Who Will Graduate? Disruption of High School Education by Arrest and Court Involvement

Abstract

Little research has assessed the effects of juvenile justice involvement during high school on educational outcomes. Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, this study assesses the effect of first‐time arrest and court involvement during high school on educational attainment. In addition, differential effects by structural location are examined. Findings suggest support for the labeling perspective. First‐time court appearance during high school increases the chances of dropping out of high school independent of involvement in delinquency. Furthermore, the effect of court appearance is particularly detrimental to less delinquent youths.

Keywords:

• graduation
• disruption
• high school
• education
• arrest
• court involvement
• high school dropout

Notes

1. This estimate was obtained under the assumption that non‐reporting police agencies arrest juveniles at the same rate per capita as reporting agencies.

2. I estimated all models with a larger sample which excluded poverty and PIAT covariates. Coefficients on the arrest and court involvement were substantively identical to those reported.

3. In the early 1990s, the Bureau of Labor Statistics changed from paper and pencil surveying (PAPI) to computer assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and self‐administered questionnaires (SAQ) for sensitive items. This led to a decrease in surveyor‐induced measurement error and a slight increase in response rates to sensitive questions in the NLSY97 relative to the NLSY79 (Zagorsky & Gardecki, 1998).

4. A variety scale is used because a total frequency score is generally dominated by less serious offenses. Furthermore, prior research has demonstrated that delinquency variety scales are as reliable as frequency scales (Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weis, 1981). All models were replicated with delinquency frequency scales in place of delinquency variety scales. The arrest and court effects in these models were very similar in magnitude and precision to those reported in this paper.

5. One reviewer noted that my results may be driven by seriousness of offenses. To address this concern, I created dummy variables for the most serious reported offenses (attacking someone to hurt them, stealing something worth more than $50, and selling drugs) for both before age 16 and between ages 16 and 18. Including these six control variables did not alter my results, suggesting that my results are not driven by unobserved offense seriousness.

6. All analyses were replicated with GED earners counted as high school graduates. My substantive findings regarding the effect of arrest and court involvement were unchanged with this alternate coding strategy.

7. Two methods were used to determine where to dichotomize arrest expectations. First, the curvilinear relationship between arrest expectations and high school graduation was estimated. The odds ratio showed stability below 20 percent, and movement above. Second, the model was estimated using an arrest expectations dummy dichotomized at several different thresholds. Dichotomization at 20 percent yielded the highest likelihood ratio, indicating the best fitting model. Education expectations were dichotomized using the same methods.

8. Sampson and Laub (1997) suggest that labeling effects may be most detrimental for urban poor youth. In analyses not included in the tables, I found that urban context had no effect on high school graduation, nor did the effect of justice system involvement vary between urban and rural youth.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Gary Sweeten

Gary Sweeten received his PhD in criminology and criminal justice in 2006 from the University of Maryland and is an assistant professor of criminal justice and criminology at Arizona State University West. His research interests include criminological theory, transitions to adulthood, and quantitative methods. His work has appeared in volume 15 of the Advances in Criminological Theory series and in the Journal of Experimental Criminology.