Photo by Efkan Senturk on Unsplash
Prince Afari-Agyei
University of New Haven
Youth incarceration continues to be at the center of criminological and policy debates, particularly regarding the compelling implications it poses for future outcomes of youth in the justice system. While proponents of youth incarceration argue it is essential for public safety, research indicates its benefits (in terms of outcomes) are minimal and cost-ineffective (Lambie & Randell, 2013). Nonetheless, the significant number of young people who experience confinement through the juvenile justice system demonstrates how little research in this area has impacted policy. Even though young offenders in the United States are on a decline, incarcerated juveniles remain significant. This is evident in the 2022 National Report by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), emphasizing youth contact with the system declined by 74% over the past two decades (Puzzanchera et al., 2022). Nevertheless, the number of youths held in juvenile justice facilities, adult prisons, and adult jails in the same year stood significantly at 31,800.
Empirical studies also suggest youth incarceration is often a turning point that shapes education, employment, and criminal trajectories into adulthood. Engstrom (2024) reveals that young individuals who encounter the justice system or experience detention are at risk of adult incarceration, along with individuals of the majority age leaving the foster care system. Furthermore, youth incarcerated in adult facilities are exposed to an environment that presents adverse impacts, potentially increasing their propensity to adopt behaviors that speed up future reincarceration (Silver et al., 2025). In addition, the restrictions that juvenile detention presents have the potential to decrease one’s self-esteem and a lack of social support, which can lead to feelings of alienation and exacerbate mental health issues (Abram et al., 2017). This also hinders the acquisition of relevant life skills due to an increase in school dropouts and inefficient reentry programs, which in the long run impacts employability, leading to poorer outcomes and increasing the desire to engage in antisocial behavior to fend for themselves (Kirk & Sampson, 2013).
Proponents of the youth justice system historically have placed greater emphasis on rehabilitation over retribution (Fagan & Zimring, 2000). However, the reality over the past decades presents a gap in what was intended, particularly with the use of juvenile incarceration. This is an important area that cannot be overlooked, particularly because several empirical studies have consistently highlighted the adverse outcomes associated with this practice (Silver et al., 2025). Therefore, this paper will examine the impact of youth incarceration on future outcomes through a comparative lens of three recent studies assessing alternatives and highlighting how juvenile incarceration contributes to a cascade of effects that alter the life course of youth transitioning into adulthood. Recommendations will also be made on how policy can prioritize diversion and focused support systems to improve the juvenile justice system.
Theoretical Framework
Theoretically, deterrence and incapacitation underpin the debate about whether incarceration reduces crime rates. Deterrence, a forward-looking crime control theory, seeks to explain the prevention of future crimes, as offenders are profit maximizers who weigh potential gains against their losses (Stahlkopf et al., 2008). Rooted in the eighteenth-century work of Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, the theory assumes that humans are rational beings who seek pleasure and avoid pain. Therefore, if the pain from a punishment for criminal behavior outweighs the pleasure, offenders will not engage in such acts (Kessler & Levitt, 1999). For this to occur, the offender must be certain of arrest (certainty), that punishment will follow swiftly (celerity), and that the severity of the punishment will outweigh any gains (severity). Incarcerating young offenders is utilized as a specific deterrence mechanism that assumes zero tolerance for re-offending, because youth will recognize the pains of punishment in their future decision-making. An extension is general deterrence, which assumes that youth are aware of the legal consequences society imposes on offenders, and therefore they will avoid law-breaking behavior.
Despite these theoretical assertions, the deterrent effect of youth incarceration is modified by social learning theory, which asserts the prison environment encourages criminogenic learning through social interactions (Kurlychek et al., 2024). Prisons, as suggested by Sutherland (1947), are “schools of crime” that facilitate the teaching and learning of the rudiments of the trade for continued and more refined offending. The assumption here is that young offenders in confined settings build criminal capital from others, which is likely to harden them for future reoffending. This is critical for youth offenders in adult facilities with more seasoned offenders, a setting that provides limited opportunities for positive development into adulthood.
