Psychology study article summary

Psychology study article summary
Sample Answer for Psychology study article summary Included After Question

Psychology study article summary

Description

In the instruction files there are four articles listed but I was assigned a particle article and I uploaded it below: it is called Daftary-Kapur, T., Zottoli, T. M., Faust, T., & Schneider, R. (2022). A first look at the reentry experiences of juvenile lifers released in Philadelphia. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 28(3), 400–413.

Psychology study article summary
A Sample Answer For the Assignment: Psychology study article summary
Title: Psychology study article summary

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law © 2022 American Psychological Association ISSN: 1076-8971 2022, Vol. 28, No. 3, 400–413 https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000344 A First Look at the Reentry Experiences of Juvenile Lifers Released in Philadelphia Tarika Daftary-Kapur1, Tina M. Zottoli2, Tristin Faust2, and Ryan Schneider2 1 Department of Justice Studies, Montclair State University Department of Psychology, Montclair State University This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 2 In 2012, when the U.S. Supreme Court abolished mandatory sentences of life without parole for persons who committed homicide offenses as juveniles, over 2,000 individuals across the United States were serving the sentence. To date, more than 800 juvenile lifers have been released. To better understand the experiences and needs of this population, we surveyed 112 Philadelphia-based juvenile lifers about their earlylife experiences, the periods of their incarceration, and their release and reentry experiences. The majority of respondents reported relatively successful reentry experiences as measured by objective indicators such as housing and jobs. Eighty-one percent (n = 91) of respondents had secured stable housing, 75% (n = 84) were employed at least part-time, and 100% (n = 112) had been able to reconnect with 1 or more family members. Respondents rated family connections and support as critical to their successful reentry, and for most respondents (89%, n = 100) expectations of family support was well calibrated with actual support. Factors associated with perceived challenges to reentry included the number of adverse childhood events to which a respondent was exposed, age (with greater difficulties reported by respondents younger than 44 & older than 55, compared to others), physical and mental health, and the extent to which actual family support was consistent with expectations. We discuss the policy implications of our findings in light of continued trends toward decarceration in the United States and the potential that parole grants for persons serving long sentences for violent crimes may continue to increase. Keywords: juvenile lifers, reentry, life without parole, juveniles, lifers Incarceration rates in the United States have been steadily declining since 2007, when the country hit a peak of approximately 8 of every 1,000 adults in prison (West & Sabol, 2009). This downward trajectory was brought about, in part, by a national reckoning with the mounting costs of incarceration and increased public awareness that, despite incarcerating more people per capita than any other western nation (Wagner & Sawyer, 2018), the United States reaps no benefit in terms of public safety. Since 2006, 36 states have participated in the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2020), a Bush-era policy that provides federal assistance to states that aim to reduce their prison populations. A few states have led the way in policy changes. Michigan, for example, overhauled its sentencing laws in 2021, which is expected to result in parole approvals for an additional 900 persons, on average, per year. In 2014 California passed proposition 47, which reclassified some felonies as misdemeanors. In the first year following ratification, the prison population fell by 25,000 incarcerated persons. While these changes are laudable, the national movement aimed at reducing incarceration rates through legislation and policy reform has been uneven and fragmented, and the overall reduction in the prison population has been modest. While the number of incarcerated persons today is closer to 7 in 1,000 (Sawyer & Wagner, 2020), this represents a decrement of only .1% since 2007. Part of the problem is that legislative reforms have focused almost exclusively on individuals convicted of nonviolent felonies. Little to no consideration has been given to individuals serving long-term sentences for violent crimes, even though these individuals make up more than half of the state-prison population and tend to be the most well-adjusted segment of the prison population This article was published Online First March 24, 2022. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9157-2164 Tarika Daftary-Kapur https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3197-935X Tina M. Zottoli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0018-540X Tristin Faust https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1188-3801 Ryan Schneider This study was funded by the Vital Projects Fund. Portions of the data appearing in this article were presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual meeting in Chicago in November 2021. The authors have no conflicts of interest that could have influenced the findings reported. All data and study materials, including all supplemental analyses and R code for derived variables are available at https://osf.io/rtwy9/?view_only= ba184029fd6a402e96574c3bd45d2817. Tina M. Zottoli contributed equally to writing, review & editing. Tristin Faust served in a supporting role for investigation. Ryan Schneider served in a supporting role for data analysis. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tarika Daftary-Kapur, Department of Justice Studies, Montclair State University, Dickson Hall 319, 1 Normal Avenue, Montclair, NJ 07043, United States. Email: daftarykaput@montclair.edu 400 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. REENTRY EXPERIENCES OF RELEASED JUVENILE LIFERS (Kazemian & Travis, 2015). In fact, research shows that individuals released after having served very long sentences, including life-sentences, have the lowest recidivism rates of any category of previously incarcerated persons (Daftary-Kapur & Zottoli, 2020; Weisberg et al., 2011). Any effort to substantially reduce the costs of incarceration in the United States must address persons serving long sentences for violent crime (Pfaff, 2017). Although sentencing reforms targeting individuals convicted of violent offenses have not gained much momentum among policymakers or the public at large, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) forced consideration of this question for one subgroup of incarcerated persons—those who were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for homicide offenses committed when they were under age 18 (hereafter, juvenile lifers1). In a series of cases between 2005 and 2012; SCOTUS held that the most serious of criminal sanctions—first the death penalty (Roper v. Simmons, 2005), then LWOP for nonhomicide offenses (Graham v. Florida, 2010) and finally mandatory LWOP for homicide offenses (Miller v. Alabama, 2012)—are unconstitutional for individuals who were under the age of 18 at the time of their offenses. The Miller Court emphasized that adolescence is marked by “transient rashness, proclivity for risk, and inability to assess consequences,” and required sentencing courts to consider developmental factors when sentencing juvenile defendants. In Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016), the Court held that Miller had established a new substantive rule prohibiting the imposition of LWOP for most juveniles2, thereby retroactively invalidating all juvenile LWOP (JLWOP) sentences that had been mandated by statute. At the time Montgomery was decided, there were approximately 2,100 individuals across the United States serving JLWOP sentences. To date, over 800 of these individuals have been released with no discernible impact to public safety (Smith, 2021). Pennsylvania, which had the highest concentration of juvenile lifers in the country and has led the nation in resentencing and release, provides perhaps the clearest evidence of this. Of the first 174 juvenile lifers released in Philadelphia, only two (1.14%) had been reconvicted of any offense over an average 20 months in the community, and both offenses were relatively minor (Daftary-Kapur & Zottoli, 2020)3. This result should be unsurprising; the relationship between crime and age is among the most consistent research findings in criminology (Loeber & Farrington, 2018), and the psychosocial (Steinberg et al., 2018) and neurobiological bases (Casey, 2015) for this relationship are well established. In addition to posing minimal risk to public safety, the cost savings for Philadelphia associated with the release of the first 174 juvenile lifers—estimated conservatively at $9.5M over the first decade of release—are appreciable (Daftary-Kapur & Zottoli, 2020). The positive outcomes for released juvenile lifers nationwide add weight to proposals to eliminate JLWOP and to arguments favoring resentencing and meaningful parole opportunities for individuals serving long sentences for violent crimes. To date, 25 states have abolished JLWOP and seven other states are currently considering legislation that will do so (Rovner, 2021). The United States Senate will consider the First Step Implementation Act (2021) in the Spring 2022 session, which would abolish life without parole for individuals convicted of federal crimes committed before age 18 (S. 1014; 2021). Other states are considering bills to 401 extend the age past 18, for example, Illinois is considering a bill that will allow parole eligibility for persons who were younger than 21 at the time of the offense (H.B. 1064; 2021). At the same time, for policymakers who are open to sentencing reforms, there is little guidance on how best to prepare folks who have served long sentences for reentry into the community, and how to provide opportunities for meaningful and successful reintegration. In this study, we surveyed released Philadelphia juvenile lifers to better understand their experiences before, during, and following incarceration. The aim of this study is to inform the national conversation on policy related to the release and reentry of persons convicted of violent crimes who have served lengthy sentences. Although