Share this article on:

The Prevalence of Traumatic Brain Injury Among Young Offenders in Custody: A Systematic Review

Hughes, Nathan PhD; Williams, W. H. PhD; Chitsabesan, Prathiba MRCPsych; Walesby, Rebecca C. PhD; Mounce, Luke T. A. PhD; Clasby, Betony

Section Editor(s): Williams, Huw PhD, D Clin Psych

The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation: March/April 2015 - Volume 30 - Issue 2 - p 94–105
doi: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000124
Original Articles

Objectives: To examine the prevalence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) among young people in custody and to compare this with estimates within the general youth population.

Design: Systematic review of research from various national contexts. Included studies were assessed for the relevance of the definition of TBI and the research population, and the quality of the study design.

Results: Ten studies were identified for inclusion in the review. Four of these studies included control groups. No studies examining comorbidity of TBI and other neurodevelopmental disorders among incarcerated young people were identified.

Conclusion: Reported prevalence rates of brain injury among incarcerated youth range from 16.5% to 72.1%, with a rate of 100% reported among a sample of young people sentenced to death. This suggests considerable levels of need among incarcerated young people. Where control groups or directly comparable studies within the general population exist, there is strong and consistent evidence of a prevalence of TBI among incarcerated youth that is substantially greater than that in the general population. This disparity is seemingly more pronounced as the severity of the injury increases.

Centre for Adolescent Health, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia (Dr Hughes); University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom (Dr Hughes); University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (Dr Hughes); University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom (Drs William, Walesby, and Mounce and Ms Clasby); University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom (Ms Chitsabesan); and Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom (Dr Chitsabesan).

Corresponding Author: Nathan Hughes, PhD, Centre for Adolescent Health, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Flemington Rd, Parkville, Melbourne, Victoria, 3052, Australia (

This work was funded by research grants awarded by the Office of the Children's Commissioner for England, the European Commission and the University of Exeter.

The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

IN RECENT YEARS, there have been numerous calls for improvements in the provision of support to address the mental and physical health needs of prison populations.1–3 Addressing these needs is argued to be key to individual health and well-being, preventing reoffending, and reducing the costs of the criminal justice system.4 Brain injury is a major cause of death and disability in children and working age adults.5 Nonetheless, insufficient attention is given to brain injury in addressing the needs of prison populations.4

A traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a disruption to the normal function of the brain resulting from a direct blow to the head, penetration of the skull, or a force that causes the brain to move around inside the skull.6 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that the most common causes of TBI are falls (approximately, 40% of reported instances), road traffic accidents (20%), “being struck by/against” an object (19%), and assaults (11%).7 Falls are the primary causes of TBI for younger children, whereas traffic accidents becomes the primary cause for young people aged 15 to 19 years.

The severity of TBI can be measured in different ways. Most commonly, consideration is given to whether loss of consciousness (LOC) is experienced, and if so, its duration and depth based upon the extent to which a patient is able to respond to stimuli. A common classification of experiences of LOC is the Glasgow Coma Scale that provides a standardized means to score its severity as “mild,” “moderate,” or “severe.”8 Alternatively, severity may be graded by the duration of “posttraumatic amnesia,” that is, the length of time after an injury that a person is alert but unable to take on new information.9

Childhood TBI can result in a number of potential neurocognitive impairments and developmental difficulties that subsequently impact upon aspects of functioning and behavior. These include deficits in cognitive and sociocognitive skills10–13; social or pragmatic communication,14–17 impulse control and regulation of aggressive responses to threat,10,18–23 cognitive empathy,21 and therefore the ability to respond appropriately to other's emotions.10,13,24 Such impairments have been frequently identified as “risk factors” within criminological research,25–27 that is, in population-based studies, the presence of these factors have been found to increase the risk of criminality. In particular, “neurocognitive impairments” have been found to be strongly associated with “early-onset” and “life course persistent” offending trajectories, and the number of times an individual has experienced LOC has been found to be significantly higher among persistent offenders.28 A failure to address needs resulting from childhood TBI can lead to a range of poor social experiences and outcomes known to indirectly increase vulnerability to criminal behavior. For example, TBI is associated with persistent problems in academic performance,29–32 including at the point of transition to secondary school33–35 and susceptibility to negative peer influences.36,37 In combination, this suggests young people may experience heightened vulnerability toward antisocial and criminal behavior as a result of impairments caused by childhood TBI; an assertion that is supported by 2 population studies that establish a clear link between TBI and subsequent offending. A birth cohort study of 12 000 subjects in Finland identified a 4-fold increased risk of adult offending with associated mental disorder following childhood TBI.38 In Sweden, an analysis of hospital records across the entire population from 1973 to 2009 enabled comparison of outcomes for those who had experienced TBI in childhood to siblings who had not experienced such an injury, and suggested an association between TBI and subsequent violent crime.39

It is equally apparent that TBI may result from certain forms of risk taking behaviors, including those associated with offending.4 This demonstrates the complexity in interpreting the correlation or causal relationship between TBI and criminality. Thus, brain injury may result from behavior associated with criminality, or the risk of future criminality, and may instead be indicative of a preexisting trajectory toward offending behavior.