Literature Review
Rather than rehabilitation, research on youth incarceration over the last decade has shown worse long-term outcomes produced by this phenomenon (Abram et al., 2017). It is argued that confining young offenders hinders social support, heightens feelings of alienation (mental health), reduces educational trajectories, employment opportunities, increases poverty, and recidivism. This negatively shapes the future outcomes of incarcerated youth as they age into adulthood.
In examining the “dose–response” relationship between length of institutional stay and recidivism, Loughran et al. (2009) employed data from the Pathways to Desistance study, a longitudinal investigation that observes the transition of serious adolescent offenders aged 14 to 17 years into young adulthood from the juvenile or adult court systems in Maricopa County, AZ, and Philadelphia County, PA. Specifically, the authors examined whether recidivism rates are higher for young offenders who receive institutional placement compared with those placed on probation, and among those placed in institutions, whether their subsequent rates of offending decline as a function of their length of stay. The findings indicated that a longer time in secure placement does not reduce the likelihood of re-arrest, suggesting confinement is ineffective for producing a positive outcome upon release.
To ascertain whether incarceration deters future reoffending or interrupts the accumulation of social capital in a way that heightens the propensity for criminal behavior, Aizer and Doyle (2015) employed the incarceration tendency of juvenile court judges as a relevant variable to estimate the causal effects of youth imprisonment on high school completion and adult recidivism. The findings indicated that young offenders sentenced to confinement, rather than community-based programs, have a greater chance of never returning to school and recidivating as adults, without declines in future violent offending. This reinforces the view that incarceration tends to deepen criminal careers rather than deter them, thus emphasizing the argument that incapacitating young offenders is a weak crime control measure that exposes these young offenders to delinquent peers and criminogenic circles.
Employing data from the Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP), Gilman et al. (2015) examined the long-term consequences of youth confinement on adult functioning in their late 20s and early 30s. The authors used propensity score analysis to compare incarcerated youth with those who were not confined in a subsample of juveniles who had experienced some police contact. The study’s results suggest that young offenders who are incarcerated in their adolescent stage are significantly more likely to experience incarceration at ages 27 to 33, indulge in alcohol abuse, and become susceptible to public benevolence than their counterparts who did not experience incarceration. This is an indication that locking up youth is not only an ineffective measure but also presents unintended consequences that potentially culminate in socioeconomic disadvantage.
Interestingly, the damning effect of incarceration extends beyond crime and educational impact. Further research quantifies the association of incarcerating young offenders with future adult health outcomes. Specifically, Barnert et al. (2017) employed data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health to explore the relationship between cumulative incarceration duration before age 25. The authors then measured the subsequent health outcomes in adulthood across general health, functional limitations, depressive symptoms, and suicidal thoughts. The findings posit that young offenders who experience cumulative incarceration report worse general health, functional constraints, higher levels of depressive symptoms, and suicidal thoughts in late adulthood.
Finally, in a quest to determine whether delinquent juveniles attain age-appropriate psychosocial outcomes in young adulthood after incapacitation, and how such outcomes vary by sex and race/ethnicity, Abram et al. (2017) employed data from the longitudinal Northwestern Juvenile Project. The authors uncovered racial disparities among youth in achieving positive outcomes after detention, with non-Hispanic white youth, especially females, faring better than their Black and Latino counterparts. This reflects broader structural inequalities in education, labor markets, and neighborhood conditions.
Contemporary Empirical Studies
Owing to the consequences that youth incarceration has on the future outcomes of young offenders, extant studies have continued to focus on the phenomenon with the intention of producing findings that impact the policies in U.S. juvenile justice. Although the incarcerated youth population over the past few years has seen a significant decline, the number of youths held in juvenile justice facilities, adult prisons, and adult jails in 2022 stood significantly at 31,800 (Puzzanchera et al., 2022).