juvenile lifers have some unique characteristics, their backgrounds and experiences are quite similar to those of typical individuals who commit crimes as teenagers (Daftary-Kapur & Zottoli, 2020). Moreover, it is not unreasonable to assume that the reentry needs of this population will be generally similar to those of persons who have served very long sentences. In the United States one in seven incarcerated persons (not all of them convicted of violent crimes) are serving sentences of LWOP or virtual LWOP (i.e., those who must serve 40þ years before parole eligibility). This is the first time such a large concentration of lifers (especially those convicted of violent offenses –in this case, homicide) have been released. As such, we are provided with a unique opportunity to (1) examine whether their reentry experiences are consistent with existing data on reentry, and (2) update and inform evidence based policies on how we can best prepare for, and support, returning citizens who have served long sentences. Reentry Challenges for Returning Juvenile Lifers Formerly incarcerated individuals face significant challenges when reentering society. Common barriers to reentry include finding employment, securing stable housing, developing connections with family members, and maintaining physical and mental health (Seiter, 2002). Although there is a substantial body of research on reentry experiences of formerly incarcerated citizens, and the factors that aid in successful reentry (see Harding et al., 2019 for a recent review), only a few studies have examined the experiences of individuals who have returned after long periods of incarceration (Liem & Garcin, 2014; Liem, 2013; Appleton, 2010; Pitts, 2018) and none of these studies included individuals sentenced as juveniles. A few studies have looked at the experiences of juveniles who were convicted of homicide or homicide-related offenses and subsequently paroled (see Liem, 2013 for a review). However, the 1 While we typically avoid labels that equate individuals with legal statuses, we use the term juvenile lifers here for two reasons: 1) It is the term that has been adopted for self-reference by the community of individuals released from and still serving JLWOP, and 2) it is the term in common usage among advocacy organizations and attorneys engaged in JLWOP reform. 2 In the Montgomery Court’s language, those that are “permanently incorrigible.” Note, in Jones v. Mississippi, 2021, the Court held that an explicit finding of permanent incorrigibility is not required by Miller, as long as the sentencing judge has discretion to consider developmental factors. 3 The follow-up period in the study was 21 months (ending December 2019). As of this writing, an additional 38 juvenile lifers have been released and there has been one additional arrest and conviction of a released juvenile lifer, for reconviction rate of 1.42%. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 402 DAFTARY-KAPUR, ZOTTOLI, FAUST, AND SCHNEIDER individuals in most these studies were incarcerated for relatively short time periods (ranging from 1–5 years; see Heide et al., 2001; Vries & Liem, 2011) and, as Liem (2013) notes, the studies have focused primarily on recidivism (variably defined), with rates ranging from 0–65%. To our knowledge, only one small (n = 7) qualitative study has addressed reentry experiences of juvenile lifers (Frost, 2020). As Kazemian and Travis (2015) point out, the reentry experiences of lifers may be markedly different, and potentially more challenging, than those of individuals who have served shorter sentences as lifers spend most of their life course behind bars. Persons incarcerated for very long periods have fewer educational and occupational opportunities, may not establish romantic relationships, and may lose ties with family (Aday, 2003). These reentry challenges may be exacerbated for juvenile lifers. By definition, juvenile lifers entered prison in adolescence. Most would not have finished high school at the time of their arrests -in a survey on incarcerated juvenile lifers, Nellis (2012) reported that most had only 46.6% were even enrolled in school at the time of their offense – and few would have had any work experience. Compounding the problem, in many state correctional systems, education and job training programs are limited for individuals serving LWOP sentences, on the grounds that these individuals will not be returning to the community (Boone, 2015). Additionally, reconnecting with family might be more challenging for this population, given the young age at which they were removed from their homes and the length of time that they have been away. Family support has been shown to be especially important to reentry success (La Vigne et al., 2005; Naser & La Vigne, 2006), as it facilitates achievement of other important objectives such as securing housing, transportation, and social services. Finally, as with all persons who leave prison after an extended period, physical and mental health issues can pose barriers to successful reentry. Health issues can be particularly pronounced for older returning citizens who often have multiple medical conditions and can encounter obstacles in optimizing their medical care (Williams & Abraldes, 2007). We explore all these issues and more in the current study. Current Study As explained, Pennsylvania incarcerated the largest percentage of juvenile lifers in the country (521 or about 25%; the majority, 325, from Philadelphia County), and yet has been at the forefront of the resentencing and release process. In Philadelphia, as of September 2020, all but ten of the 325 Philadelphia juvenile lifers had been resentenced and 174 had been released. Those who had not yet been resentenced either had a pending appeal or an open Post Conviction Relief Act petition.4 Across the state, as of October 2021, 470 juvenile lifers had been resentenced and 268 had been released. This fast-paced resentencing and release has put the spotlight on Philadelphia; media (Ewing & Melamed, 2019) and advocacy organizations (e.g., the Marshall Project) have highlighted the successful outcomes of returning juvenile lifers in Philadelphia, specifically the almost negligible recidivism as reported by Daftary-Kapur and Zottoli (2020). While recidivism is an important outcome, it is not the only component of successful reentry. As mentioned above, there is a large body of research on reentry of incarcerated persons and barriers to success, the majority of which focuses on those who have served shorter sentences; no study has looked at outcomes and pathways to successful reintegration for those who had been sentenced to LWOP for violent offenses. As a first step, we conducted a broad-based survey to understand individual challenges to reentry, how they faced these challenges, and what resources helped aid reintegration. The purpose of this study was to develop a high-level, but comprehensive understanding of the early histories and reentry experiences of former juvenile lifers and provide a more complete picture of their lives at the time of the offense as well as their lives today. Method Participants We recruited participants with the assistance of The Youth Sentencing and Reentry Project (YSRP). YSRP provides reentry services for returning juvenile lifers in Philadelphia and maintains a comprehensive database of released individuals. YSRP provided us with contact information for 140 of the 174 juvenile lifers resentenced and released in Philadelphia as of September 2020 (i.e., 80% of the Daftary-Kapur & Zottoli, 2020 sample).5 Solicitations were sent to all 140 individuals. Contact information for five individuals was incorrect. Our final sample comprised 112 juvenile lifers (response rate of 83%), which was approximately 65% of the entire released population at the time of our survey. Respondents were between the ages of 38 and 67 at the time of the survey (M = 52, SD = 7, n = 112). The majority of respondents were male (94%, n = 105), and Black (82.2%, n = 92). The remainder identified as White (10.7%, n = 12), and Hispanic (7.1%, n = 8). Survey respondents’ ages are representative of the population of released lifers as of September 2020 (Daftary-Kapur & Zottoli, 2020); race data had not been reported. The average age at incarceration (including time in detention pretrial) was 17 years (SD = 2, n = 91), ranging from 13–20 years, and respondents were incarcerated on average for 33 years (SD = 7, n = 98), ranging from 21–49 years. The average age at release was 49 years (SD = 7, n = 112), ranging from 37–67 years, and the average time respondents had been in the community was 30 months (SD = 11). The sample was about evenly split among those who had been convicted of first- and second- degree murder (51%, n = 53, and 49%, n = 52, respectively)6; seven participants did not respond to the question about charge. In the state of Pennsylvania, first-degree murder is defined as the intentional killing of another person that is 4 The Post-Conviction Collateral Relief act (42 Pa.C.S.A. §9541) permits some incarcerated criminal defendants to challenge their convictions after an unsuccessful direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. It is the sole means of obtaining state relief following conviction, sentencing and direct appeal. 5 YSRP seeks to establish contact with all released juvenile lifers, though they are not always successful. In some cases, released individuals choose not to be involved with the organization. We also note that the start date of this study was August 2020. YSRP had been in lockdown since March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and was having a harder time than usual tracking and keeping in touch with released individuals. 6 We note that, relative to the population as a whole, our survey sample included disproportionately more persons convicted of second-degree than first-degree murder; 62% of juvenile lifers released as of September 2020 have been convicted of 1st degree murder and 38% of 2nd degree murder. REENTRY EXPERIENCES OF RELEASED JUVENILE LIFERS willful, deliberate, and premeditated. In contrast, a defendant can be convicted of second-degree murder (sometimes referred to as felony murder) for any level of participation in a felonious crime that results in a death. The top-charged felony (besides murder) for released juvenile lifers convicted of second-degree murder in Philadelphia was robbery (78%; Daftary-Kapur & Zottoli, 2020). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. The Survey The survey questions were designed to follow a life course trajectory and were developed based on previous research in delinquency, prison experiences, and reentry. The survey focused on three time periods: (a) life prior to incarceration including engagement in delinquency, family functioning, attachment to school, familial contact with the justice system, abuse history, and community crime; (b) life during incarceration including engagement in rehabilitative programming, visitations, and disciplinary actions; and (c) life after incarceration including family/friend relationships, housing, employment, health, and other aspects of reentry. Demographics and Early History We collected basic demographic information including age, race, gender, age at incarceration, conviction offense, and years incarcerated. We asked respondents whether they had any prior arrests and convictions. For each arrest we asked age at arrest, arrest charges, the outcome (adjudicated, diverted, charges dismissed), and if adjudicated, their sentence/punishment. We also asked participants to indicate whether one or more of 33 risk factors were present in their lives prior to their incarceration. We included the wide range of factors that have been identified in prior research on adolescent offending behavior (e.g., Shader, 2020; Monahan et al., 2009; Murray & Farrington, 2010). These risk factors can be roughly classified as falling into one of four categories—familial risk factor (e.g., physical abuse; parental substance abuse), school/academic related risk factors (e.g., learning disability; suspensions; poor grades), social/environmental risk factors (e.g., delinquent peers; violent neighborhood) and personal/individual risk factors (e.g., substance abuse; mental health issues)—though the distribution of factors across categories is not even, and some risk factors could be classified under more than one category. These categories were empirically supported; results of a principal components analysis are provided in the supplemental materials. Responses to one risk factor item (“removal from the home”) were deemed unreliable and not included in analyses involving risk factors (specifically, as we began data collection with participants who volunteered for a follow-up study to this one, we learned that participants may have misinterpreted this item as asking about whether they were removed from their homes at the time of their arrests). Period of Incarceration We asked respondents a series of questions regarding their time incarcerated and the moment of release. We asked questions focusing on programming and program participation, whether they were offered any prerelease programs to prepare them for reintegration, any jobs they held while incarcerated, and questions about disciplinary infractions. We also asked participants about the moment of their release–whether they were 403 provided with clothing, identification, gate money, transportation from the facility, and where they slept their first night. Reentry Experiences In order to compare relative differences in how challenging various aspects of reentry were for respondents, we asked them to answer a series of questions (e.g., “how challenging was it to find stable housing,” “how challenging was it to access social services?”) using a continuous rating scale from 0 (“not at all challenging”) to 100 (“very challenging”). Likewise, we asked respondents to rate on a scale of 0 (“not at all helpful”) to 100 (“very helpful”) how helpful various factors were to their community reintegration (e.g., “how helpful to your reintegration was family support,” “how helpful to your reintegration was access to transportation?”). While these rating scales are arbitrary, they permit relative comparisons of experiences across participants, as well as relative comparisons among different aspects of reentry for each individual participant. Post-Release Supervision We asked respondents about the length of their parole supervision, conditions of parole, and what if any conditions were challenging for them. Family Relationships. We queried participants on a variety of factors related to family involvement in their reintegration. Participants were asked about the nature of their contact with family prior, during, and postincarceration; they were asked to state their level of agreement on a series of statements regarding closeness to their family, and they were asked to indicate whether family members had provided them with various supports including, but not limited to, housing, financial, job placement, food, transportation, and help accessing social services. Employment. We asked participants a series of employment related questions. Specifically, we asked whether they had a job lined up prior to release, whether they started searching for a job on release (if not, why), and barriers they faced when trying to obtain employment. We also asked respondents how many jobs they had held since release, whether they were currently employed, last date of employment if unemployed, and their last/current job. Housing. Participants were asked where they were paroled to (e.g., home of family member, halfway house), whether they had returned to their old neighborhood or not, whether their housing situation at release met their expectations, and the types of housing support they had received. We also asked individuals how often they had moved, their current housing situation, and asked them to assess the safety of their current neighborhoods using a series of questions. Health. Finally, we asked participants to provide an assessment of their current physical and mental health, on a scale of 0 to 100 ranging from poor to excellent. We asked respondents to indicate whether they had any physical or mental health issues and to describe them. We then asked them whether they were easily able to access medical and mental health insurance and providers, and how often they availed of these services. Procedure The Montclair State University Institutional Review Board approved all procedures and materials prior to data collection This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 404 DAFTARY-KAPUR, ZOTTOLI, FAUST, AND SCHNEIDER (IRB-FY19-20–1759). Participants were made aware of our study through an e-mail and text message sent by a reentry coordinator at YSRP. Following this, we texted participants (using a text messaging service, Textedly; www.textedly.com), with an invitation to participate in the survey, along with a link to the survey. We followed up with a second text/e-mail a week after the initial text for those who did not complete the survey. Two weeks after the second communication, we sent a third text reminder (with each text, participants were given the option to opt out of receiving text from us). A final, fourth reminder was sent 5 weeks after the initial text. With each text, participants were given the option to opt out of receiving texts from us; only two individuals opted out. Given the fact that a number of these individuals are of advanced age and might not have the technological skill to complete an online survey, we followed up with those who did not complete the survey, but did not opt out, via phone. Of the 112 respondents, 22 (19%) completed the survey with us via phone and not online. The average time to complete the survey online was 38 minutes (3 individuals took over two hours to complete the survey and their times was excluded from this calculation). Individuals were compensated $25 via CashApp or Venmo for their time. Research Questions and Analytic Strategy The primary aim of this paper is to describe the reentry experiences of returning juvenile lifers, with successful reentry defined by objective indicators such as employment, stable housing, and positive social relationship. To contextualize the lives and experiences of these individuals, we also captured data on respondents’ early life experiences and their experiences while incarcerated. The data permitted exploration of potential associations among these variables and reentry that, to our knowledge, have not been previously explored in any population of returning citizens. Of particular interest to us was whether experiences in early childhood or in prison were associated with reentry challenges, and whether prior expectations of family supports might play a role in how these individuals experienced reentry. In addition to these immediate research questions, we used this survey to collect additional data, not analyzed here, that would inform future work with this population and with juvenile lifers from other jurisdictions (e.g., to help us develop questions for in-depth interviews with persons from these populations). As such, we make no claims as to having explored all possible relationships or addressed all possible questions that these data might present. For investigators who might wish to explore other relationships or compare these data to those of individuals from other populations (e.g., persons serving long sentences for nonhomicide offenses; juvenile lifers from other jurisdictions), the survey, codebook, data, and R code necessary to derive certain variables, are available in the supplemental materials (Daftary-Kapur et al., 2021). Finally, all analyses and results reported in this paper are descriptive. Not only is this study exploratory (i.e., we made no a priori hypotheses), but the population of released juvenile lifers in Philadelphia is very small and our sample, which represents 64% of the entire population, cannot be considered random. Results We present survey results in chronological order, starting with early life experiences and the conviction, followed by incarceration experiences, and ending with reentry. We note that operational definitions for life experience variables (e.g., abuse, mental illness, etc.) vary across studies. What we report here are self-report data that are subject to differences in interpretations among respondents. Early Life Experiences Participants reported high rates of socioeconomic disadvantage and social deprivation, with all participants reporting one or more developmental or psychosocial risk factors for criminal behavior. Just over 90% (n = 107) experienced five or more risk factors, and nearly 40% (n = 44) had been exposed to 15 or more different risk factors. Table 1 displays the percentage of participants endorsing each of the risk factors asked about in the survey. Exposure to Violence The vast majority of participants (92%, n = 103) reported living in high crime neighborhoods, and neighborhoods that had drug problems (85%, n = 95); a significant proportion (38%; n = 43) reported violence exposure in the ho