In parallel to a heightened risk of offending behavior, childhood TBI may also increase vulnerability to criminalization through discrimination and disadvantage in experiences of the criminal justice system. For example, impairments in executive functioning are known to affect capacity to engage in forensic police interviewing and presentation in court, potentially resulting in a young person being perceived as noncompliant.17,40–43 Subsequent interventions that fail to recognize and address needs may result in the potential for disengagement and possible breach of a court order.37

Articles 37 and 40 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child44 establish the rights of young people within the criminal justice system to be dealt with in ways that take account of their specific, individual developmental needs, providing interventions that promote care, guidance, and support. Given the apparent heightened vulnerability to criminality and criminalization, it is therefore imperative that criminal justice systems recognize and respond to needs resulting from childhood TBI, particularly among serious and persistent offenders. To this end, a growing number of studies have examined the prevalence of TBI among incarcerated young people in various populations and contexts. This article reports on a systematic review of this body of research to answer the primary research question: “What is the prevalence of TBI among incarcerated young people?” This in turn supports an answer to a secondary question: “Is the prevalence among incarcerated young people greater than the rate among the general youth population?” Consideration is also given to sociodemographic variation in prevalence rates of TBI among young people in custody, including in relation to gender and ethnicity, as well as to the co-occurrence of TBI and other neurodevelopmental or mental health difficulties.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The review was completed in 2 distinct phases. The initial phase was undertaken as part of a broader examination of the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders among incarcerated young people, commissioned by the Office of the Children's Commissioner for England in 2009.45 This was subsequently updated through a second phase of searches and analysis undertaken in 2014.

Both phases followed the same search strategy. A systematic review of academic journal articles was undertaken through a structured search of key bibliographical databases, chosen so as to provide extensive coverage of a variety of relevant academic disciplines. These included PubMed, PsycINFO, and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts. Search terms were developed through consideration to the synonyms of a number of key concepts, including “youth,” “crime,” “custody,” and “traumatic brain injury,” which were combined using Boolean terms. Consideration was given to variations in terminology over time and in different cultural contexts.

The review of academic journal articles was supplemented by a purposive search for relevant evidence published by key health, criminal justice, and social policy organizations. However, no such sources were identified in relation to TBI. The bibliographies of included sources were also searched for further relevant evidence. In addition, the initial phase of the research was supported by an expert advisory group, drawn from a range of relevant academic and professional disciplines and able to provide insight into emerging, and published research. The membership of the group is listed elsewhere.45 Specific searches identified the work of key authors, as identified by the expert advisory group.

The senior research team was multidisciplinary, including expertise in neuroscience, psychiatry, psychology, social policy, and criminology. Searches were undertaken by 2 research assistants in the first phase and 1 research assistant in the second phase. Each research assistant had undertaken formal methods training regarding literature-based research prior to their employment, and received weekly mentoring and supervision from a senior member of the team throughout their involvement in the study.

The research protocol determined that studies were included if they provided a prevalence rate for 1 or more neurodevelopmental disorder among a sample of young people in custody. A broad definition of youth was applied so as to reflect the varying classifications within different nation states, though all studies had to include young people younger than 18 years within their sample with a maximum upper age range of 21. The review was inclusive of a wide range of definitions of particular neurodevelopmental disorders. In the case of TBI, definitions used by particular studies needed, as an absolute minimum, to satisfy that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,5 which defines TBI as “a bump, blow, or jolt to the head or a penetrating head injury that disrupts the normal function of the brain.”

Studies were excluded if no clear definition of the nature of the neurodevelopmental disorder was provided, or specific prevalence rates for young people could not be extracted from the data. No specific exclusion criteria were set regarding the year of publication or the geographical location of the research, though the review was necessarily restricted to publications in the English language. Three studies were rejected despite a focus on incarcerated young people. Two studies reported on youth justice populations that also include young people within community services and do not readily distinguish between these distinct populations in the data provided.46,47 A further study was rejected because of the conflation of TBI and epilepsy in the construction of the sample.48

All decisions regarding inclusion were made by at least 2 researchers, including 1 senior researcher. It was determined that, where there was disagreement between 2 researchers that could not be resolved, a senior researcher would further review the source and determine inclusion or exclusion. Titles and abstracts were initially considered for relevance. Full articles were reviewed when the abstract was deemed relevant or where relevance was unclear.