In their recent research, Silver et al. (2025) addressed the fundamental question of whether incarcerating juveniles increases their likelihood of future incarceration during their transition into adulthood, particularly when the incarceration was in an adult facility. Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97), the study engaged a nationally representative cohort of 8,984 individuals born between January 1st, 1980, and December 31st, 1984. Respondents were initially interviewed annually from 1997 to 2011 and biennially from 2013 to 2019, responding to a series of retrospective and prospective questions across 19 interviews, which included inquiries regarding arrest, conviction, and sentencing. The interview also included questions regarding the date of each arrest, the start and stop date of imprisonment, the type of sentence served (probation or incarceration), and the facility in which the sentence was served (jail, prison, or juvenile correctional facility).
To maintain temporal sequencing, the authors limited the analytical sample to only the respondents who turned 18 prior to the 1997 interviews, allowing them to measure all juvenile exposures before transitioning to adulthood. Silver et al. (2025) measured the outcome of interest (future incarceration) through two approaches: whether the respondents were incarcerated after age 18, and how many months it took for their first adult incarceration after the age of 18. Essentially, these measured approaches allowed the determination of the probability of future system contact and how quickly that happened after transitioning into adulthood. To account for the structural and individual risk factors and isolate the criminogenic effect of incarceration, the authors controlled for variables such as early Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), parental education, socioeconomic indicators, prior arrests, delinquency variety scores, school behaviors, peer deviance, and demographic characteristics
To conduct the study’s analysis, the authors employed a parametric lognormal survival model, random forest-based multiple imputations, and a gradient-boosted multigroup propensity score, which allowed measuring time-to-event data with censored cases, missing data, and balancing pre-existing differences across groups, respectively. Findings revealed that 73% of youth incarcerated in adult facilities were incarcerated again as adults, compared to only 9% of those who had no juvenile incarceration in adult facilities. Also, the average duration until incarceration after adulthood (18 and above) was a significantly shorter period of 64 months for those who experienced adult-facility confinement as juveniles compared to 90 months for those not previously incarcerated in adult facilities. This suggests a consistent pattern of the criminogenic effects of incarceration.
Interestingly, the juvenile justice system was established to be more centered on rehabilitation; however, the retributive shift of the late 1980s led a substantial number of young offenders into adult jails and prisons. In research to examine the long-term effects of such incarceration on young offenders, Kurlychek et al. (2024) analyzed whether imprisoning juveniles in adult institutions exacerbates criminal behavior over the life course. The study used data from an entire cohort of 16- and 17-year-olds arrestedin New York State (NY) in 1987. The researchers removed selection bias by utilizing a sample of young offenders who either spent time in an adult jail or prison or did not, yielding a 96% successful pairing of incarcerated and non-incarcerated youth. The study’s dataset spans 24 years of follow-up, transitioning well into adulthood to track the long-term effects of youth confinement. This allowed for the implementation of a flexible semi-parametric partial likelihood estimator to model each group’s risk of recidivism over the 24-year research period. This analytical process accounts for the certainty that differences in long-term outcomes are not simply the result of pre-existing disparities.
Kurlychek et al. (2024) reveal that imprisoning youth offenders in an adult setting does not reduce crime; rather, it has a substantial criminogenic effect over time. Compared to non-incarcerated youth, juveniles who spent a considerable amount of time in adult confinement had an 89% recidivism rate, above their matched counterparts’ 85% recidivism rate. Also, post-release, youth with prior records are shown to reoffend more quickly, with an average first rearrest duration of 655 days (or about 1.8 years). Their matched counterparts were first rearrested in about 849 days (or 2.3 years later). Most importantly, the findings revealed that juveniles confined in adult facilities (post-lease) accumulate more total arrests over the course of life, with about 11 arrests. Thus, incarceration not only fast-tracks recidivism but also deepens long-term criminogenic effects.
Moreover, employment is one collateral impact of incarceration that extant studies have continued to document. In their research, Siennick and Widdowson (2025) examined incarceration not as a single undifferentiated experience, but instead distinguished brief incarceration stays from longer stays among youth transitioning into adulthood. Specifically, the study investigated whether short incarceration stays of two months or less are negatively associated with labor market outcomes for youth during their transition into adulthood. Fundamental to the study, as theorized by the authors, was the fact that brief incarceration spells might produce negative consequences, particularly on employment, which is likely due to mechanisms such as labeling processes, mechanical disruptions to daily life, the chaotic social environment of jails, and the lack of rehabilitative programming owing to brief stays.
