Early Versus Late Contact with the Youth Justice System: Differences in Characteristics Measured at Birth, Child Protection System Contact and Adolescent Mental Health Outcomes.

Objective To examine differences in youth justice (YJ) system contact patterns, early life characteristics, child protection system contact, and adolescent mental health outcomes among young people who have early, late or no contact with the YJ system. Approach Data were from the Better Evidence Better Outcomes Linked Data (BEBOLD) platform including children in South Australia born 1991-2002, followed from birth to age 18 (n=249,995). Young people were categorised into three groups: 1) those who had their first YJ supervision before age 14, i.e., those who had ‘early’ contact; 2) those who had their first YJ supervision at age 14 or older, i.e., those who had ‘late’ contact; and 3) those who had no contact with the YJ system by age 18. Results Of the 249,995 children born 1991-2002, 4,097 (1.6%) had YJ contact. Of these, 667 (16.3%) had their first YJ supervision early, and 3,430 (83.7%) had their first YJ supervision late. Compared to the late contact group, young people with early contact had more serious YJ contact patterns (e.g., 91% versus 59% ever experienced custodial supervision). Compared to the late contact and no YJ contact groups, the early contact group were: more disadvantaged at birth; had more serious child protection contact by age 10; and a higher proportion had experienced at least one mental health-related hospitalisation from ages 12-18. Conclusion This analysis demonstrates the complex circumstances that precede and co-occur with YJ involvement. Early life adversity and poor adolescent mental health were more pronounced for young people who had early contact with YJ, compared to those who had late contact. This points to the need for investment in early supports

Early Versus Late Contact with the Youth Justice System: Differences in Characteristics Measured at Birth, Child Protection System Contact and Adolescent Mental Health Outcomes

This item is only available electronically.Early contact with the youth justice (YJ) system leads to poorer health, wellbeing and recidivism. However, there is little known about how early versus late YJ contact (i.e., before age 14 versus age 14 or older) influences YJ contact patterns, or whether early life circumstances and associated outcomes differ by early versus late YJ contact. This study uses whole-of-population linked data to examine differences between young people who have early versus late YJ system contact. Data were from the Better Evidence Better Outcomes Linked Data (BEBOLD) platform including children in South Australia born 1991-1998, followed from birth to age 18 (n=169,172), of which 1.9% had YJ contact. Compared to the late contact group, young people with early YJ contact had: more serious YJ contact patterns (e.g., 91% versus 59% ever experienced custodial supervision); were more disadvantaged at birth (e.g., 63% versus 44% born into jobless families); had more serious child protection contact by age 10 (e.g., 40% versus 27% had experienced out-of-home care); and experienced more mental health-related hospitalisations from ages 12-18 (e.g., 48% versus 35%). This analysis demonstrates the complex circumstances that precede and co-occur with YJ involvement and point to the need for investment in early supports.Thesis (M.Psych(Clinical)) -- University of Adelaide, School of Psychology, 202

Problem gaming-related harm experienced by partners and parents of individuals with gaming problems and their help-seeking experiences

Background and aims: Limited research has investigated how individuals’ problem gaming affects significant others. The present study investigated the extent to which partners and parents were personally affected by their partner or child’s problematic gaming behavior and what steps, if any, were taken in relation to treatment and other help-seeking by the gamers and the respondents themselves. Methods: Two targeted samples (parents, n 5 104; partners, n 5 264) in Australia were recruited and administered an online survey. The survey assessed gaming-related harm across multiple domains, including financial, relationship, emotional wellbeing, physical health and work/study. Treatment and help-seeking questions referred to seeking psychological assistance, self-help, and community support. Non-parametric tests compared groups on harm measures based on GD status. Results: Parents and partners of individuals rated in the ‘problem gaming’ range reported significantly greater harms compared to those in the at-risk and non-problem categories. The most frequently endorsed harms were in the relationship domain, including neglected household responsibilities, withdrawal from social events, and relationship conflict. Some parents consult with friends and family (15%) to resolve their child’s gaming-related problems. Partners reported to seek outside support and assistance for themselves, including 30% who sought a psychologist. No partners reported having consulted a psychologist for their gaming partner. Discussion: Problem gaming affects significant others across multiple life areas, but few seek outside help or support, suggesting there may be significant unmet needs. Conclusions: Further research should examine factors that influence acceptance and engagement with problem gaming help options. Harm indicators may be useful for evaluating targeted interventions and other measures to reduce problem gaming