The majority of sources identified were published in peer-reviewed academic journals and therefore deemed to be of high quality. When it was unclear whether a source was peer reviewed, specific frameworks for assessing research quality were utilized according to the type of research study under consideration. These included the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale49 and the Global Assessment and Evaluation of Quality framework.50

All sources selected for inclusion were read by at least 2 researchers, including at least 1 senior researcher. Key information was routinely extracted and recorded in a spreadsheet, including the national context, research population, sampling frame, data collection method, and definition of the neurodevelopmental disorder. All reported prevalence rates were recorded, including of any control groups and subsamples.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The first phase of the review identified 156 sources for inclusion, of which 8 related to TBI. The second phase of the review subsequently identified a further 2 sources. A total of 10 sources are therefore included, as listed in Table 1. No studies examining comorbidity of TBI and other neurodevelopmental disorders among incarcerated young people were identified for inclusion. All of the studies are based on populations in the United States, the United Kingdom, or Australia. This may be a result of restriction in the review to sources written in English, or may reflect a lack of emphasis on TBI in other national contexts. In all 3 national contexts, the age at which a young person is subject to the adult criminal justice system is 18, aiding the direct comparison of these studies. The age ranges of samples vary, with some studies focusing on a broad age range, such as 11 to 20, and others focused only on older young people, such as 16- to 18-year-old patients. The samples for all but 4 studies are only male. In many cases, this is reported as reflective of the populations of the institutions included in the study. Information on the ethnicity of study participants is less consistently provided. While variation might be assumed by study population, only 3 studies report the ethnicity of the sample and only 2 studies provide meaningful comparisons by ethnicity. Demographic variation in reported prevalence rates of TBI are reported in the “Discussion” section.





As shown in Table 1, the reported lifetime prevalence rates of TBI among incarcerated youth range from 16.5% to 72.1%, with the exception of a study of 14 young people sentenced to death for crimes committed when aged younger than 18 years, all of whom reported having experienced some form of head injury in their childhood. There are many explanations for this variability. Table 1 illustrates the varying definitions of TBI applied in different studies, in the range from “any head injury,” including cuts, whiplash, and blows to the head not resulting in LOC, to trauma resulting in LOC for a minimum of 20 minutes. It is clear therefore that these studies are measuring very different concepts. Nonetheless, as will be examined in the discussion that follows, even where definitions appear similar, reported prevalence rates still vary.

The variability in definition is reflected in the various measures, tools, and methods used to assess prevalence rates, which include analyses of medical records, self-administered surveys, semistructured interviews, and the use of validated instruments or clinical tests. Methodologies also vary in whether the respondent is the young person or parent, and whether surveys are self-administered, or data are collected by a researcher or medical professional. It is apparent that there is the potential for these varied approaches to lead to different assessments of levels of prevalence.51

Comparisons are also made difficult by the variation in samples and populations on which individual studies are focused. This includes variation in the age range considered, which was typically dependent on the age of young people within a particular custodial setting. The latter relates to a further, more significant challenge in drawing together studies from various national contexts. The comparison of populations of incarcerated youth masks considerable differences in the use of custodial interventions for young people in particular nation states. As illustrated by the study reporting a prevalence rate of 100%, variations in the seriousness of offence committed may also influence findings.

Studies also vary in their intent. While some studies are designed to establish a prevalence level within a custodial population, in other studies the reported rate is a by-product of a broader focus on physical and/or mental health issues or criminal justice experiences. In such studies, data regarding TBI may result from 1 or 2 simple questions, with little depth of discussion. This variation in purpose is reflected in the sampling frames utilized within the studies, in the range from convenience or purposive samples, to those that deliberately include an entire custodial population.

Given this heterogeneity in definition, methodology, and population, it is not possible to calculate a robust and meaningful overall estimate of the prevalence of TBI among incarcerated youth. Instead, the following sections provide a discussion of the various definitions used, and the range of prevalence estimates reported accordingly.

Where provided, prevalence rates among control groups drawn from nonoffenders in the general youth population are provided in Table 1. To support such comparison, the discussion later also utilizes studies of the general youth population in which similar definitions of TBI are used. These studies were purposively selected following the initial review and analysis so as to provide comparable definitions. In most cases, however, there remain slight discrepancies in definition, method of data collection and/or population. To enable comparison, information on these studies is provided in Table 2.



Though the degree of difference varies, regardless of definition, the 4 studies inclusive of a control group within the general youth population consistently demonstrate a prevalence of TBI among young offenders in custodial institutions that is greater than that in the general population. Similarly, where comparisons are made to studies utilizing similar definitions in examining prevalence in the general population, the rate among incarcerated youth is typically higher. In part, this may be explained by the higher proportion of females in general population samples and the apparent lower prevalence of TBI among young females, as discussed further later. In the following discussion, these patterns are examined in relation to the common categories of definition of TBI.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Any head injury

In 4 studies, a broad definition of head injury is used, incorporating a range of injuries, such as cuts, and/or including blows to the head that do not result in LOC. Three such studies directly compare samples of incarcerated youth to a control group within school settings. Hux et al54 asked parents a series of 21 “Yes/No” questions examining awareness of head injuries experienced by their child before the age of 18. The study reports that 49.7% of the incarcerated sample had experienced a concussion or cut to the scalp or forehead requiring stitches, compared with 42.1% of the control group.