To test these concepts, Siennick and Widdowson (2025) sourced data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 cohort (N = 8,842), of which 927 were incarcerated as adults, 1,587 were arrested but never incarcerated as adults, and 6,328 had no adult arrest or incarceration. Respondents’ initial adult arrest and incarceration length were categorized as either two months or less, or two months or more. After which, employment, average hours worked, and labor-force participation for the next six months post-release (or after arrest for those not incarcerated) were examined and statistically compared among the three groupings indicated above using propensity score matching.
The findings indicated that both arrest and incarceration produced negative employment outcomes. Longer-incarcerated offenders (more than two months) experienced a worse employment impact than those incarcerated briefly. This was, however, not the case when the authors adjusted for preexisting differences using propensity score matching. Comparing briefly incarcerated offenders to those not incarcerated showed a negative impact for the former, with fewer months employed, fewer hours worked, and a high propensity to be out of the labor force. Among respondents who were employed prior to arrest or incarceration, both short and longer incarcerations were associated with negative outcomes compared to never arrested or incarcerated individuals. When the comparison was restricted to arrested but not incarcerated offenders, brief incarcerations showed little independent impact, while longer incarcerations indicated significant employment disruption.
Summary and Conclusion
The U.S. juvenile justice system was originally intended to be a developmentally appropriate alternative to the retributive processing of the criminal justice system. The youth justice system dealt with delinquent juveniles through a focus on rehabilitation, not punishment; a midpoint between no sanction and imposing overly severe retribution (Kurlychek et al., 2024). However, the 1980s saw high rates of youth crime; impulsively violent, remorseless, and having no respect for human life, triggering the “get tough” movement and casting doubt on rehabilitation (Burke et al., 2019, p. 403). This strengthened policies that permitted violent juvenile offenders to be tried in the adult justice system (Feld 2017) and an influx of youth offenders confined in adult facilities. Unfortunately, the outcomes of this measure have not been favorable, particularly as juveniles transition into adulthood. The literature discussed above highlights the phenomenon in detail.
For policy implications, youth incarceration is costly and may never result in the preferred outcomes of deterrence and rehabilitation, hence the need for alternatives that ensure both welfare and sanctioning. Aizer and Doyle (2015) indicate that Illinois has, in recent years, adopted juvenile incarceration alternatives such as electronic monitoring and well-enforced curfews that ensure offenders of high school-going age stay in school. This provides the right environment, increases the graduation rate, and reduces the propensity for adult crimes.
Moreover, the criminal justice system, as designed for adults, could expose an adolescent to neglect, sexual abuse, and physical abuse, creating a disadvantage upon reentry (Silver et al., 2025). There is, therefore, a need to prioritize handling youth cases in juvenile systems, which limits the excess negative factors associated with adult facilities. The juvenile system must tailor services to the psychological, social, educational, and vocational needs of young offenders and can also accommodate serious offenders. Kurlychek et al. (2024) suggest that, whereas evidence-based programming continues to be accepted, policy must also focus on person-centered initiatives such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and Functional Family Therapy (FFT), which have been proven to bring about positive changes and reductions in recidivism without imprisonment. Lastly, best practices around the world have employed the ideals of rehabilitative and restorative justice in response to the youth justice systems (Stahlkopf et al., 2008). Policy must be aligned with tackling the causes of crime, such as quality education and limited job opportunities, which could potentially elicit criminal behavior.
For future studies, datasets employed should provide more information on how the independent variable was measured and what types of facilities were included, so that decision-makers and practitioners can better use the research to make informed decisions. Moreover, when samples include multiple types of incarceration, researchers should examine each type independently, if possible, as the policy implications for each analysis could vary substantially. Also, experiences of incarceration have been associated with a variety of detrimental outcomes related to well-being; however, to date, no study has examined the extent to which these experiences may be associated with premature death in a national sample. Hence, future research should be focused on this area.
