, child welfare professionals and youth justice practitioners to suggest that cus-
tody affects young offenders quite adversely (Goldson, 2005). Imprisonment is a more
severe sanction for youth than for adults (Roberts, 2004). The possible consequences of
incarcerating youth need to be documented, particularly in an era in which there is increas-
ing political pressure to respond more punitively to young offenders. Thus, the goal of the
present study was to examine the adjustment of youths at entry to custody as well as after
the initial ‘settling in’ period; an issue that has received very little empirical attention.
Youth Justice
10(2) 107–125
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1473225410369290
yjj.sagepub.com
108 Youth Justice 10(2)
Custody: A Unique Challenge for Young Offenders
Research suggests that there is something unique about the manner in which youths expe-
rience custody. One of the most consistently established correlates of interpersonal vio-
lence in prison is age. Compared to adults, younger inmates are generally found to be
involved in more disciplinary infractions, assaults on inmates, inmate-staff assaults, and
conflicts with others (MacKenzie, 1987; McShane and Williams, 1989). Younger inmates
also appear to be less able to cope with the stress of imprisonment (MacKenzie, 1987).
They may also experience much higher levels of anxiety as a result of having been deprived
of their families and social networks (Roberts, 2004). Research suggests that custody
ranks high amongst traumatic lifetime stressors for young people, right behind the death
or divorce of parents (Frydenberg, 1997).
Unlike older prisoners, whose suicide risk is often related to psychiatric illnesses,
young prisoners’ suicide vulnerability is connected to their ability to cope with the prison
environment itself (Liebling, 1999). Youth most vulnerable to suicide attempts are char-
acterized by dependence on activity, structure, and contact with family and/or staff, and
are especially prone to boredom and bullying (Liebling, 1999). Incarceration is likely to
be the first significant period many young offenders have spent away from family, friends
and home communities. A custodial sentence may increase disengagement from family,
pro-social peers, and familial/social values at a critical stage in their development
(Steinberg et al., 2004). In addition, custody removes youth from local schools and there-
fore may affect young people who already have a weak bond and low commitment to
school (Roberts, 2004). This may leave them at risk of further offending, delinquency, and
other problem behaviours (LeBlanc et al., 1991; Wasserman et al., 2003).
Adolescence itself provides developmental challenges to a young person’s physical,
intellectual, emotional, and social capabilities. These challenges are increased by the
prospect of a custodial sentence. For example, establishing a stable, integrated identity is
a central task of adolescent development that can be disrupted by an onerous, overly
restrictive, institutional environment (Greve et al., 2001).
The criminological literature on youth in custody tends to focus on the bullying or the
victimization of inmates by their peers (Beck, 1995; Connell and Farrington, 1996;
Mutchnick and Fawcett, 1991; Shields and Simourd, 1991). This is not surprising given
that evidence suggests that bullying is a normative event in youth facilities. Between 20–45
per cent of prisoners in young offender institutions report they have been victimized during
the course of their current sentence (Adler, 1994; Beck, 1995; O’Donnell and Edgar, 1999).
Peer victimization can, of course, occur in schools and local neighbourhoods. However,
peer abuse within custody centres differs significantly from peer abuse in other settings
because it is much more difficult for youth in custody to escape their tormentors.
It is important to consider that adolescents are generally less likely than adults to solicit
support directly and are more likely to use help-seeking behaviours that are more indirect
and disguised (Gottlieb, 1991). Often they are afraid of damaging their reputation with their
peers or appearing foolish (Gottlieb, 1991). In addition to this ‘adolescent code’, there may
be an ‘inmate code’ in youth custody facilities. For example, in a study of incarcerated
To continue reading
Request your trial