Levine et al57 compare 53 young people in custody to an “age-matched comparison group” of 51 nonoffenders from a community that is “demographically representative of the region under study.” Parental report suggests that 55% of the offender population had experienced a head injury significant enough to require medical attention, compared with 24% of the control group. A higher rate is reported by Davies et al.52 Following semistructured interviews of young people in 1 custodial institution in the United Kingdom, they conclude that 72.1% had experienced a head injury causing them to be “knocked out and/or dazed and confused for a time.”

The rates among incarcerated youth reported in these studies appear to be greater than those identified when comparable definitions are applied in studies of the general youth population. For example, comparable definitions utilized in studies of high school students in the United States suggest a prevalence rate for any head injury of between 31%65 and 35%.66 One study runs counter to this trend. When surveying young offenders in custody in New South Wales, Australia, Kenny and Lennings56 suggest that 35.1% had experienced any kind of head injury, a rate in keeping with that of general population studies.

A different measure is employed by Forrest et al53 who consider prevalence rates in the previous 12 months. In this study “head injury” is one of a number of “acute major disorders” measured within the Child Health and Illness Profile used to assess a wide range of health needs. Among incarcerated youth, 12.5% experienced a head injury in the last 12 months, a significantly higher rate than that of 5.8% within a control group of school children. The latter is comparable to a rate of 4.7% identified by Riley et al57 utilizing the same tool and measure on a population of adolescents, aged 11 to 17 years, in public schools in urban and rural Maryland.

Back to Top | Article Outline

TBI resulting in LOC

The disparity between prevalence rates within incarcerated and nonincarcerated populations appears increasingly pronounced as the severity of the reported TBI increases. This is apparent in the single study including a control group in which a range of severities of TBI are measured. In the study by Hux et al,54 the relative difference in prevalence rates between the 2 samples increases when respondents report concussion and LOC; 11.7% of the control group report some form of concussion, compared with 16.5% of the incarcerated young people, whereas 1.5% of the control group report “moderate” or “severe” concussion compared with 3.5% of the incarcerated young people. (A definition of the levels of severity is not provided, however.)

The increasing disparity in relation to more severe injuries is also evident when comparing reported rates in studies of incarcerated populations to studies of the general youth population. Three further studies in our review consider the prevalence of TBI with any LOC among incarcerated youth, with reported rates of 32%,60 41%,52 and 49.7%.55 This compares with rates of between 5% and 24% identified by a review of studies of self-report surveys of college students in the United States.67

The lower of these prevalence rates defines TBI as trauma resulting in LOC of “greater than 20 minutes.” This definition is directly comparable with that of Perron and Howard,61 who report that 18.3% of their sample of incarcerated youth experienced such an injury. While limited to 2 studies, this suggests a near 4 times increase of such head injuries among the incarcerated sample.

Elsewhere, “moderate” or “severe” TBI is defined as a LOC of more than 30 minutes, with an injury classified as “very severe” if the LOC is greater than 60 minutes. Two studies utilize this definition in examining prevalence in custodial populations; both involving self-report of experience of TBI by the young person, although 1 in the United Kingdom52 and 1 in Australia.60 The 2 studies report an identical prevalence rate of 8.2%.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Repeat incidence of TBI

Two studies report on multiple experiences of TBI. Davies et al52 report that 45.8% of their sample of incarcerated young people had experienced more than 1 head injury of any severity, including 22.9% reporting 4 or more such injuries, whereas Moore et al60 suggest that around 13% of their sample of incarcerated youth had experienced a LOC on 2 or more occasions. While these studies did not include a control group, a self-report questionnaire of high school students in the United States65 found that 12% had experienced multiple head injuries of any kind, and a birth cohort study in New Zealand63 with a sample size of 1265 reports that, by the age of 25 years, 9.2% had experienced more than 1 TBI for which a diagnosis of concussion was given.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Sociodemographic variation in prevalence

Four studies compare prevalence rates of TBI by gender among incarcerated youth with contradictory results. Two studies report a significantly higher rate of TBI among males than females. Perron and Howard61 report that 19.6% of males and 9.6% of females had experienced a TBI resulting in LOC for at least 20 minutes, whereas Kenny and Lennings56 suggest that 37.7% of males and only 5.3% of females have experienced one of a wide range of head injury types.

In contrast, 2 studies demonstrate very similar rates among males and females. A recent study that screened young offenders in custody in New York State for TBI resulting in LOC reported only 1 percentage point difference with a prevalence of 50% among male respondents and 49% among female respondents.55 While the reported rates are notably different, Moore et al60 also suggest equivalency in prevalence with 32.1% of males and 33.3% of females in their sample experienced TBI with LOC.

It is difficult to explain this variation between studies, even with reference to the varying definitions of TBI and diverse sampling frames. While there is variation in the degree of difference reported, studies of the general youth population consistently suggest a significantly higher prevalence of TBI among males.62,63,65

Two studies consider variation by ethnicity, though neither study reports any significant difference. In a study of 9 Australian detention centers,60 the rate of TBI is slightly higher among Aboriginal young people (33.8%) than non-Aboriginal young people (30.9%). Interviews with 72 young people in custody in Missouri,61 suggest that 17.8% of white young people experienced TBI with LOC for more than 20 minutes, compared with 16.9% of non-white young people.

There is insufficient evidence upon which to draw firm conclusions, however these findings would suggest that TBI might act as a risk factor for criminality independent of ethnicity. Furthermore, such research examining sociodemographic characteristics is needed. In particular, consideration must be given to factors known to increase risk of criminality and/or criminalization that might therefore act as confounding variables in seeking to understand the relationship between TBI and offending.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Several studies have identified patterns of comorbidity of TBI with other neurodevelopmental disorders or mental health problems. Such associations are of 2 distinct types. First, the preexistence of other disorders, such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, may heighten the risk of brain injury due to the types of behavior or activity that might more readily be engaged in.68 Second, there is evidence to suggest that TBI might increase the risk of developing other disorders. For example, TBI can result in speech and language difficulties69 and can increase the risk of mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety, and suicidality.29,70 Young offenders reporting TBI have also been found to be at greater risk of mental health problems and misuse of cannabis.47

Despite the heightened risk of comorbidity, none of the studies reviewed examined the co-occurrence of TBI and other conditions among incarcerated youth. Further research is required to understand experiences of comorbidity within this vulnerable population. Evidence is presented elsewhere in this special issue. In their study of young male offenders in custody, Chitsabesan et al71 found that the prevalence of deliberate self-harm and suicide risk factors was significantly increased in those experiencing a TBI, although rates of depression and other neurodevelopmental disorders, including ADHD and speech and language disorders, were not increased in this subgroup. The authors consider possible mediating factors for the comorbidity of TBI with self-harming behavior, including the presence of shared risk factors such as a history of being in care.

Back to Top | Article Outline


This review has identified a significant prevalence of TBI among young people in custody in multiple national contexts. Between 49.7% and 71.2% of incarcerated young people are reported to have experienced some kind of head injury, with between 16.5% and 49% having experienced TBI with LOC. While diverse definitions of TBI lead to a wide disparity in reported rates, this suggests high levels of associated need among young people in custody.

There is also strong and consistent evidence of a prevalence of TBI among incarcerated youth that is substantially greater than that in the general population and among offenders in community service settings. Where control groups or comparable studies within the general population exist, the rates of all forms of TBI appear higher among incarcerated youths. This disparity is seemingly more pronounced as the severity of the injury increases.

The correlation between TBI and incarceration does not imply causation. Engaging in types of behavior related to antisocial behavior, aggression and criminality may result in a greater risk of TBI. Nonetheless, as outlined in the Introduction, the strong evidence base regarding the association between TBI and subsequent deficits in a wide range of known risk factors for criminality, including cognitive skills, impulse control, academic engagement, and susceptibility to negative peer group influence, provides a strong theoretical framework with which to understand and explain the relationship between TBI and serious and/or persistent offending, and therefore the disproportionate prevalence among incarcerated youth.

There are a number of limitations with regard to the effectiveness of this review in addressing its aims. As discussed previously, there are numerous challenges in seeking to combining and comparing disparate research studies with diverse definitions, samples and methodologies so as to form a coherent picture of the prevalence of TBI among young people in custodial institutions. In particular, variation in the definition of TBI utilized in research, and indeed practice, inhibits clear understanding of both the prevalence of TBI and its relationship to offending. Furthermore, the relatively small number of sources identified demonstrates that, while greater focus is rightly being placed on this as an issue, there remains a lack of robust data upon which to draw comprehensive conclusions regarding levels of need or associations between serious and persistent offending and degrees of severity of TBI.

The heterogeneity in definition of TBI and study design limits the meaningfulness of combining estimates of prevalence to establish a general estimate. The review identified 10 studies across 3 countries. There are, therefore, insufficient studies from each country to draw firm and meaningful comparative conclusions. Such comparison is further limited by variations in policy and practice in specific states within each country, as well as by the varied definitions and measures employed in each study. This precludes any meaningful reflections on the relative impact or effectiveness of specific state policy and practice systems. There are also some specific gaps in the available evidence. Despite the likely vulnerability within this population, there appear to be particular limitations in the available evidence regarding experiences of comorbidity of TBI and other developmental and mental health difficulties among young people in custody. Similarly, few studies consider the prevalence or impact of repeat experiences of childhood TBI within this population. There is also insufficient consideration to sociodemographic characteristics that are commonly identified within criminological research as impacting on experiences within the criminal justice system, including ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Given concern for experiences of criminalization and disablement among young people who experience childhood TBI, the potential for complex and multiplicative experiences of disadvantage must be considered.

Notwithstanding these limitations in the evidence base, the findings presented here have clear implications for youth justice systems. The high levels of need emphasize the requirement for effective screening and assessment of TBI among offending populations so as to support the development of practices and interventions better able to meet the needs of young people in custody, both individually and collectively. Effective assessment provides the means to understand an individual young person's history of TBI and address its potential impact on aspects of behavior and functioning. In turn, such screening and assessment can provide an understanding of the collective level of need so as to inform the commissioning and development of specialist services. In addition, the prevalence of TBI, and indeed other neurodevelopmental disorders, among young people who offend suggests the need for youth justice processes to be revised, given the significant proportions of young people on trial or in contact with the police who may struggle to engage effectively with key aspects of the legal system, including forensic interviewing and courtroom procedures.

An awareness of this disparity among populations in custody also suggests a necessary focus on preventative services and earlier intervention where young people are known to have been affected by TBI. This might include specialist, responsive interventions during community youth justice orders. It might also inform interventions prior to any significant engagement in criminal behavior, including: the sharing of information regarding TBI between health services and schools; routine follow-up support with children and their families at various time points following medical attention for TBI; the provision of information to parents regarding the potential short, medium and long-term impacts of TBI, and the availability of support services. While requiring resources, such approaches might offer cost savings if preventing persistent engagement with the criminal justice system and eventual incarceration for a proportion of young people experiencing childhood TBI.

The findings of this review also have implications regarding research in this field. Comparative research between countries using standardized definitions and measures of severity will support analysis regarding the influence of youth justice practices, including preventative measures, on the criminality and criminalization of young people experiencing childhood TBI. This can be further supported by qualitative examination of the experiences of the youth justice system and criminal justice processes of young people who have experienced TBI. Consideration to and evaluation of interventions and practices better able to meet the needs of young people who have experienced TBI in custodial and community settings can support the development of youth justice practices better able to address the needs of these vulnerable young people.

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. The Lancet. Health care for prisoners and young offenders. Lancet. 2009;373(9664):603.
2. Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health. Diversion: a better way for criminal justice and mental health, 2009. Accessed September 15, 2014.
3. Bradley KJC. The Bradley Report: Lord Bradley's Review of People With Mental Health Problems or Learning Disabilities in the Criminal Justice System. London, United Kingdom: Central Office of Information, Department of Health; 2009.
4. Williams WH. Repairing Shattered Lives: Brain Injury and Its Implications for Criminal Justice. London, United Kingdom: Transition to Adulthood Alliance; 2013.
5. Fleminger S, Ponsford J. Long-term outcome after traumatic brain injury. BMJ. 2005;331:1419–1420.
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Traumatic brain injury. Accessed September 15, 2014.
7. Faul M, Xu L, Wald MM, Coronado VG. Traumatic Brain Injury in the United States: Emergency Department Visits, Hospitalizations and Deaths 2002-2006. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; 2010.
8. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet. 1974;2:81–84.
9. Lishman WA. Organic Psychiatry: The Psychological Consequences of Cerebral Disorder. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Science; 1998.
10. Catroppa C, Anderson V. Neurodevelopmental outcomes of pediatric traumatic brain injury. Future Neurol. 2009;4:811–821.
11. Anderson V, Godfrey C, Rosenfeld JV, Catroppa C. Predictors of cognitive function and recovery 10 years after traumatic brain injury in young children. Pediatrics. 2012;129:254–261.
12. Kinnunen KM, Greenwood R, Powell JH, et al. White matter damage and cognitive impairment after traumatic brain injury. Brain. 2011;134:449–463.
13. Ryan NP, Anderson V, Godfrey C, et al. Predictors of very long-term sociocognitive function after pediatric traumatic brain injury: evidence for the vulnerability of the immature “social brain”. J Neurotrauma. 2014;31:649–657.
14. Beitchman JH, Douglas L, Wilson B, et al. Adolescent substance use disorders: findings from a 14-year follow-up of speech/language impaired and control children. J Clin Child Psychol. 1999;28:312–321.
15. Brownlie EB, Beitchman JH, Escobar M, et al. Early language impairment and young adult delinquent and aggressive behavior. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2004;32:453–467.
16. Ryan NP, Anderson V, Godfrey C, et al. Social communication mediates the relationship between emotion perception and externalizing behaviors in young adult survivors of pediatric traumatic brain injury. Int J Dev Neurosci. 2013;31:811–819.
17. Snow PC, Powell MB. Oral language competence in incarcerated young offenders: links with offending severity. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2011;13:480–489.
18. Blake PY, Pincus JH, Buckner C. Neurologic abnormalities in murderers. Neurology. 1995;45:1641–1647.
19. Brower MC, Price BH. Neuropsychiatry of frontal lobe dysfunction in violent and criminal behaviour: a critical review. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001;71:720–726.
20. Janusz JA, Kirkwood MW, Yeates KO, Taylor HG. Social problem-solving skills in children with traumatic brain injury: long-term outcomes and prediction of social competence. Child Neuropsychol. 2002;8:179–194.
21. Tonks J, Slater A, Frampton I, Wall SE, Yates P, Williams WH. The development of emotion and empathy skills after childhood brain injury. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2009;51:8–16.
22. Turkstra L, Jones D, Toler HL. Brain injury and violent crime. Brain Inj. 2003;17:39–47.
23. Fellows LK, Farah MJ. The role of ventromedial prefrontal cortex in decision making: judgment under uncertainty or judgment per se? Cereb Cortex. 2007;17:2669–2674.
24. Tonks J, Yates P, Frampton I, Williams WH, Harris D, Slater A. Resilience and the mediating effects of executive dysfunction after childhood brain injury: a comparison between children aged 9–15 years with brain injury and noninjured controls. Brain Inj. 2011;25:870–881.
25. Morgan AB, Lilienfeld SO. A metaanalytic review of the relation between antisocial behavior and neuropsychological measures of executive function. Clin Psychol Rev. 2000;20:113–156.
26. Ogilvie JM, Stewart AL, Chan RCK, Shum DHK. Neuropsychological measures of executive function and antisocial behavior: a meta-analysis. Criminology. 2011;49:1063–1107.
27. Office of the Surgeon General. Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Health and Science, Office of the Surgeon General; 2001.
28. Raine A, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M, Lynam D. Neurocognitive impairments in boys on the life-course persistent antisocial path. J Abnorm Psychol. 2005;114:38–49.
29. Catroppa C, Anderson V. Recovery of educational skills following pediatric head injury. Pediatr Rehabil. 1999;3:167–175.
30. Catroppa C, Anderson VA, Muscara F, et al. Educational skills: long-term outcome and predictors following paediatric traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2009;19:716–732.
31. Ewing-Cobbs L, Barnes M, Fletcher JM, Levin HS, Swank PR, Song J. Modeling of longitudinal academic achievement scores after pediatric traumatic brain injury. Dev Neuropsychol. 2004;25:107–133.
32. Ewing-Cobbs L, Prasad MR, Kramer L, et al. Late intellectual and academic outcomes following traumatic brain injury sustained during early childhood. J Neurosurg. 2006;105:287–296.
33. Dockrell J, Lindsay G, Palikara O, Cullen MA. Raising the Achievements of Children and Young People with Specific Speech and Language Difficulties and other Special Educational Needs through School to Work and College. London, United Kingdom: Department for Education and Skills; 2007.
34. Hines PJ, Wible B, McCartney M. Learning to read, reading to learn. Science. 2010;23:447.
35. Snow P, Powell M. Youth (in)justice: oral language competence in early life and risk for engagement in antisocial behaviour in adolescence. Trends Issues Crime Criminal Just. 2012;(435).
36. Rosema S, Crowe L, Anderson V. Social function in children and adolescents after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review 1989–2011. J Neurotrauma. 2012;29:1277–1291.
37. Yeates KO, Bigler ED, Dennis M, et al. Social outcomes in childhood brain disorder: a heuristic integration of social neuroscience and developmental psychology. Psychol Bull. 2007;133:535–556.
38. Timonen M, Miettunen J, Hakko H, et al. The association of preceding traumatic brain injury with mental disorders, alcoholism and criminality: the Northern Finland 1966 Birth Cohort Study. Psychiatry Res. 2002;113:217–226.
39. Fazel S, Lichtenstein P, Grann M, Långström N. Risk of violent crime in individuals with epilepsy and traumatic brain injury: a 35-year Swedish population study. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1001150.
40. Hoyano L. Paper presented at: Parliamentary Seminar on Neuroscience, Children and the Law, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Published June 19, 2012. Accessed September 9, 2014.
41. McCrory E. Paper presented at: Parliamentary Seminar on Neuroscience, Children and the Law, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Published June 19, 2012. Accessed September 9, 2014.
42. Vizard E. Paper presented at: Parliamentary Seminar on Neuroscience, Children and the Law, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Published June 19, 2012. Accessed September 9, 2014.
43. Snow PC, Powell MB. What's the story? An exploration of narrative language abilities in male juvenile offenders. Psychol Crime Law. 2005;11:239–253.
44. UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1577, p. 3; 1989. Accessed January 16, 2015.
45. Hughes N, Williams H, Chitsabesan P, Davies R, Mounce L. Nobody Made the Connection: The Prevalence of Neurodisability in Young People Who Offend. London, United Kingdom: Office of the Children's Commissioner for England; 2012.
46. Farrer TJ, Frost RB, Hedges DW. Prevalence of traumatic brain injury in juvenile offenders: a meta-analysis. Child Neuropsychol. 2013;19:225–234.
47. Williams WH, Cordan G, Mewse AJ, Tonks J, Burgess CNW. Self-reported traumatic brain injury in male young offenders: a risk factor for re-offending, poor mental health and violence? Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2010;20:801–812.
48. Miura H, Fujiki M, Shibata A, Ishikawa K. Influence of history of head trauma and epilepsy on delinquents in a juvenile classification home. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2005;59:661–665.
49. Farrington D, Gottfreson D, Sherman L, Welsh B. The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale. In: Sherman L, Farrington D, Welsh B, Mackenzie D, eds. Evidence Based Crime Prevention. London, United Kingdom: Routledge; 2002:13–21.
50. Moran P, Ghate D, van der Merwe A. What Works in Parenting Support: A Review of the International Evidence. London, United Kingdom: Policy Research Bureau, Department for Education and Skills; 2004.
51. Fazel S, Doll H, Långström N. Mental disorders among adolescents in juvenile detention and correctional facilities: a systematic review and metaregression analysis of 25 surveys. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008;47:1010–1019.
52. Davies RC, Williams WH, Hinder D, Burgess CNW, Mounce LTA. Self-reported traumatic brain injury and postconcussion symptoms in incarcerated youth: a dose response relationship. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2012;7:E21–E27.
53. Forrest CB, Tambor E, Riley AW, Ensminger ME, Starfield B. The health profile of incarcerated male youths. Pediatrics. 2000;105(suppl 2):286–291.
54. Hux K, Bond V, Skinner S, Belau D, Sanger D. Parental report of occurrences and consequences of traumatic brain injury among delinquent and nondelinquent youth. Brain Inj. 1998;12:667–681.
55. Kaba F, Diamond P, Haque A, MacDonald R, Venters H. Traumatic brain injury among newly admitted adolescents in the New York city jail system. J Adolesc Health. 2014;54:615–617.
56. Kenny DT, Lennings CJ. The relationship between head injury and violent offending in juvenile detainees. Contemp Issues Crime Just. 2007;107:1–15.
57. Levine MD, Karniski WM, Palfrey JS, Meltzer LJ, Fenton T. A study of risk factor complexes in early adolescent delinquency. Am J Dis Child. 1985;139:50–56.
58. Lewis DO, Moy E, Jackson LD, et al. Biopsychosocial characteristics of children who later murder: a prospective study. Am J Psychiatry. 1985;142:1161–1167.
59. Lewis D, Pincus J, Bard B, et al. Neuropsychiatric, psychoeducational, and family characteristics of 14 juveniles condemned to death in the United States. Am J Psychiatry. 1988;145:584–589.
60. Moore E, Indig D, Haysom L. Traumatic brain injury, mental health, substance use, and offending among incarcerated young people. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2014;29:239–247.
61. Perron BE, Howard MO. Prevalence and correlates of traumatic brain injury among delinquent youths. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2008;18:243–255.
62. Ilie G, Boak A, Adlaf EM, Asbridge M, Cusimano MD. Prevalence and correlates of traumatic brain injuries among adolescents. JAMA. 2013;309:2550–2552.
63. McKinlay A, Grace RC, Horwood LJ, Fergusson DM, Ridder EM, Macfarlane MR. Prevalence of traumatic brain injury among children, adolescents and young adults: prospective evidence from a birth cohort. Brain Inj. 2008;22:175–181.
64. Riley AW, Harris SK, Ensminger ME, et al. Behavior and injury in urban and rural adolescents. Inj Prev. 1996;2:266–273.
65. Segalowitz SJ, Lawson S. Subtle symptoms associated with self-reported mild head injury. J Learn Disabil. 1995;28:309–319.
66. Segalowitz SJ, Brown D. Mild head injury as a source of developmental disabilities. J Learn Disabil. 1991;24:551–558.
67. McGuire LM, Burright RG, Williams R, Donovick PJ. Prevalence of traumatic brain injury in psychiatric and nonpsychiatric subjects. Brain Inj. 1998;12:207–214.
68. Keenan HT, Hall GC, Marshall SW. Early head injury and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2008;337:1208–1210.
69. Ponsford JL, Olver JN, Curran C. A profile of outcome: 2 years after traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 1995;9:1–10.
70. Walker R, Hiller M, Staton M, Leukefeld CG. Head injury among drug abusers: an indicator of co-occurring problems. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2003;35:343–353.
71. Chitsabesan P, Lennox C, Williams H, Tariq O, Fortescue D, Shaw J. Managing traumatic brain injury in young offenders; findings from the CHAT Study and the development of a linkworker service. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2015;30(2):106–115.

antisocial behavior; crime; custody; incarceration; prevalence; traumatic brain injury; young offenders

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.