The cumulative literature reviewed through this paper strongly suggests that youth incarceration produces more criminogenic effects than the intended benefits. Findings discussed also challenge the deterrence and incapacitation rationales that justified punitive juvenile justice policies. There is therefore a need for evidence-based diversion, stakeholder engagement, and community supervision to improve future outcomes for justice-involved youth and for public safety.
References
Abram, K. M., Azores-Gococo, N. M., Emanuel, K. M., Aaby, D. A., Welty, L. J., Hershfield, J. A., Teplin, L. A. (2017). Sex and racial/ethnic differences in positive outcomes in delinquent youth after detention: A 12-year longitudinal study. JAMA Pediatrics, 171(2), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.3260
Aizer, A., & Doyle, J. J. (2015). Juvenile incarceration, human capital, and future crime: Evidence from randomly assigned judges. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(2), 759–803. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv003
Barnert, E. S., Dudovitz, R., Nelson, B. B., Coker, T. R., Biely, C., Li, N., & Chung, P. J. (2017). How does incarcerating young people affect their adult health outcomes? Pediatrics, 139(2). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2624
Burke, A., Carter, D., Fedorek, B., Morey, T., Rutz-Burri, L., & Sanchez, S. (2019). Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System. Open Oregon Educational Resources.
Engstrom, R. S. (2024). Race differences in the impact of juvenile detention on likelihood of young adult incarceration of males aging out of care. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 22(3), 235–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2024.2384483
Fagan, J., & Zimring, F. E. (Eds.). (2000). The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of adolescents to the criminal court. University of Chicago Press.
Feld, Barry C. 2017. The evolution of the juvenile court: Race, politics, and the criminalizing of juvenile justice. New York: New York University Press.
Gilman, A. B., Hill, K. G., & Hawkins, J. D. (2015). When is a youth’s debt to society paid? examining the long-term consequences of juvenile incarceration for adult functioning. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 1(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-015-0002-5
Kessler, D., & Levitt, K. (1999). Using sentencing enhancements to distinguish between deterrence and incapacitation. Journal of Law and Economics, 42, 343-363. https://doi.org/10.1086/467428
Kirk, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (2013). Juvenile arrest and collateral educational damage in the transition to adulthood. Sociology of Education, 86(1), 6–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040712448862
Kurlychek, M. C., Kijowski, M. C., & Gagnon, A. M. (2022). The long-term consequences of imprisoning our youth: The lasting impact of time spent in adult jails and Prisons. Social Problems, 71(1), 157–179. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spab078
Lambie, I., & Randell, I. (2013). The impact of incarceration on juvenile offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(3), 448–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cpr.2013.01.007
Loughran, T. A., Mulvey, E. P., Schubert, C. A., Fagan, J., Piquero, A. R., & Losoya, S. H. (2009). Estimating a dose‐response relationship between length of stay and future recidivism in serious juvenile offenders. Criminology, 47(3), 699–740. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00165.x
Puzzanchera, C. M., Hockenberry, S., & Sickmund, M. (2022). Youth and the juvenile justice system: 2022 national report. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
Siennick, S. E., & Widdowson, A. O. (2025). Do short spells matter? conceptualizing and testing the effects of brief incarcerations on labor market outcomes. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 62(6), 856–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224278251344584
Silver, I. A., Vaidya, P., & Wooldredge, J. (2025). The effects of youth incarceration in adult institutions on future incarceration. Journal of Criminal Justice, 98, 102426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2025.102426
Silver, I. A., Vaidya, P., & Wooldredge, J. (2025). The effects of youth incarceration in adult institutions on future incarceration. Journal of Criminal Justice, 98, 102–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2025.102426
Stahlkopf, C., Males, M., & Macallair, D. (2008). Testing incapacitation theory: Youth crime and incarceration in California. Crime & Delinquency, 56(2), 253-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707307227
Sutherland, Edwin H. 1947. Principles of criminology. 4th ed. Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott.